Jump to content
Marcus Cisero

EXCELLENT FLO Article as to why Vincenzo Joseph Should Be the #3 Seed At Big 10's

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, russelscout said:

I didn't suggest this shouldn't be applied to everyone else. However, Lee already lost to Rivera and is seated below him anyways. If Lee hadn't lost at Midlands and still sat out the dual I would support a number 2 seed, but how do you penalize him here? He doesn't have any other losses that would put him below 2. I am for a blanket application, whether its Joseph, Lee, Stoll, whoever, but it just so happens that 165 is a clear example of how this would work. 

I get your point that at Big10's Lee is going to be #2 no matter what. You have made that point a bunch of times and I don't disagree with it. But you also have gone straight into defense mode with regards to your guys, which is what I hoped you'd do because it shows what is going to happen when the seeding committee sits down. Everyone is going to defend their guys. 

And you keep singling out the 165 bracket, which is a back door way of singling out Cenzo/PSU while not accepting same for Young and Stoll/Iowa. Don't go there if you don't want a PSU guy to call it out. If you are going to do this at 165, then do it everywhere and make it cut and dried with zero exemptions. All ducks are L's. No exceptions. Then, you must apply this system to BOTH the league tournaments AND NCAA's. I am fine with that system because at least it is an objective criteria. Just don't have your system which seems to be to single out Cenzo and the 165 bracket. That is a pick and choose system, a subjective criteria, which is a b.s. system. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

I get your point that at Big10's Lee is going to be #2 no matter what. You have made that point a bunch of times and I don't disagree with it. But you also have gone straight into defense mode with regards to your guys, which is what I hoped you'd do because it shows what is going to happen when the seeding committee sits down. Everyone is going to defend their guys. 

And you keep singling out the 165 bracket, which is a back door way of singling out Cenzo/PSU while not accepting same for Young and Stoll/Iowa. Don't go there if you don't want a PSU guy to call it out. If you are going to do this at 165, then do it everywhere and make it cut and dried with zero exemptions. All ducks are L's. No exceptions. Then, you must apply this system to BOTH the league tournaments AND NCAA's. I am fine with that system because at least it is an objective criteria. Just don't have your system which seems to be to single out Cenzo and the 165 bracket. That is a pick and choose system, a subjective criteria, which is a b.s. system. 

I never said Young and Stoll shouldn't also be punished. And If Glosser would have won the spot he should be punished for all the matches he didn't wrestle in conference too. If that needs to apply to NCAA's fine, but the results of the Big 10 tourney do matter, and it seems to be a higher criteria than the dual season. I don't see where I am making exceptions at all. I simply brought up Young and Glosser because I think Iowa was legitimately giving Glosser a shot and no ducking, but I never sad it shouldn't be treated as a duck. It most certainly should be. I may defending Young not wrestling, but I have made no argument that they shouldn't all be treated the same as 165. I think they should. This is not an attack on PSU, Cenzo or anyone. I have simply said that 165 is a clear example of how this system is applied at conference. 125, 157, and HWT are less clear because there doesn't seem to be a consequence for these guys. I am not sure how you would make it work in those situations that wouldn't be an overcorrection.
 

One way is that you could make sure it is applied to NCAA seedings too, but in the Lee Rivera situation, they are #1 and #2 in every ranking, and Lee only has losses to #1. Do you automatically put someone at 3 because of those losses or not? There has been inconsistent applications in NCAA seedings when this has happened in the past and this system also does not really change anything there.

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBar1977 said:

It stated that wrestlers who sit out during duals should have those duals considered as L's for them or as W's for the other guy. But they emphasized that they should be consiedered as losses for the alleged ducker, all the while noting they can't definitively know who is or is not sitting out for legit reasons. 

It's a pretty stupid suggestion on the part of FLO. Just because a guy doesn't wrestle in a dual doesn't necessarily mean he's ducking his opponent. Maybe he's sick. Maybe he's having a migraine. There's lots of legitimate reasons a wrestler might not wrestle a match. Besides,  it's not the wrestlers ducking each other...it's the COACHES. When I wrestled the thinking was the tougher the competition the tougher the wrestler will get. That's not how some of these D1 coaches think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll insert the token "who gives a flying rats behind" comment.

