Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBar1977

Willie Saylor Seeding Idea on FRL Today

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, qc8223 said:

The hard part with that is that you could never actually accomplish it because balancing a regional requires that you sort by individual, not team. For example, this year the Big Ten had 9 or 10 spots at 157 while the Big 12 had 1 or 2. If you go to a regional like that you'll have situations where one regional has 14 really good guys for 8 spots and the other has 4 good guys for 8 spots, and that just prevents the best guys from going to the tournament.

I think the qualification process is great right now. I think the seeding is right too. It just needs to be done properly by people who know what they're doing. I've always thought it was bizarre that there are administrators with no wrestling background helping determine seeds alongside coaches with serious conflicts of interest (no matter how ethical you think they are). IMO, seeds should be determined by an independent committee with extensive wrestling background. Does anybody have any doubt that if we put Christian Pyles, Willie, the intermat guys, earl from TOM, etc... in a room for a few hours we would have way better seeds? Hell, you could probably gather some of the top posters on this forum and come up with a significantly better product.

I didn't mean balanced in that each one would be equal in every weight every year.  I meant balanced as in roughly equal across weights and years.  I'd prefer 4 regional qualifiers of 4 with those 16 as the seeds and the 17 at large randomly drawn in.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington has had pre-slotted brackets for 50 years. Region champs all separated in quarter brackets and so on down the line. When I coached in Idaho they seeded the brackets and kids got screwed by one side of the state having almost all the seeders. When I bitched they changed it somewhat but still had more from the east side. I had a kid with 2 head to head wins against a kid and got seeded lower because the east side coaches all voted for the kid from the east.

At least with pre-slotted brackets you take chicken chit crap like that away.

The problem with pre-slotted brackets is sometimes you get the actual #1 and #2 guys meeting in the semis. But even then you most often still get two top tier guys in the finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget PA’s system, they should use NJ’s system. You shouldn’t worry about conferences when it comes to seeding you should worry about separating the best wrestlers. If we can run a power point system can anyone explain to me why the NCAA couldn’t?  You acquire points for wins throughout the season and then at the seeding meeting if you have a case like Joe Smith you nominate your guy where you honestly feel appropriate.  Coach Smith wouldn’t have nominated him as the one he would have given his honest assessment. If the coaches feel it’s inappropriate they vote it down and he tries again. From my experience with the NJ system it keeps coaches honest. It also challenges you to wrestle stiff competition to acquire points. You start with a certain number from your previous year advancement. The only flaw is it does punish freshman because they don’t have that. Overall, way better than what the NCAA uses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the state level, as mentioned above, the PIAA uses a combination of pre-defined brackets & a ranking of the regional champs.

Prior to states, many districts and regions use a point system to determine seeds.  Here's an example from PIAA District IV from a few years ago.  Add the three components together to determine the total points for each wrestler.

Post Season Seeding
Criteria #1:  Percentage record of this season's varsity bouts (won/loss record)

Points: 1 point for win
Divide: Points scored by total bouts
Example 1: record 15 wins, 5 losses 15/20 = 75pts
Example 2: record 12 wins, 17 losses 12/29 = 41pts
Must have 12 bouts minimum to get full points. If not, subtract 8 points for each bout under 12
Example 3: record 6 wins, 2 losses 6/8 = 75 - 32 = 43
Note: Always round out to two decimal points


Criteria #2 Prestige points (awards bonus points for wrestler's previous year)

 

Champ

2nd Place

3rd Place

4th Place

5th Place

6th Place

7th Place

8th Place

States

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

Regionals

60

50

45

40

 

 

 

 

Districts

25

20

15

10

9

8

 

 

Sectionals

7

5

3

1

 

 

 

 


Criteria #3 Caliber of wrestler's competition this season
Bonus points are awarded for competing against last year' medal winners (Regionals, States) Only for PA Wrestlers

 

Champ (W/L)

2nd (W/L)

3rd (W/L)

4th (W/L)

5th (W/L)

6th (W/L)

7th (W/L)

8th (W/L)

States

50 / 4

48 / 4

45 / 4

43 / 4

40 / 4

38 / 4

35 / 4

33 / 4

Regionals

30 / 3

25 / 3

23 / 3

20 / 3

18 / 2

15 / 2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, qc8223 said:

 IMO, seeds should be determined by an independent committee with extensive wrestling background. Does anybody have any doubt that if we put Christian Pyles, Willie, the intermat guys, earl from TOM, etc... in a room for a few hours we would have way better seeds? Hell, you could probably gather some of the top posters on this forum and come up with a significantly better product.

I doubt everyone will be happy no matter who is doing the seeding.  Every person has inherent biases, even those guys and it's noticeable from time to time in their rankings (and comments).  Thus, I feel like a transparent formula that incorporates the best available factors would be the fairest method.  It obviously needs some tweeks to both the formula and the input factors.  I could certainly see an average ranking from the reputable ranking services as an important one of those factors (instead of coaches rankings).  They should also reveal the seeding 'scorecards' at the end too, just to remove doubts about the integrity of the system.

