Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scrambler

Upper half of 133 or Lower half of 184?????

Recommended Posts

Just for fun, and based of the wrestlers previous accomplishments at the NCAA, which bracket (upper half of 133 or Lower half of 184)  would you rather navigate through as a wrestler????

 

133 Upper Bracket:

 

Nashon Garrett - 3rd 2013, 2nd 2014, 5th 2015

 

Mason Beckman - 6th 2014, 6th 2015

 

Rosario Bruno - 8th 2015

 

Earl Hall - 8th @125 2014

 

Jordan Conaway - 8th @ 125 2015

 

Bradley Taylor - 7th 2015

 

Cody Brewer - 7th 2013, 8th 2014, and 1st 2015

 

184 Lower Brackets:

 

Victor Avery - 3rd 2015

 

Willie Miklus - 7th 2015

 

Lorenzo Thomas - 6th 2014

 

Kenny Courts - 5th 2015

 

Blake Stauffer - 4th 2015

 

Timothy Dudley - 8th 2015

 

Nate Brown - 2nd 2015

 

*Sammy Brooks - Rd of 12 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What wrestlingnerd said. I actually view 184 as one of the weaker weights. It has a lot of very good guys who are all even, however to me a "tough weight" is one with multiple elite p4p guys. Dean is the only 184 I would consider an elite p4p guy at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

184...

 

Looking at Garret and Beckman's credentials, between them they have 5 AA's already. Got me to wondering if there has ever been a previous first round match with that many AA's meeting up so early?

not sure what the AA count on these guys was at the time, but in 2010 Pucillo and Miller met in a pig tail match at 184. The year before, Miller was 174 runner-up and Pucillo was 184 runner-up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure what the AA count on these guys was at the time, but in 2010 Pucillo and Miller met in a pig tail match at 184. The year before, Miller was 174 runner-up and Pucillo was 184 runner-up.

Should have been 5 AA's as Miller was twice and he knocked out Pucillo that year so Pucillo has 3.

Edited by tec87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have been 5 AA's as Miller was twice and he knocked out Pucillo that year so Pucillo has 3.

I know Miller beat him in the pig tail but thought Pucillo actually ended up going farther in bracket (didn't place but came closer than Miller). May be mixing that up...

 

either way, 2 returning finalists, with 5 AA honors between them, meeting in a pig tail match...pretty crazy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Miller beat him in the pig tail but thought Pucillo actually ended up going farther in bracket (didn't place but came closer than Miller). May be mixing that up...

 

either way, 2 returning finalists, with 5 AA honors between them, meeting in a pig tail match...pretty crazy.

you're right. Pucillo made rd of 12 after that. For some reason I was thinking they met in the consi pigtail. And to think, the only reason Miller was even at 184 that year was because he couldn't beat freshman Ben Bennett out at 174.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Cody Brewer in the upper bracket?

 

Payback for him making fools of the selection committee last year?

Where else does he belong? I don't think he's he 4th best guy but per the seeding criteria how do you seed him any higher when he has two losses and no heads-up wins against any guy seeded above him, all of who have one or zero losses and wrestled full tough schedules? Brewer got stuck by a freshman and paid for it, and he has nobody but himself to blame. Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where else does he belong? I don't think he's he 4th best guy but per the seeding criteria how do you seed him any higher when he has two losses and no heads-up wins against any guy seeded above him, all of who have one or zero losses and wrestled full tough schedules? Brewer got stuck by a freshman and paid for it, and he has nobody but himself to blame.

Then how is Imar ahead of Gantt or Pfarr ahead of Burak?  Both of those situations meet the situation that you described but were handled differently.  Imar got stuck by a Freshman and didn't pay for it.  Pfarr lost the head to head to Burak AND had more losses.  The committee showed an ability to look past number of losses when they wanted to.  For some reason they didn't want to in Brewer's case.  