It matters not if Cenzo is a #1, #2, #3, or #4.  It shouldn't and won't matter to Marinelli, and it won't matter to Wick.  The only think that matters is that they all want to and need to win in order to get the best seed (that matters) at NCAA's.  Why we devote so much time and debate to this is beyond me.  At this level, you have to win.  Period.  And when it comes to top 4 at Big 10's, for pretty much any weight, the order of the top 4 seeds matter very little when the only thing on all of their minds is winning the entire tourney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, treep2000 said:

I'll insert the token "who gives a flying rats behind" comment.

It matters not if Cenzo is a #1, #2, #3, or #4.  It shouldn't and won't matter to Marinelli, and it won't matter to Wick.  The only think that matters is that they all want to and need to win in order to get the best seed (that matters) at NCAA's.  Why we devote so much time and debate to this is beyond me.  At this level, you have to win.  Period.  And when it comes to top 4 at Big 10's, for pretty much any weight, the order of the top 4 seeds matter very little when the only thing on all of their minds is winning the entire tourney.

Consider this: banning seeding altogether. Would make for a far more interesting tourney. Of course if you get rid of seeding then you have to allow "challenge matches" (remember those?).

 

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, russelscout said:

I never said Young and Stoll shouldn't also be punished. And If Glosser would have won the spot he should be punished for all the matches he didn't wrestle in conference too. If that needs to apply to NCAA's fine, but the results of the Big 10 tourney do matter, and it seems to be a higher criteria than the dual season. I don't see where I am making exceptions at all.

I simply brought up Young and Glosser because I think Iowa was legitimately giving Glosser a shot and no ducking, but I never sad it shouldn't be treated as a duck. It most certainly should be. I may defending Young not wrestling, but I have made no argument that they shouldn't all be treated the same as 165. I think they should. This is not an attack on PSU, Cenzo or anyone. I have simply said that 165 is a clear example of how this system is applied at conference. 125, 157, and HWT are less clear because there doesn't seem to be a consequence for these guys. I am not sure how you would make it work in those situations that wouldn't be an overcorrection.

One way is that you could make sure it is applied to NCAA seedings too, but in the Lee Rivera situation, they are #1 and #2 in every ranking, and Lee only has losses to #1. Do you automatically put someone at 3 because of those losses or not? There has been inconsistent applications in NCAA seedings when this has happened in the past and this system also does not really change anything there.

Perhaps there isn't a lot that can be done at Big10's at 125, and maybe not even at 157 if you add 1 LOSS to Young's record (I am not sure if he ducked anyone else), but at Hwt you could take Stoll and drop him down to 8th or 9th just based on so many LOSSES he would suddenly have to account for. That would hurt.

At NCAA's maybe Lee shows up with 3 L's. All to the same wrestler, but still that is 3 L's. This gives ground for a Mueller or even an unbeaten at 125 Arujau who smoked Glory way worse than Spencer did to possibly pass him by in an objective criteria situation. And then what happens with Young? Does he drop 1 or 2 places seed wise? If you don't allow for this then you have no system really. You are back to picking and choosing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TobusRex said:

Consider this: banning seeding altogether. Would make for a far more interesting tourney. Of course if you get rid of seeding then you have to allow "challenge matches" (remember those?).

 

I don't mind seeding.  I actually do not like the random draw tourney style that UWW uses, as the top 2 may not actually be the top 2.  

My point is less about the concept of seeding, and more about the importance, to the "elite wrestler", of seeding.  In order to be the Champ, you must win, and it is always regardless of seed.  Seeding is important to the 2nd and 3rd Tier wrestlers to a much greater degree.  But... top 4 at Big 10's?  Nah... each of these guys are NC Calibre (depending on year, depth, etc.), and it shouldn't really matter to them (or to us).  Where Ethan Smith gets seeded at 174 will be much more impactful than where Hall, Amine, Labriola, etc. get seeded.

It's all:  Win baby win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TBar1977 said:

Perhaps there isn't a lot that can be done at Big10's at 125, and maybe not even at 157 if you add 1 LOSS to Young's record (I am not sure if he ducked anyone else), but at Hwt you could take Stoll and drop him down to 8th or 9th just based on so many LOSSES he would suddenly have to account for. That would hurt.

At NCAA's maybe Lee shows up with 3 L's. All to the same wrestler, but still that is 3 L's. This gives ground for a Mueller or even an unbeaten at 125 Arujau who smoked Glory way worse than Spencer did to possibly pass him by in an objective criteria situation. And then what happens with Young? Does he drop 1 or 2 places seed wise? If you don't allow for this then you have no system really. You are back to picking and choosing.  

