Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BigTenFanboy

RBY Gets Ranked

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Cooch1 said:

Just to draw a clearer line

Present tense, objective= rankings/seeding should be based on all available information, i.e , Here and now.

Future tense, predictions, subjective= brackastrology, there and later.


So you're saying seedings aren't predictions either?

Other than not factoring in who's on the same side of the NCAA bracket, etc., how is a ranking not essentially a prediction?   I actually agree with Tbar here.   If you're ranking guys that are 0-0, I don't see much different from ranking freshmen based off of things like offseason results, etc.

But speaking of RBY in particular, 133 is still pretty loaded, so it'd probably be tough to rank him higher than like #13-15 anyway at this point IMO, so maybe it's splitting hairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 1032004 said:


So you're saying seedings aren't predictions either?

Other than not factoring in who's on the same side of the NCAA bracket, etc., how is a ranking not essentially a prediction?   I actually agree with Tbar here.   If you're ranking guys that are 0-0, I don't see much different from ranking freshmen based off of things like offseason results, etc.

But speaking of RBY in particular, 133 is still pretty loaded, so it'd probably be tough to rank him higher than like #13-15 anyway at this point IMO, so maybe it's splitting hairs.

yes i'm  saying seedings aren't predictions either.  i'm saying i'm trying to draw a clear line by definition of tense/time. seeds arebased on data. seed commitee isn't supposed to try to predict, only seed, i.e., place into alignment by data.

a ranking becomes a prediction if you allow subjectivity to taint your thinking. you can see data but not the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cooch1 said:

yes i'm  saying seedings aren't predictions either.  i'm saying i'm trying to draw a clear line by definition of tense/time. seeds arebased on data. seed commitee isn't supposed to try to predict, only seed, i.e., place into alignment by data.

a ranking becomes a prediction if you allow subjectivity to taint your thinking. you can see data but not the future.

 

Jaroslav just admitted his rankings have subjectivity.   I'd imagine the only ones that don't are wrestlestat's. 

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dmm53 said:

I just looked at FLO's rankings.  They seem arguably  to get 197 and P4P wrong.   Shakur drops to #7 after a win.  He has bonus-ed everyone.  Meanwhile  Venz loses twice and goes to #4.  

As for P4P, Hall beat Valencia and stays at #7 while Valencia stays at #3.  Hall has finished first and second and beaten ZV twice.  Valencia has finished first and third.  Flo will say that Hall has other losses (which is true) but they often just select criteria a bit arbitrarily.  It's not that their rankings are irrational; it's that they are selectively rational.  I get it though: there will always be arguments about this stuff: by its very nature it involves some subjectivity.   The best approach is just to be transparent with one's criteria.

Why the heck is Nick Reenan #3 at 184.  He has 17 losses in his career.  and 0 wins at NCAAs.  I repeat 0 wins.  Rasheed is a returning AA at a higher weight.  

 

Rank Grade Name School Previous Rank
1 SR Myles Martin Ohio State 1
2 SR Emery Parker Illinois 2
3 SO Nick Reenan NC State 7
4 SO Taylor Venz Nebraska 3
5 SR Drew Foster UNI 4
6 SR Zachary Zavatsky Virginia Tech 5
7 SR Shakur Rasheed Penn State 6
8 SO Max Dean Cornell 11
9 FR Lou Deprez Binghamton 10
10 SR Chip Ness North Carolina 13
11 SR Ryan Preisch Lehigh 8
12 JR Corey Hazel Lock Haven 9
13 FR Nino Bonaccorsi Pittsburgh 12
14 SR Nick Gravina Rutgers NR

As far as Reenan goes, I would say it is actually pretty clear.  

1.)For starters he actually only has 14 career losses and those came as a TF at 174.  Since then, he had a very promising RS, took 3rd at the US Open and Won the WTT Challenge bracket before inevitably losing at Final X to David Taylor.

2.)He is undefeated this season with wins over Preisch and Venz.

As far as Venz goes, his losses are to Martin(3x AA and NCAA Champ), Ness(AA last season) and Reenan.  He also has wins over Foster and Bonaccorsi.

As far as ZZ goes, his only losses are to Foster and he has wins over Dean and Bonaccorsi.

