Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zebra

Did I read this right, Stanford 5 at large bids?

Recommended Posts

Because we don't want the best wrestlers and the most exciting matches at the NCAA Championships?

 

 

These are the All-Americans from the last two years that qualified via the At-Large process.

 

 

125 POUNDS

2-Zeke Moisey, West Virginia
4-David Terao, American

7-Eddie Klimara, Oklahoma State

133 POUNDS:

1-Cody Brewer, Oklahoma
3-A.J. Schopp, Edinboro

 

141 POUNDS:

4-Dean Heil, Oklahoma State

 

157 POUNDS
6-Ian Miller, Kent St.

165 POUNDS:
1-Alex Dieringer, Oklahoma State

174 POUNDS

4-Casey Kent, Pennsylvania

5-Kyle Crutchmer, Oklahoma State

197 POUNDS:
1-Kyven Gadson, Iowa State

285 POUNDS:
7-Ty Walz, Virginia Tech
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we don't want the best wrestlers and the most exciting matches at the NCAA Championships?

 

 

These are the All-Americans from the last two years that qualified via the At-Large process.

 

125 POUNDS

2-Zeke Moisey, West Virginia

4-David Terao, American

7-Eddie Klimara, Oklahoma State

133 POUNDS:

1-Cody Brewer, Oklahoma

3-A.J. Schopp, Edinboro

 

141 POUNDS:

4-Dean Heil, Oklahoma State

157 POUNDS

6-Ian Miller, Kent St.

165 POUNDS:

1-Alex Dieringer, Oklahoma State

174 POUNDS

4-Casey Kent, Pennsylvania

5-Kyle Crutchmer, Oklahoma State

197 POUNDS:

1-Kyven Gadson, Iowa State

285 POUNDS:

7-Ty Walz, Virginia Tech

the big 12 guys had to get at large bids because the conference wasn't recognized as a qualifier that year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But here's an example of the problem I have with it. I'm not picking on either of these guys and I do not believe either would be an AA but I am using them as an example. 

 

125

 

 

Townsell (14-9) got the at large bid placing 3rd in the PAC 12 tournament, two spots below the AQ, while Kramer (15-15) who placed second with a head-to-head win in the tournament got passed over. Now granted Townsell did have a win over Kramer in their dual and he has a couple of other good wins while Kramer only has a couple mid-level wins, but the win and higher placement in the qualifying tournament should in my opinion should carry more weight.   

 

 

From the brackets I saw on the PAC-12 website, Townsell placed fourth. 

 

Let me get this straight, he places fourth at the national qualifying tournament, going 1-2, losing to the guys who place second and third, but he is then chosen to leap frog both guys to earn a trip to compete in St. Louis? What's the point in qualifying tournaments? Why not just have a panel of TheMat.com forum posters form a committee and choose who is worthy of attending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the brackets I saw on the PAC-12 website, Townsell placed fourth.

 

Let me get this straight, he places fourth at the national qualifying tournament, going 1-2, losing to the guys who place second and third, but he is then chosen to leap frog both guys to earn a trip to compete in St. Louis? What's the point in qualifying tournaments? Why not just have a panel of TheMat.com forum posters form a committee and choose who is worthy of attending?

He was the one who technically qualified the spot I believe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the big 12 guys had to get at large bids because the conference wasn't recognized as a qualifier that year

 

Even if you remove them (which we shouldn't do because they earned their bid on their season's body of work) then you're still left with a good number of athletes who were standing on the podium after wrestling through three days of competition.  The number of at-large athletes that post wins at the NCAAs is very high because they are some of the most elite athletes and proved it through the long season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, the system seems pretty good. It almost never excludes a wrestler who proved during the season that he is capable of standing on the podium at Nationals.  Conversely, it gives every wrestler the chance to salvage a bad season through a good conference tournament.  Wrestlers on the bubble have fair notice that the only way for them to lock up a spot is by wrestling well at the qualifier.   