Im not picking and choosing at all. I haven't suggested anything different then what you just said. I don't really disagree. Lee sat against Shroder from Purdue, if you are doing a blanket application, he would most certainly would fall to 4, maybe lower unless he wins the Big10s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to read the article but didn't want to spend $150 to read it. It's my humble opinion that a two time returning NCAA champion who has no losses on the year should receive a #1 ranking, unless there are other 2X NCAA back to back returning champions who have also been dumping cans of whoop azz on their opponents all year. Even this piece of click bait has not persuaded me from paying $150 to read what appears to be pointless garbage (based on the title) from a seemingly juvenile writer (given his premise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a great post by Nomad and this topic needs to be looked at more closely. I've got a couple of points:

1) A lesser seed doesn't take an opportunity away from a wrestler. They still control their own destiny.

2) Seeds mean more to some wrestlers than others, but if I was Joseph, I would want the one and have  Wick and Marinelli on the other side. I know he can and probably will beat one or both of them, it would just be nicer to only have to beat one.

3) Injuries are always a contentious part of this discussion, but if a wrestler is able to go (medically speaking) but doesn't, it is a duck - plain and simple. If they are not able to go, the injury should reflect negatively on their perceived ability to perform in the future. Illness is the only quasi-unfair part of this process. The reason I say "quasi" is because so many wrestlers still go if they are sick that it is almost expected that they do. Not only expected that they go but perform at near 100%. It's a tough sport for tough people, let's keep it that way.

4) I am not partial to any team in NCAA, I just enjoy great matches. I don't care who this impacts negatively and it should be across the board. Conf seeding rules are probably per conference, but NCAA seeding should absolutely adopt this system. I will be at the Big Tens in a few weeks and no doubt there will be more "ducking" going on. It a trend that has been growing in the last decade and it needs to be checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, skikayaker said:

I wanted to read the article but didn't want to spend $150 to read it. It's my humble opinion that a two time returning NCAA champion who has no losses on the year should receive a #1 ranking, unless there are other 2X NCAA back to back returning champions who have also been dumping cans of whoop azz on their opponents all year. Even this piece of click bait has not persuaded me from paying $150 to read what appears to be pointless garbage (based on the title) from a seemingly juvenile writer (given his premise).

I think the point of the article was to say that if you miss a match or "duck" as most like to call it, then it would count as an L on your record and in this case ol Vinny boy would have multiple L's on the year which would drop him to the 3 or 4 seed.  I don't like this idea as you would never really know who is ducking and who is actually sitting due to medical/sickness reason.

Also, like someone else posted, seeding the top 1,2,3,4 guys doesn't matter much.  Usually each one of those guys are a title contender anyway and you would have to beat 1 or 2 of those guys to become the champ.  The seeding towards the bottom is a heck of a lot more important than the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ching said:

That was a great post by Nomad and this topic needs to be looked at more closely. I've got a couple of points:

1) A lesser seed doesn't take an opportunity away from a wrestler. They still control their own destiny.

2) Seeds mean more to some wrestlers than others, but if I was Joseph, I would want the one and have  Wick and Marinelli on the other side. I know he can and probably will beat one or both of them, it would just be nicer to only have to beat one.

3) Injuries are always a contentious part of this discussion, but if a wrestler is able to go (medically speaking) but doesn't, it is a duck - plain and simple. If they are not able to go, the injury should reflect negatively on their perceived ability to perform in the future. Illness is the only quasi-unfair part of this process. The reason I say "quasi" is because so many wrestlers still go if they are sick that it is almost expected that they do. Not only expected that they go but perform at near 100%. It's a tough sport for tough people, let's keep it that way.

4) I am not partial to any team in NCAA, I just enjoy great matches. I don't care who this impacts negatively and it should be across the board. Conf seeding rules are probably per conference, but NCAA seeding should absolutely adopt this system. I will be at the Big Tens in a few weeks and no doubt there will be more "ducking" going on. It a trend that has been growing in the last decade and it needs to be checked.

Right now there is a human element to seeding. If you have someone like Lee who would theoretically have losses to Shroder from Purdue and Rivera, what is the first criteria? Would the losses be used as a tie breaker or would the coaches vote be used as a tie breaker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, skikayaker said:

I wanted to read the article but didn't want to spend $150 to read it. It's my humble opinion that a two time returning NCAA champion who has no losses on the year should receive a #1 ranking, unless there are other 2X NCAA back to back returning champions who have also been dumping cans of whoop azz on their opponents all year. Even this piece of click bait has not persuaded me from paying $150 to read what appears to be pointless garbage (based on the title) from a seemingly juvenile writer (given his premise). 

