Flo 285 rankings

[boconnell 1,632]

I don't get Kroells over Schafer.  Schafer won the head to head, has the better record, they both lost to the same guy.  Kroells beat Jensen (14), Butler (13), Miller (11), and split with #4 Hall.   Schafer beat Butler (13), Stoll (9), Johnson (10) and of course #6 Kroells.  And Schafer has bonus twice as often.  

 

 

[tbert 563]

It's Flo. They have their own means of justification. Usually has something to do with favoritism.

[Housebuye 2,449]

Kroells is a two time AA however and has many top level wins.

 

Not saying I agree, but there is an argument to make.

[boconnell 1,632]

Kroells is a two time AA however and has many top level wins.

 

Not saying I agree, but there is an argument to make.

If that's the case then why is Hall (who has never been an AA) ranked #4 when his two best wins are Stoll and Kroells (who he split with).  If Kroells' past AA status keep him ahead of Schafer who beat him, why doesn't it keep him ahead of Hall who he split with.

Edited January 17, 2017 by boconnell

[PSUMike 445]

When it comes to rankings, I generally agree with Intermat's far more than Flo's.

[treep2000 1,152]

meh... it doesn't really matter... it's Snyder's anyway... the rest of the rankings are for pomp and circumstance.

[boconnell 1,632]

meh... it doesn't really matter... it's Snyder's anyway... the rest of the rankings are for pomp and circumstance.

We better not discuss them on a message board then.  We should just all sit quiet until March and then acknowledge who won.

[Plasmodium 2,304]

I'm amped to see Medbery and snyder. I think that'll be a goodles match

[wrestlingnerd 3,011]

I don't know, man. If Gwiz can't do it, I'm not sure all the size in the world will help an NCAA wrestler against Snyder.

[bigmik 218]

I don't get Kroells over Schafer.  Schafer won the head to head, has the better record, they both lost to the same guy.  Kroells beat Jensen (14), Butler (13), Miller (11), and split with #4 Hall.   Schafer beat Butler (13), Stoll (9), Johnson (10) and of course #6 Kroells.  And Schafer has bonus twice as often.

 

What does bonus have to do with ranking?

[boconnell 1,632]

What does bonus have to do with ranking?

As much as head to head wins apparently.

 

I mention the bonus to show there aren't other factors to offset the H2H and common opponent (which both favor Schafer being higher ranked).  

[steamboat_charlie 727]

What does bonus have to do with ranking?

 

Shouldn't bonus be a factor in rankings, other things being equal?

[simple 301]

4 through 9 at heavyweight is a mess. There's no good way to rank it

[TBar1977 4,599]

If that's the case then why is Hall (who has never been an AA) ranked #4 when his two best wins are Stoll and Kroells (who he split with).  If Kroells' past AA status keep him ahead of Schafer who beat him, why doesn't it keep him ahead of Hall who he split with.

 

 

To add to your point, why is Hall above Nevills? Hall has 4 L's while Nevills has none. True, Hall's losses are the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 6,  but Nevills still has none. Hall won close vs. Kroells and DeJournette while Nevills pretty much dominated both of those guys. 

[boconnell 1,632]

To add to your point, why is Hall above Nevills? Hall has 4 L's while Nevills has none. True, Hall's losses are the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 6,  but Nevills still has none. Hall won close vs. Kroells and DeJournette while Nevills pretty much dominated both of those guys. 

Yep.  I almost included that but kept my point narrow.  

 

It's definitely hard to rank these guys, but any strain of logic you can invent to follow for one guy's ranking is immediately abandoned in the next guy's ranking at this weight.  

[Show_Me 341]

The Rankings at this weight are a mess.

 

#4 Hall has split matches with #6 Kroells,

#7 Kasper has beaten #6 Kroells

#8 Schafer has beaten #6 Kroells

#13 Butler has beaten both #10 Johnson and #11 Miller

 

Not an easy weight to rank, but I would go :

 

4. Nevills

5. Hall

6. Kasper

7. Schafer

8. Kroells

9. Stoll

10. Butler

11. Johnson

12. Miller

13. Dejournette

[brickhousey 120]

The Rankings at this weight are a mess.

 

#4 Hall has split matches with #6 Kroells,

#7 Kasper has beaten #6 Kroells

#8 Schafer has beaten #6 Kroells

#13 Butler has beaten both #10 Johnson and #11 Miller

 

Not an easy weight to rank, but I would go :

 

4. Nevills

5. Hall

6. Kasper

7. Schafer

8. Kroells

9. Stoll

10. Butler

11. Johnson

12. Miller

13. Dejournette

Does Kasper have a loss? If not why wouldn't he be 5? Or even 4?

