Jump to content
russelscout

How hard is seeding?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lu_alum said:

Carr was not seeded using this formula.  B1G supposedly has their own criteria, based on in-conference performance.

That's actually fake news. Having heard back from seven of the eight conferences (disclaimer: in two of the conferences, I was involved in the seeding process in some way or another), two of the conferences (the ACC and Big Ten) have no specified criteria whatsoever for seeding. By comparison, the two conferences I was involved with the seeding for (the two single-sport conferences) had VERY specific criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Marcus Cisero said:

Cassar will beat him again, this time more convincingly.

I believe Steveson gets at least three takedowns next time. He exerted effort for about ten seconds in that match, and in that ten seconds took him down easily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Molsen said:

I was hoping they would try to screw psu. Not that it would change anything, but maybe atleast making things a little intriguing.  Oh well.

Penn State wrestlers don't get bad draws, they are the bad draw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some Husker bias, but Venz from Nebraska as the #9 seed is hard to stomach. I could see him maybe sliding to the 6 or 7 after finishing 4th at Big Tens, but falling into the same quad as MyMar is tough to process.

#3 Zavatsky - placed ahead of him at Cliff Keen (2nd vs 4th, including beating the guy Zavatsky lost to twice at the same tournament)

#4 Parker - pinned Parker first match, lost decision second match

#5 Dean - I know you're not supposed to count it, but beat him soundly H2H at All-Star classic and NCAAs last year

#6 Foster - beat him H2H twice this year

#7 Reenan - lost a very close match

#8 Preisch - wrestled half the quality schedule of Venz, but did have common opponent beating #15 Ness H2H (Venz one "bad" loss on the year)

Returning 4th place all-American, 12 matches against guys ranked top 15, going 5-7 in these matches. Common sense should have him as a top 5-6 seed, but apparently that isn't in the formula. Sorry our guy is in the toughest conference in the country and ACTUALLY SHOWS UP TO WRESTLE. I suppose with a handful of ducks we could have locked up a top 4 seed, but that's chicken $hit and I'll never respect the teams that regularly do this.

Chad Red as the #16 after finished 2nd in Big Tens is maybe even more baffling. How the hell do FIVE wrestlers he placed higher than in conference, two of whom he beat soundly H2H last weekend, get seeded THAT MUCH HIGHER (#3, #6, #7, #8, #11)? 

Both of these seeds and numerous others are crap, rant over. 

Share this post


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

I’ve never been a big twitter guy,  but am I late to the party or is this a new thing where the wrestlers are also publicly critiquing their seeds?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nolf and Nickal do this all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I’ve never been a big twitter guy,  but am I late to the party or is this a new thing where the wrestlers are also publicly critiquing their seeds?

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's not wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much has ducking and forfeiting screwed up the brackets? Maybe the seeding committee is sending a message.

In any case, some of the brackets are really unbalanced as many have pointed out. There’s 165, yes, but also the bottom half of 133 for example looks especially brutal, as does 184 (top half), Hwt (bottom), and all the Big Ten ten guys crammed into one side of 141. Crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pamela said:

How much has ducking and forfeiting screwed up the brackets? Maybe the seeding committee is sending a message.

In any case, some of the brackets are really unbalanced as many have pointed out. There’s 165, yes, but also the bottom half of 133 for example looks especially brutal, as does 184 (top half), Hwt (bottom), and all the Big Ten ten guys crammed into one side of 141. Crazy.

There has to be more of a human element to deal with the forfeiting ducking B.S. The seeding has completely failed when winning conference hurts you, like in Cassar and Bulls cases, and you are rewarded for missing most of the season like Weigl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, russelscout said:

The amount of inconsistencies and unexplainable seeds are just awful. How do we get to this point, who is at fault, and how does it get fixed? When can we get some common sense put into these things? I am just shocked at some of these.

Just like most high school states.  Predetermined brackets based on your placing at your conference tournament.

Also eliminates during the season ducking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like most high school states.  Predetermined brackets based on your placing at your conference tournament.
Also eliminates during the season ducking.

The PIAA has finally seen the fallacy of what you suggest. As a result they’ve made two changes within the past 20 years:

1. The pre-determined brackets used to rotate in a predictable manner. About 15-20 years ago, they had started doing a random draw of bracket configurations the Sunday prior to the tourney.

2. They began seeding the regional champs 2-3 years ago, in an attempt to prevent the best guys from meeting in the QF. However, the seeding point criteria used failed to separate two 2-time champs this year at AAA 132.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Giovanni said:

I have some Husker bias, but Venz from Nebraska as the #9 seed is hard to stomach. I could see him maybe sliding to the 6 or 7 after finishing 4th at Big Tens, but falling into the same quad as MyMar is tough to process.

#3 Zavatsky - placed ahead of him at Cliff Keen (2nd vs 4th, including beating the guy Zavatsky lost to twice at the same tournament)

#4 Parker - pinned Parker first match, lost decision second match

#5 Dean - I know you're not supposed to count it, but beat him soundly H2H at All-Star classic and NCAAs last year

#6 Foster - beat him H2H twice this year

#7 Reenan - lost a very close match

#8 Preisch - wrestled half the quality schedule of Venz, but did have common opponent beating #15 Ness H2H (Venz one "bad" loss on the year)

Returning 4th place all-American, 12 matches against guys ranked top 15, going 5-7 in these matches. Common sense should have him as a top 5-6 seed, but apparently that isn't in the formula. Sorry our guy is in the toughest conference in the country and ACTUALLY SHOWS UP TO WRESTLE. I suppose with a handful of ducks we could have locked up a top 4 seed, but that's chicken $hit and I'll never respect the teams that regularly do this.