 

My one gripe with the system is that in allocating prequalified spots, it draws no distinction between the #1 ranked wrestler and the #25 ranked wrestler.  A conference can have the #1 through #5 guys and it gets 5 spots.  Another conference can have the #20 through #24 ranked guys and it gets the same 5 spots.  Obviously breaking through and stealing a spot is a lot tougher in the first scenario.  Maybe guys ranked in the top eight should qualify 1 1/2 spots, the  9 through 16 ranked guys, 1 spot, and the rest only half a spot.  The issue of wrestlers ending up in half spots could be addressed through the at large system.  Not sure this is the best solution, but the NCAA committee should take a closer look.

Edited by williamhofithaca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, the system seems pretty good. It almost never excludes a wrestler who proved during the season that he is capable of standing on the podium at Nationals.  Conversely, it gives every wrestler the chance to salvage a bad season through a good conference tournament.  Wrestlers on the bubble have fair notice that the only way for them to lock up a spot is by wrestling well at the qualifier.   

 

My one gripe with the system is that in allocating prequalified spots, it draws no distinction between the #1 ranked wrestler and the #25 ranked wrestler.  A conference can have the #1 through #5 guys and it gets 5 spots.  Another conference can have the #20 through #24 ranked guys and it gets the same 5 spots.  Obviously breaking through and stealing a spot is a lot tougher in the first scenario.  Maybe guys ranked in the top eight should qualify 1 1/2 spots, the  9 through 16 ranked guys, 1 spot, and the rest only half a spot.  The issue of wrestlers ending up in half spots can be addressed through the at large system.  Not sure this is the best solution, but the NCAA committee should take a closer look.

 

Conversely, they may cap the pre-allocations at 25 and a conference may have five guys ranked 26, 27, 29, 31, and 33.  They don't get a pre-allocation so they have to use the champion auto-bid. That means that only one of those guys is getting in and the other four are sitting at home because they are long shots for an at-large when there is likely a few top-20 guys that fell short and had their bid stolen by a guy in the 30s.

 

Again, great system when compared to the old system.  Major improvement.  But there are still flaws...

Edited by Pinnum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you either belong or you don't. The guy that can't break through in the tougher ranked conference should be equally able to get in via at large as the other.If someone breaks through in the lower ranked group it would displace one of those guys so we end up fairly equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that the current system is far superior to the old system from the standpoint of getting the best 33 wrestlers to the show while still getting representation from ALL Conferences.

 

Wasn't the driving force that sparked this change a result of a BIG Wrestler (Wisconsin) that was highly ranked and didn't get in due to a bad BIG tournament ? 149 or 157 if I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you either belong or you don't. The guy that can't break through in the tougher ranked conference should be equally able to get in via at large as the other.If someone breaks through in the lower ranked group it would displace one of those guys so we end up fairly equally.

 

That, of course, is the issue.  We can't agree who belongs.  We all have different views on what metrics should be considered and when you get to the guys outside of the top-10 or top-20 it really becomes murky.  I do, believe that if you're a guy ranked in the 30 range you have a better shot of qualifying if you're in a conference with more bids simply because you're pretty good and not a long shot but may need the help of a pre-allocation athlete stumbling.

 

In the end, I am not sure it really matters too much.  I mean, it is hard for me to get upset when a guy I think is the 35th best at a weight gets in and a guy I think is the 31st best gets left home.  The reality is that it would be a toss up between them.  They are pretty interchangeable and neither one deserved it more than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that the current system is far superior to the old system from the standpoint of getting the best 33 wrestlers to the show while still getting representation from ALL Conferences.

 

Wasn't the driving force that sparked this change a result of a BIG Wrestler (Wisconsin) that was highly ranked and didn't get in due to a bad BIG tournament ? 149 or 157 if I recall.

 

I don't believe so.  If I recall correctly it was the Big Ten that was lobbying against the change.  Remember that the number of bids for a conference was determined by the historical All-American results.  The Big Ten had so many All-Americans every year that they would get a ton of auto-bids.

 

The Big Ten was recruiting against other programs in other conferences and telling recruits that they didn't want to go there because that conference doesn't get any bids to nationals.

 

The system penalized programs and conferences that had tough athletes but not All-American level athletes.  The conferences with top-20 athletes that failed to get on the podium were drastically under represented.

 

The change has ensured that those athletes are now in the field, which is why there are so many more early round upsets.  Additionally, I believe it has been a big boost to the ACC which I think has been good for the sport over all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was the one who technically qualified the spot I believe

 

Explain that one to me, please, with a how and when.