 

What hurts Rasheed(and RBY for that matter), is that they really haven't wrestled ANYBODY.  Granted they are destroying everyone, but they haven't wrestled top 15 guys like all of the above have multiple times.  To put it in perspective, do you think any of the above would have lost if they wrestled Rasheed's schedule to date:

#42 Norfleet, Kordell (8 - 2)#14 Arizona State12/14Arizona State - Penn State Dual184WTF515 - 0 7:00

#69 Price, Andrew (7 - 5)#9 Lehigh12/02Lehigh - Penn State Dual184WMD11 - 2

#138 Inlander, Kyle (4 - 5)#57 Bucknell11/30Penn State - Bucknell Dual184WFALL0:31

#215 Harrison, Jacob (0 - 5)#68 Sacred Heart11/18Keystone Classic184WFALL0:24

#230 Robilotto, Reid (0 - 4)#55 Franklin & Marshall11/18Keystone Classic184WFALL1:08

#84 Russell, Kaden (9 - 5)#46 Duke11/18Keystone Classic184WTF515 - 0 3:50

#39 Clothier, Alan (7 - 8)#44 Appalachian State11/18Keystone Classic184WFALL1:00

#31 McNally, Andrew (19 - 4)#65 Kent State11/11Kent State - Penn State Dual184WFALL1:13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Boompa said:

I'm still shocked people put merit in rankings.  This isn't the 1980's.

Rankings should and do still have substantial merit.  Hell, the Coaches Ranking is a substantial portion of the seeding process.  You don't think the Coaches at least look at the ranking services when they do their own rankings?  That isn't to say they agree with them all, but it gives them a solid ground to start on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Boompa said:

I'm still shocked people put merit in rankings.  This isn't the 1980's.

Ya know, if I was just a casual fan, they would be great to look at to keep caught up . However, if I were going to look at rankings to see how things were going, I would want to see something completely stat based like wrestlestat, or something completely based on the opinion of the "experts." Why would I want to see something with some convoluted criteria thats a mix of the two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as Reenan goes, I would say it is actually pretty clear.  
1.)For starters he actually only has 14 career losses and those came as a TF at 174.  Since then, he had a very promising RS, took 3rd at the US Open and Won the WTT Challenge bracket before inevitably losing at Final X to David Taylor.
2.)He is undefeated this season with wins over Preisch and Venz.
As far as Venz goes, his losses are to Martin(3x AA and NCAA Champ), Ness(AA last season) and Reenan.  He also has wins over Foster and Bonaccorsi.
As far as ZZ goes, his only losses are to Foster and he has wins over Dean and Bonaccorsi.
 
What hurts Rasheed(and RBY for that matter), is that they really haven't wrestled ANYBODY.  Granted they are destroying everyone, but they haven't wrestled top 15 guys like all of the above have multiple times.  To put it in perspective, do you think any of the above would have lost if they wrestled Rasheed's schedule to date:
#42 Norfleet, Kordell (8 - 2)#14 Arizona State12/14Arizona State - Penn State Dual184WTF515 - 0 7:00
#69 Price, Andrew (7 - 5)#9 Lehigh12/02Lehigh - Penn State Dual184WMD11 - 2
#138 Inlander, Kyle (4 - 5)#57 Bucknell11/30Penn State - Bucknell Dual184WFALL0:31
#215 Harrison, Jacob (0 - 5)#68 Sacred Heart11/18Keystone Classic184WFALL0:24
#230 Robilotto, Reid (0 - 4)#55 Franklin & Marshall11/18Keystone Classic184WFALL1:08
#84 Russell, Kaden (9 - 5)#46 Duke11/18Keystone Classic184WTF515 - 0 3:50
#39 Clothier, Alan (7 - 8)#44 Appalachian State11/18Keystone Classic184WFALL1:00
#31 McNally, Andrew (19 - 4)#65 Kent State11/11Kent State - Penn State Dual184WFALL1:13



First. Every other ranking service has it right with Shak at 3 or 4. So let’s not get too crazy. Flo is the only one who messed this weight up.

Forget RBY. He’s where he should be at this point.

Shak on the other hand started at 5. Once 4 lost, Shak should have moved up not down. To make it worse they moved him down below the guy that was ranked ahead of him and the guy that beat that guy. They did the same thing when 3 lost.

It makes no sense and it’s not consistent. Why move Reenan and Foster ahead of Shak? And if you think that’s ok, then why stop there and not bring Ness and Dean up in front of Shak?

Not that confusing. And that’s why everyone except Flo has it right.

And please with who Venz lost to..he’s lost 3 times and other than Martin, the other two are not better than Shak. You really think Shak losses to Ness, Foster, and Reenan? Reenan having a great year but let’s not forget, Shak AA at a higher weight and his only losses at the tourney were to Eventual national champ and the 1 seed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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...