Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zebra

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

Recommended Posts

That's the only problem with having at-large bids at all.  The teams guys best set to capitalize on them are the guys who performed the worst at Conference.  So Stanford gets rewarded for a terrible performance at Pac 10.  

How does Stanford get rewarded for that?  I think this the purpose of at-large bids.

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.   

Edited by Zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that at-large selections are more deserving than the guy who has a mediocre year but steals a bid simply because the pre-allocation committee thought there were a certain number of deserving athletes in the same event he was entered into.  Especially when he was able to steal a bid not due to his own success but due to other outside forces (like an injured athlete's MMF).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The higher placement added 10% to his score.  The win removed 25% from Toownsell's score.  Did the system not work?

A bad system working is still a bad system. Functionality is irrelevant if the baseline is flawed, which I believe it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that at-large selections are more deserving than the guy who has a mediocre year but steals a bid simply because the pre-allocation committee thought there were a certain number of deserving athletes in the same event he was entered into.  Especially when he was able to steal a bid not due to his own success but due to other outside forces (like an injured athlete's MMF).

I still am of the opinion that a wrestler who performed better when it mattered should be rewarded, that's all. If an unseeded wrestler makes the finals should a "more deserving wrestler" who performed better throughout the season suddenly be elevated just because the "less deserving" wrestler exceeded their expectations? 

Edited by Zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the only problem with having at-large bids at all.  The teams guys best set to capitalize on them are the guys who performed the worst at Conference.  So Stanford gets rewarded for a terrible performance at Pac 10.  

 

Those wrestlers will be NOT be "rewarded" when Seeding has been completed. 

 

All of these AQ's had poor performances at Qualifiers.  They received NCAA entry via an At-Large.  They will be penalized via Seeding.

 

Their "body of work" gets them in via At-Large, their poor Qualifier performances will penalize their Seed.

 

I like the system we have.  Av good "balance" in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those wrestlers will be NOT be "rewarded" when Seeding has been completed. 

 

All of these AQ's had poor performances at Qualifiers.  They received NCAA entry via an At-Large.  They will be penalized via Seeding.

 

Their "body of work" gets them in via At-Large, their poor Qualifier performances will penalize their Seed.

 

I like the system we have.  Av good "balance" in my opinion.

They were rewarded by getting the at large bid. What happens at NCAA Tournament is still to be determined and not germane to the bid itself.  

Edited by Zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't feel like any of the Stanford at-large qualifiers would have been seeded.

I think true placement matches should always happen at qualifiers, since that is a criteria.   For example, suppose a conference has three qualifiers.

Also suppose that A beats B in the quarters.  B places 4th while A places fifth.  How is it fair that A gets that criteria over B?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were rewarded by getting the at large bid. What happens at NCAA Tournament is still to be determined and not germane to the bid itself.  

 

They were rewarded for their "body of work".  Their entire season's accomplishments. 

 

Are you saying that ONLY the qualifying Tournament should matter ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason it's done that way in college basketball. You have a better season but you lose to a lower-seeded team in your conference tournament. You are deserving of a tournament bid before the tournament, one loss doesn't make you not deserving and elevate somebody who beat you once to a spot in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were rewarded for their "body of work".  Their entire season's accomplishments. 

 

Are you saying that ONLY the qualifying Tournament should matter ?

I've been saying that for some time now. I may be in the minority on this one but I'm for combining the smaller conferences and having a set number of placers advance just like we do in every state across this country.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason it's done that way in college basketball. You have a better season but you lose to a lower-seeded team in your conference tournament. You are deserving of a tournament bid before the tournament, one loss doesn't make you not deserving and elevate somebody who beat you once to a spot in the field.

I know the reasoning but BB is quite different from individual sports like wrestling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't feel like any of the Stanford at-large qualifiers would have been seeded.

I think true placement matches should always happen at qualifiers, since that is a criteria.   For example, suppose a conference has three qualifiers.

Also suppose that A beats B in the quarters.  B places 4th while A places fifth.  How is it fair that A gets that criteria over B?

Plasmodium: That scenario happened last year at one of the weights at MACs. Wrestler A was denied the true-placement match because they had already met in the tournament...never mind the fact that Wrestler A actually WON that match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plasmodium: That scenario happened last year at one of the weights at MACs. Wrestler A was denied the true-placement match because they had already met in the tournament...never mind the fact that Wrestler A actually WON that match.

Wow.  That wasn't even the scenario that I saw this weekend.  Really?  The decision to wrestle the true placement is whether they have wrestled, not whether the wrestler with higher place beat the one with the lower place.  Crazy rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still am of the opinion that a wrestler who performed better when it mattered should be rewarded, that's all. If an unseeded wrestler makes the finals should a "more deserving wrestler" who performed better throughout the season suddenly be elevated just because the "less deserving" wrestler exceeded their expectations? 

 

At large is for people who failed to meet qualification criteria.  The idea between conferences being the qualifier has always been that every conference gets representation (one spot) in the national tournament.  That is not a wrestling centric position but something that is applied to every sport in the NCAA.  Every conference gets representation.

 

At-large is about ensuring that the best who failed to get conference representation may fill out the field.  It is done to ensure that the championship is the best of the best and then they must perform there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying that for some time now. I may be in the minority on this one but I'm for combining the smaller conferences and having a set number of placers advance just like we do in every state across this country.    

 

You support getting rid of conferences and moving to regionals where the regular season holds no significance, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You support getting rid of conferences and moving to regionals where the regular season holds no significance, right?

 

The regular season already has minimal importance the way it currently exists. 

 

Without At-Large bids based on "body of work", there would be NO meaningful reason to actually have a regular season.

 

I am in favor of the regular season being MORE meaningful, not LESS.

 

Zebra, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The regular season already has minimal importance the way it currently exists. 

 

Without At-Large bids based on "body of work", there would be NO meaningful reason to actually have a regular season.

 

I am in favor of the regular season being MORE meaningful, not LESS.

 

Zebra, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.

 

I'm with you.  

 

I am not a fan of the current system; I just like it over the old system.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...