 

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[boconnell 1,632]

Does Kasper have a loss? If not why wouldn't he be 5? Or even 4?

 

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

He got pinned in a minute back in mid-November by Stone from Wisconsin.  This single loss is behind lots of the trouble ranking this weight.  That and Flo arbitrarily applying the value of Kroell's past AA.  

[simple 301]

What is arbitrary about including past results? Despite having the most loses, Kroells is the most accomplished of the group. Stolls best win this year is Colin Jensen. Nevills has 1 career win over a top 10 guy. Kasper lost to the WI backup. Hall's best win is Kroells. Schafer lost to Kasper and had no real accomplishments before this year. There is no logical way to rank this group. Any ranking is going to be somewhat arbitrary

[Zebra 546]

I've come to the conclusion all rankers apply arbitrary criteria in varying degrees for their own personal reasons which they can never explain in a way congruous to the last time they explained their arbitrary rankings.

 

That's why I'm opposed to rankings below college and ignore them above high school. I mean come on there are rankings for 6 year old kids for crying out loud.   

[Rasslin607 6]

Sounds to me like Krolles has taken a lot of Ls lol

[boconnell 1,632]

What is arbitrary about including past results? Despite having the most loses, Kroells is the most accomplished of the group. Stolls best win this year is Colin Jensen. Nevills has 1 career win over a top 10 guy. Kasper lost to the WI backup. Hall's best win is Kroells. Schafer lost to Kasper and had no real accomplishments before this year. There is no logical way to rank this group. Any ranking is going to be somewhat arbitrary

Arbitrary is when you use last year's AA to keep Kroells ahead of Schafer who beat him (the only possible reason he's ahead of him), but you don't use last year's AA to keep Kroells ahead of Hall who Kroells split with.  Maybe there is no way to rank all of them without falling back on arbitrary preference, but that is the definition of arbitrary.  

[treep2000 1,152]

We better not discuss them on a message board then.  We should just all sit quiet until March and then acknowledge who won.

 

Yeah... it's better not too... especially when it's meaningless.  Bwahahahaha!  In all seriousness... I get the intention on the thread.  I was just being a smart-aleck. 

 

I agree that ranking 4-10 is a bit of a nightmare.  The clear top 3 are Snyder, Medberry, and Walz, in that order, until proven otherwise.  I'd still put Hall at 4, and Nevills at 5.  This could change, based on Nevills' degree of beatdown vs. Snyder (if they wrestle).  If Snyder is held to a Dec., then Nevills' gets the bump.  It's probably going to take that "transitive property" look-see, and compare how bad the 4-10 guys losses are compared to each other, especially when going up against the Top 3.  If that doesn't happen, then this could look like the 174 bracket from last year...

[Housebuye 2,449]

Arbitrary is when you use last year's AA to keep Kroells ahead of Schafer who beat him (the only possible reason he's ahead of him), but you don't use last year's AA to keep Kroells ahead of Hall who Kroells split with. Maybe there is no way to rank all of them without falling back on arbitrary preference, but that is the definition of arbitrary.

You are looking at rankings differently than most rankers

 

Often times, rankers use last season's Wins/losses into account when starting the rankings. This I'm sure you would agree is logical. From there, they wait for wins and losses and adjust the rankings accordingly. They try not to move guys down too much without a loss to someone below them, even if other people have better wins.

 

Also they give consistent high placing guys the benefit of the doubt. That is what is happening with Kroells. It is the same reason merideth was ranked so highly most of the season, even with a bunch of losses, including a backup.

 

Doesn't mean they are right, but it is much easier to go critique rankings than write them weekly and keep them logical.

[wrestlingnerd 3,011]

I've come to the conclusion all rankers apply arbitrary criteria in varying degrees for their own personal reasons which they can never explain in a way congruous to the last time they explained their arbitrary rankings.

 

That's why I'm opposed to rankings below college and ignore them above high school. I mean come on there are rankings for 6 year old kids for crying out loud.

It's definitely an art and not a science, and I agree with you that ranking prepubescent kids is a little much, but the HS rankings are pretty legitimate these days given how much national competition the top HS kids are exposed to imthroughout the year. I often wonder how Willie at Flo has enough time to keep his rankings well-researched. The guy must do nothing but watch HS wrestling all day. I've been surprised by how credibly put together his long lists of HS kids are.