Regarding ducking, with the seeding formula known, does anyone else think that Cael and other top coaches probably have the seeding scenarios fairly figured out by the end of the season?  How hard would it be to sit dinged up guys like Rasheed and Micic for a B10 match if you knew they could only fall to a 2 or 3 seed?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to give Willie's Idea with my enhancement a best efforts. I acknowledge this system would have problems, but it would take a lot of subjectivity out of things. I will try to illustrate using this year's 184 lbs weight class. 

Let's assume the week before conference tournaments that this is how the consensus top 30 wrestlers are ranked. These are not the true rankings from the week before conferences and don't need to be to illustrate how the system would work. Let's just assume they are accurate. 

 

1 Myles Martin Big10
2 Zachary Zavatsky ACC
3 Shakur Rasheed Big10
4 Nino Bonaccorsi ACC
5 Nick Reenan ACC
6 Ryan Preisch EIWA
7 Emery Parker Big10
8 Taylor Venz Big10
9 Maxwell Dean EIWA
10 Drew Foster Big12
11 Samuel Colbray Big12
12 Lou Deprez EIWA
13 Chip Ness ACC
14 Cash Wilcke Big10
15 Dakota Geer Big12
16 Corey Hazel EWL
17 Dylan Wisman MAC
18 Will Schany ACC
19 Max Lyon Big10
20 Nick Gravina Big10
21          Tanner Harvey EIWA
22          Tate Samuelson Big12
23          Cameron Caffey Big10
24          Jackson Hemauer Big12
25           Will Sumner Big12
26           Kevin Parker EIWA
27           Andrew McNally MAC
28           Christian LaFragola  EIWA
29           Zach Carlson  Big12
30           Jelani Embree Big10

 

Now, here are the Conference Auto Qualifiers Allocations at 184lbs. These are the actual auto qualifiers.

Big Ten: (8) Myles Martin (Ohio State), Shakur Rasheed (Penn State), Emery Parker (Illinois), Taylor Venz (Nebraska), Nick Gravina (Rutgers), Cash Wilcke (Iowa), Max Lyon (Purdue), Mason Reinhardt (Wisconsin)

Big 12: (5) Sammy Colbray (Iowa State), Drew Foster (Northern Iowa), Dakota Geer (Oklahoma State), Will Sumner (Utah Valley), Jackson Hemauer (Fresno State)

EIWA: (6) Max Dean (Cornell), Louie Deprez (Binghamton), Ryan Preisch (Lehigh), CJ LaFragola (Brown), Tanner Harvey (American), Noah Stewart (Army)

ACC: (5) Zack Zavatsky (Virginia Tech), Nino Bonaccorsi (Pittsburgh), Nick Reenan (NC State), Chip Ness (North Carolina), Will Schany (Virginia)

MAC: (2) Dylan Wisman (Missouri), Andrew McNally (Kent State)

Pac-12: (1) Bob Coleman (Oregon State)

EWL: (1) Corey Hazel (Lock Haven)

SoCon: (1) Chris Kober (Campbell)

At Large: (4)

 

The Big10 has 9 ranked wrestlers but only 8 qualifiers. In this system, based on the rankings going into the tournament, those 8 spots will earn the following seeds: 1, 3, 7, 8, 14, 19, 20, and 23. Myles Martin qualified not just a qualifier spot during the year, but also the number 1 spot. So whomever wins the Big10 tournament is going to get the 1 seed. The 4th place finisher gets the 8 seed and the 8th place finisher gets the 23 seed. Fill in the blanks for the other seeds.

The Big12 qualifies 5 spots. Those specific seeds are determined by the rankings to be the 10, 11, 15, 22, and 24 seeds. 

The EIWA qualifies 6 spots. Those specific seeds are determined by the rankings to be the 6, 9, 12, 21, 26, and 28 seeds.

The ACC qualifies 5 spots. Those specific seeds are determined by the rankings to be the 2, 4, 5, 13, and 18 seeds.

The MAC qualifies 2 spots. Those specific seeds are determined by the rankings to be the 17 and 27 seeds.

The EWL qualifies 1 spot. The seed for that spot is the 16 seed. 

The Pac12 and So Con both qualify 1 spot, but since neither conference has a ranked wrestler their spots go into the At Large pool.  

All based purely on what the consensus rankings were entering the tournament. 

 

Here are the wrestlers who actually qualified for the Tournament.

At Large Cameron Caffey Big Ten
At Large Dom Ducharme Pac 12
At Large Kevin Parker EIWA
At Large Tate Samuelson Big 12
  Nino Bonaccorsi ACC
  Samuel Colbray Big 12
  Bob Coleman  Pac 12
  Maxwell Dean EIWA
  Lou Deprez EIWA
  Drew Foster Big 12
  Dakota Geer Big 12
  Nick Gravina Big Ten
  Tanner Harvey EIWA
  Corey Hazel EWL
  Jackson Hemauer Big 12
  Chris Kober SoCon
  Christian LaFragola EIWA
  Max Lyon Big Ten
  Myles Martin Big Ten
  Andrew McNally MAC
  Chip Ness ACC
  Emery Parker Big Ten
  Ryan Preisch EIWA
  Shakur Rasheed Big Ten
  Nick Reenan ACC
  Mason Reinhardt Big Ten
  Will Schany ACC
  Noah Stewart EIWA
  Will Sumner Big 12
  Taylor Venz Big Ten
  Cash Wilcke Big Ten
  Dylan Wisman MAC
  Zachary Zavatsky

ACC

 

Based on the above the seeds would end up looking like this.