Let's take this to the extreme. Imagine Joseph ducked every ranked wrestler he could have faced this year. Let's say he's 15-0 with about 6 MFF and about four duals that he skipped. Would he still warrant the #1 seed? This convo is kind of unfair to Joseph since he rarely skips matches. I'm more disturbed by Lee not wrestling the dual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, russelscout said:

Right now there is a human element to seeding. If you have someone like Lee who would theoretically have losses to Shroder from Purdue and Rivera, what is the first criteria? Would the losses be used as a tie breaker or would the coaches vote be used as a tie breaker?

I don't know the answer, but the black mark system Chap suggested could be worked. If Lee's backup still beats the guy, no harm no foul. If he doesn't, then it hurts your seeding. Shroder has a win over the best guy Iowa had to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ching said:

Let's take this to the extreme. Imagine Joseph ducked every ranked wrestler he could have faced this year. Let's say he's 15-0 with about 6 MFF and about four duals that he skipped. Would he still warrant the #1 seed? This convo is kind of unfair to Joseph since he rarely skips matches. I'm more disturbed by Lee not wrestling the dual.

To that point my reply is, yes, there is a threshold for just about everything. Joseph sitting out 2 or 3 matches when Winter colds our more prevalent does not reach a threshold for changing his ranking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly I don’t know the exact seeding criteria for NCAA’s, but what happens if Lee wins B1G’s?  Can they still “punish” the earlier duck of Rivera by seeding Rivera above Lee? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ching said:

 This convo is kind of unfair to Joseph since he rarely skips matches. I'm more disturbed by Lee not wrestling the dual.

Why would you be more disturbed about Lee missing then Cenzo? Yes Lee missed against Rivera, but Cenzo missed against Wick. Lee also isnt missing duals left and right, they have probably missed the same amount. The only difference is Cenzo had nothing to gain wrestling. A win leaves him where hes at, and a loss puts him at 3 in the big10

Edited by Molsen

Share this post


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

Admittedly I don’t know the exact seeding criteria for NCAA’s, but what happens if Lee wins B1G’s?  Can they still “punish” the earlier duck of Rivera by seeding Rivera above Lee? 

 

Naw. If Lee beats Rivera at B1Gs he's #1 seed at NCAAs, period. Providing, of course, an unbeaten wrestler like Picc doesn't inexplicably leapfrog to #1.

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Marcus Cisero said:

Kudo's to FLOWRESTLING for addressing this head-on.  

Hopefully sitting out on tough matches via “ducking” will come to an end someday. 

https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/6356506-why-vincenzo-joseph-should-be-the-3-seed-at-big-tens

OK so how would you seed 133?

Seeding is subjective voting by coaches in Bigs to my understanding. But hey Seed him 3rd, Massa is no Picnic in the semis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Molsen said:

Why would you be more disturbed about Lee missing then Cenzo? Yes Lee missed against Rivera, but Cenzo missed against Wick. Lee also isnt missing duals left and right, they have probably missed the same amount. The only difference is Cenzo had nothing to gain wrestling. A win leaves him where hes at, and a loss puts him at 3 in the big10 

You are correct and I should have been specific. My issue with Lee was wrestling Friday and not Sunday. Cenzo skipped Friday and Sunday. To be clear, there should be no qualifier if they are sick or not, only if they miss the dual.

I'm personally a judgemental person and if you wrestle the dual on Friday against a fish but can't go on Sunday against a stud I'm starting to think things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ching said:

You are correct and I should have been specific. My issue with Lee was wrestling Friday and not Sunday. Cenzo skipped Friday and Sunday. To be clear, there should be no qualifier if they are sick or not, only if they miss the dual.

I'm personally a judgemental person and if you wrestle the dual on Friday against a fish but can't go on Sunday against a stud I'm starting to think things.

Just an fyi, but Lee wrestled #12 that Friday, so not exactly a fish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivera didn't wrestle Mattin, Lee didn't wrestle Rivera, Mueller didn't wrestle half a season and shouldn't be seeded , Vito didn't wrestle half a season and shouldn't be seeded, Fausz has wrestled around 5 matches and shouldn't be seeded. 125 at conferences will be interesting. Good idea Nomad.

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

×