 

Also, so what? He finished fourth in his qualifying tournament where only the champ in the bracket was the automatic qualifier. I could absolutely see it if he was the runner-up, but not more than that.

 

The kid is an excellent wrestler, there's no doubt about it. However, if I am the coaches at CSUB and Boise State, this does not sit well with me at all and I am making phone calls about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I would also like a bigger bracket in D2/D3

I would prefer 24 wrestlers as opposed to 16 since they place 8 at the NCAA tournament. The top finishers in the regional would get first round byes. I would have more qualifiers for DIII too since there are so many DIII schools.   

 

Other than that I like the NAIA, DII, and DIII systems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like the current system, other than it is hard to explain to someone.  Is it perfect?  No.  But no system will ever be perfect.  It rewards a good year. 

 

Let's say you have Wrestler A who beats Wrestler B 4 times during the regular season.  Wrestler A gets the flu during the conference tournament and loses to Wrestler B.  B finishes high enough to get an automatic qualifier and A does not.  I say Wrestler A deserves the spot, and he'll probably get it through the wild card since he is mostly highly ranked.  Well, Wrestler B will also gets rewarded by having a good tournament.  The guy that gets left out is the 30-33 ranked guy, who is borderline deserving and performed only average during the regular season and only average during his qualifier.  We have rewarded the guy who performed well during the season, the guy who performed well in the qualifier and didn't reward the guy who was average at both.

 

Also, one of the complaints of the past is that coaches didn't care about duals, often times sitting guys.  It still happens, but not as much.  The more a guy wrestles, the better chance he has in securing an automatic bid by increasing his RPI. 

 

Under the old season, qualifiers were based on the last 3 years.  How fair was that.  If you were a wrestler, you would be at a disadvantage at a conference that was getting better.

Under some proposals, a regional systems means you are at a disadvantage wrestling in a  tough region, which varies by weight. 

Under this system, EVERYONE is at equal standing at the beginning of the year.

 

Now, the season is important.  The qualifier is important.  And we have the best chance of getting the top 33 in the nation fight it out to be an all-American. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I looked close and each one is deserving. Also looks like they had some good wins at conference tourney with Nevills grabbing that top spot. If I was a recruit I'd be taking a shot at getting my grades up and going here - Stanford education / experience and national title contenders? Nice work and congrats to the Cardinal squad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the regular season does matter.

Nope, Snyder has proven it doesn't at the DI level and Spencer Lee did it at the High School level last year when after surgery he came back for essentially the post season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, Snyder has proven it doesn't at the DI level and Spencer Lee did it at the High School level last year when after surgery he came back for essentially the post season.

It seems like you both have valid points. It depends on how your regular season went. For Snyder, his season doesn't much matter because he wins all of his limited in season matches (and because of who he is). For these guys in the PAC12, it ended up mattering quite a bit. Even though an Olympic champ gets some benefit of the doubt, if Snyder happened to rail off a bunch of college losses in a row and dnp'd at B1Gs next year with an overall losing record, do you think he'd still get in?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though an Olympic champ gets some benefit of the doubt, if Snyder happened to rail off a bunch of college losses in a row and dnp'd at B1Gs next year with an overall losing record, do you think he'd still get in?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If he does that next season he'd still get in unless he was seriously injured. There is no way the NCAA would keep a guy like that out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that the current system is far superior to the old system from the standpoint of getting the best 33 wrestlers to the show while still getting representation from ALL Conferences.

 

Wasn't the driving force that sparked this change a result of a BIG Wrestler (Wisconsin) that was highly ranked and didn't get in due to a bad BIG tournament ? 149 or 157 if I recall.

 

Don't know if he was the driving force, but the wrestler you're thinking of is Craig Hennng of Wisconsin.  Henning was the 2007 runner-up as the 7th seed, losing to Trent Paulson 6-5 in the finals.  

 

In 2008 Henning entered Big Tens as the 5th seed, losing 4-2 to CP Schlatter quarter finals and 6-3 TB1 to Nicholas Bertucci (Purdue) in the consolations to go two and out.

 

National runner-up to non-qualifier in one year.  

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  

×