Jump to content
boconnell

Flo 285 rankings

Recommended Posts

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.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by boconnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...