Edited by boconnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's crazy that both brackets have 7 former AAs in just one half of the bracket! You would think it would be a lot to just have 7 AAs in the entire weight class let alone just one half. 

 

To answer the question though, I think the top half of 133 is probably the tougher one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then how is Imar ahead of Gantt or Pfarr ahead of Burak? Both of those situations meet the situation that you described but were handled differently. Imar got stuck by a Freshman and didn't pay for it. Pfarr lost the head to head to Burak AND had more losses. The committee showed an ability to look past number of losses when they wanted to. For some reason they didn't want to in Brewer's case.

I didn't think Imart 1 was the clearest conclusion, but there are a few factors to consider before calling his seeding inconsistent with Brewer's. First, coaches' ranking and RPI, when combined, are the single largest factor, with a combined 25% weight. After Imart beat Nolf and won the B1G, it is likely he was #1 in at least one of the two pertinent rankings, if not both. Second, Imart avenged his only loss to the guy who was previously #1 before that loss. That is significant, since head-to-head results are weighted 20%. Imart also wrestled a tougher schedule, which is a factor. In the end, I don't love how an undefeated conference champ is seeded below a guy with a loss, but per the criteria published and their weightings, I can imagine a reasonable scenario that would allow for that.

 

Brewer not only lost twice, he avenged neither loss. He was never #1 in either ranking that matters for seeding after losing to Garrett, which happened a while ago now. He did not wrestle a meaningfully tougher schedule than the guys above him. There is simply no case that can be made for him above Garett (obviously), Clark, or Richards per the published criteria.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think Imart 1 was the clearest conclusion, but there are a few factors to consider before calling his seeding inconsistent with Brewer's. First, coaches' ranking and RPI, when combined, are the single largest factor, with a combined 25% weight. After Imart beat Nolf and won the B1G, it is likely he was #1 in at least one of the two pertinent rankings, if not both. Second, Imart avenged his only loss to the guy who was previously #1 before that loss. That is significant, since head-to-head results are weighted 20%. Imart also wrestled a tougher schedule, which is a factor. In the end, I don't love how an undefeated conference champ is seeded below a guy with a loss, but per the criteria published and their weightings, I can imagine a reasonable scenario that would allow for that.

 

Brewer not only lost twice, he avenged neither loss. He was never #1 in either ranking that matters for seeding after losing to Garrett, which happened a while ago now. He did not wrestle a meaningfully tougher schedule than the guys above him. There is simply no case that can be made for him above Garett (obviously), Clark, or Richards per the published criteria.

I went looking for how the criteria would apply for Richards and Brewer and was very surprised that the final Coaches' poll had Richards ahead of Brewer.  With that in mind they applied the criteria perfectly (Win%, Coaches' ranking, and probably quality wins over RPI and conference placement).  I still say that they definitely ignored it in the case of Pfarr/Burak, but it doesn't prove that the 133 seed should be different, just that they screwed up 197.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went looking for how the criteria would apply for Richards and Brewer and was very surprised that the final Coaches' poll had Richards ahead of Brewer.  With that in mind they applied the criteria perfectly (Win%, Coaches' ranking, and probably quality wins over RPI and conference placement).  I still say that they definitely ignored it in the case of Pfarr/Burak, but it doesn't prove that the 133 seed should be different, just that they screwed up 197.

 

I too don't get Pfarr/Burak. Obviously, we don't have all the info, but looking what is available, which is most of it, I don't get it.

 

I agree the criteria were applied perfectly at 133.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then how is Imar ahead of Gantt or Pfarr ahead of Burak?  Both of those situations meet the situation that you described but were handled differently.  Imar got stuck by a Freshman and didn't pay for it.  Pfarr lost the head to head to Burak AND had more losses.  The committee showed an ability to look past number of losses when they wanted to.  For some reason they didn't want to in Brewer's case.  

 

 

The complicated formula is just cover for the committee to do what it wants to do at times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×