Chad Red as the #16 after finished 2nd in Big Tens is maybe even more baffling. How the hell do FIVE wrestlers he placed higher than in conference, two of whom he beat soundly H2H last weekend, get seeded THAT MUCH HIGHER (#3, #6, #7, #8, #11)? 

Both of these seeds and numerous others are crap, rant over. 

I thought 141 was actually seeded correctly except for Red’s seed. Think the committee saw that Yianni would walk to the semifinals and threw him in as a little challenge. But at the end of the day his less that stellar regular season record hurt him.

Edited by Sublime607

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always found the seeding process in tournaments amusing. For all the work the one seed does during the year he is supposed to be rewarded by getting the easiest path to win a title and when he doesn't it's pandemonium. Winners win. I doubt many of the top three seeded wrestlers in the country are disgusted by their seed or even care about who they have to wrestle. Let Nolf wrestle the 6,5,4,3 and 2 seeds and tell me he isn't winning it or complains about it. "Bad draws" to me are more about matchups and not so much about how good a wrestler is. I really don't ask for much from the seeding committee other then putting the two best guys on the opposite sides of the bracket  (everything else will play out accordingly) and for every bracket I think they accomplished that. Some weights you might not have a clear cut one and two (biases aside). 285 has a round robin of the top three wrestlers so I don't think there was a bad way to seed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lu_alum said:


The PIAA has finally seen the fallacy of what you suggest. As a result they’ve made two changes within the past 20 years:

1. The pre-determined brackets used to rotate in a predictable manner. About 15-20 years ago, they had started doing a random draw of bracket configurations the Sunday prior to the tourney.

2. They began seeding the regional champs 2-3 years ago, in an attempt to prevent the best guys from meeting in the QF. However, the seeding point criteria used failed to separate two 2-time champs this year at AAA 132.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right.  Random draw the brackets.

Separate two returning champs (very rare).

If you lose your conference, too bad.  If you forfeit at your conference and take 6th, too bad.

This eliminates during the season and now apparently conference ducking.

Continue to use the RPI to come up with per weight allocations.

Eliminate the human element.  These kids don't care if they take 3rd instead of 2nd, they are there to win it.  These kids do not think, "well at least I made the finals".  It's irrelevant to them if they are going into the tournament as a top 3 guy.  But even if they lost in the conference final to the #1 guy, they are still on the opposite side anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, russelscout said:

The amount of inconsistencies and unexplainable seeds are just awful. How do we get to this point, who is at fault, and how does it get fixed? When can we get some common sense put into these things? I am just shocked at some of these.

Yeah, it's pretty damned stupid. Joe Smith #33 seed. Really? The Bull got jacked on that one. Technically so did Joe, but here's the funny thing: if Joe upsets Marinelli (Don't want to run into a Smith at NCAAs his Jr year) then Joe is, essentially, stealing the #1 seed :D For the record I think several of OSU's wrestlers got jacked on their seeds.  I think Picc was semi-jacked, Gfeller was jacked, and Jacobe Smith was semi-jacked. Oh well, nothing as bad as Marinelli probably wrestling Joe Smith in his first round, lol.

The current system is obviously broken. Find another individual sport with superior seeding and emulate their method, simple enough. But to me it looks like too many people are qualifying for nationals already. 72 teams and 33 guys qualify per weight? Nearly half qualify for the most prestigious college event in wrestling? Might as well have every team send their starters (I'd actually like that better anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lu_alum said:



2. They began seeding the regional champs 2-3 years ago, in an attempt to prevent the best guys from meeting in the QF. However, the seeding point criteria used failed to separate two 2-time champs this year at AAA 132.

 

Except one of those 2-time champs didn't wrestle at all last year which I'm sure is extremely rare.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


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

 

Eliminate the human element.  These kids don't care if they take 3rd instead of 2nd, they are there to win it.  These kids do not think, "well at least I made the finals".  It's irrelevant to them if they are going into the tournament as a top 3 guy.  But even if they lost in the conference final to the #1 guy, they are still on the opposite side anyway.

Pantaleo apparently would rather get 2nd than 3rd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PIAA-wise, we'll see if they account for placements prior to previous year. This would be helpful in certain cases but misleading in others. Often the two years before would see the wrestlers at freshman weights like 106/113. Not as meaningful there. Not unusual to have a freshman place there and then not again as he grows.

A minor thing that I think I noticed correctly in the NCAA brackets this year given the 'randomization' of the last few seeds. I don't think (I only checked a couple weights) those are necessarily the computed seeds shown for those last few. I believe those are the equivalent seeds given the positions they were placed in after the randomization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, spladle said:

I wish Cassar had a 4th seed.  Putting him on the same side as Steveson isn't what I hoped for.

I really don't know what they were thinking. Would have been an amazing to end to the event. Cassar's story is inspiring. A nobody vs the prodigy. Now I surely hope they end at another weight class. I wouldn't have cared if they put Cassar as unseeded. Just put him opposite of Gable. Some people simply do not think clearly. 

Edited by PRyan2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PRyan2012 said:

I really don't know what they were thinking. Would have been an amazing to end to the event. Cassar's story is inspiring. A nobody vs the prodigy. Now I surely hope they end at another weight class. I wouldn't have cared if they put Cassar as unseeded. Just put him opposite of Gable. Some people simply do not think clearly. 

They were thinking that White beat Cassar and also won his conference.

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

×