1 Myles Martin Big10-1
2 Zachary Zavatsky ACC-1
3 Shakur Rasheed Big10-2
4 Nino Bonaccorsi ACC-2
5 Nick Reenan ACC-3
6 Max Dean EIWA-1
7 Emery Parker Big10-3
8 Taylor Venz Big10-4
9 Ryan Preisch EIWA-2
10 Drew Foster Big12-1
11 Sam Colbray Big12-2
12 Lou Deprez EIWA-3
13 Chip Ness ACC-4
14 Cash Wilcke Big10-5
15 Dakota Geer Big12-3
16 Corey Hazel EWL-1
17 Dylan Wisman MAC-1
18 Will Schany ACC-5
19 Nick Gravina Big10-6
20 Max Lyon Big10-7
21 Tanner Harvey EIWA-4
22 Will Sumner Big12-4
23 Mason Reinhardt Big10-8
24 Jackson Hemauer Big12-5
25 Christian LaFragola EIWA-5 
26 Andrew McNally MAC-2
27 Noah Stewart EIWA-6
AL Kevin Parker EIWA
AL Cameron Caffey Big10
AL Tate Samuelson Big12
AL Chris Kober SoCon
AL Bob Coleman Pac12
AL Bob Ducharme Pac12

 

You will notice there are only 27 seeded spots. This is because 2 of the auto qualifier spots came from wrestlers (Coleman and Kober) who did not attain a top 30 ranking. Their spots go into the At Large pool. Any differences between the final seedings and the original rankings are due solely to what happened at the Conference Tournaments. 

Not saying this would make anyone happy, but this would force a wrestler to not MFF at the conf. tournament unless they were willing to drop several seeding spots in some cases. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LHU125 said:
  • The coaches ranking and ranking bias 

That's not a problem IMO.

You get a diverse panel of coaches and their biases will balance out fairly well.

The more realistic problem is when coaches nationally just don't know much about someone.  In those instances, a guy could be under (or over) ranked but I don't believe it is bias or malicious.  It is simply the best judgement of the coaches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we stop determining bids before the season is over?  Determining seeds before conference tournaments?  Determining the number of bids before the conference tournament? 

The conferences provide valuable information.  There is a reason all of the other NCAA sports determine the NCAA tournament field following the conference championships.

Share this post


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

Can we stop determining bids before the season is over?  Determining seeds before conference tournaments?  Determining the number of bids before the conference tournament? 

The conferences provide valuable information.  There is a reason all of the other NCAA sports determine the NCAA tournament field following the conference championships.

Personally, I think a group of media should be used. Just rank them all after conference tournaments. Each conference getting at least 1 guy to keep everyone happy. One added benefit there could be we'd never have to see someone write that dreaded "Seedings Are Not Rankings" stuff again. 

Share this post


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

You acquire points for wins throughout the season and then at the seeding meeting if you have a case like Joe Smith you nominate your guy where you honestly feel appropriate.  Coach Smith wouldn’t have nominated him as the one he would have given his honest assessment.

There is no problem with Joe Smith other than the awarding of bids to conferences before the season is over.  The conference tournament is part of the season and part of the body of work for qualification.  We have removed that with the awarding of bids to conferences prior to the conference tournaments.

Athletes should earn bids not conference.  Undeserving athletes get in to the tournament now because they stole a bid--sometimes simply due to a good wrestler getting injured and deciding not to continue so they don't' risk their NCAA tournament. 

I am fine with that scenario earning an athlete the bid if they are the conference champion.  One of the basic principles of the NCAA is that every conference is guaranteed a slot in the NCAA tournament.  But we are awarding bids to guys who get one win in a conference tournament and finish in 8th place.  That is a problem.

Share this post


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

That's not a problem IMO.

You get a diverse panel of coaches and their biases will balance out fairly well.

The more realistic problem is when coaches nationally just don't know much about someone.  In those instances, a guy could be under (or over) ranked but I don't believe it is bias or malicious.  It is simply the best judgement of the coaches.

 

I get what you're saying but how do you see that as not a problem? Perhaps bias isn't the correct word but there needs to be a third party or an adjustment. I think the politics of every coach reaching out to other coaches to make a deal or reason to have their guy hurts the sport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, LHU125 said:

I get what you're saying but how do you see that as not a problem? Perhaps bias isn't the correct word but there needs to be a third party or an adjustment. I think the politics of every coach reaching out to other coaches to make a deal or reason to have their guy hurts the sport. 

A third party doesn’t have any less bias. 

 

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  

×