Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBar1977

Willie Saylor Seeding Idea on FRL Today

Recommended Posts

On FRL this morning Willie suggested that NCAA's could be seeded the way the P.I.A.A. does it. Anyone familiar with PIAA seeding knows that the Statewide Bracket is a simple formula. They lay the bracket out so that whomever wins the Southwest Region, call this wrestler SW1, gets slotted into the bracket where it says SW1. Each region and all the placers from that region are pre determined. This makes regional results matter. 

You could do this at the NCAA level by Conference. If you took a consensus of rankings the week before conference tourneys and knew how many conference qualifiers you had, you could combine this information into a pre determined bracket. This way if you want a good seed, you have to wrestle for it at your conference tournament. It makes conference tournaments matter. 

Any thoughts? 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


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

On FRL this morning Willie suggested that NCAA's could be seeded the way the P.I.A.A. does it. Anyone familiar with PIAA seeding knows that the Statewide Bracket is a simple formula. They lay the bracket out so that whomever wins the Southwest Region, call this wrestler SW1, gets slotted into the bracket where it says SW1. Each region and all the placers from that region are pre determined. This makes regional results matter. 

You could do this at the NCAA level by Conference. If you took a consensus of rankings the week before conference tourneys and knew how many conference qualifiers you had, you could combine this information into a pre determined bracket. This way if you want a good seed, you have to wrestle for it at your conference tournament. It makes conference tournaments matter. 

Any thoughts? 

I like the idea, but I would like to see a mock bracket first to see how this tournament would have laid out as a result of that seeding criteria. Will you get on that Tbar?

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bascially seed the conference champs and then cross bracket the runners up based on the order of the champs and so on..

No seeding system will be perfect but its really depends on what the ultimate goal is for the brackets.

The problem then is wrestlers/coaches will intentionally forfeit placement matches to avoid being on the same side as their champs...

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


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

Does PIAA not have the same number of qualifiers by region and weight?

yes

For AAA there are 5 regions

North East 4 qualifiers

South East 5 qualifiers

South Central 4 qualifiers

South West 4 qualifiers

North West 3 qualifiers

 

 

For AA there are 4 regions

North East 4 qualifiers

South East 6 qualifiers

North West 4 qualifiers

South West 6 qualifiers

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory this sounds ok but the guy who wins big ten and the guy who wins socon are equals in the eyes of this rational. So say the 5th guy out of the big ten would wrestle the 1 seed from the socon and beats him would take over that seed. IMO that would put a premium on that 5 seed out of the big ten to get that good draw. 

Share this post


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

In theory this sounds ok but the guy who wins big ten and the guy who wins socon are equals in the eyes of this rational. So say the 5th guy out of the big ten would wrestle the 1 seed from the socon and beats him would take over that seed. IMO that would put a premium on that 5 seed out of the big ten to get that good draw. 

Thats why you seed the conference champs and then follow the formula from there. Its not a purely fixed bracket. With that said, I agree with you that this format has its flaws as well.Lets say you're in the Big Ten 184 you would intentionally forfeit your placement match to be seeded away from MyMar..

Share this post


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

Thats why you seed the conference champs and then follow the formula from there. Its not a purely fixed bracket. With that said, I agree with you that this format has its flaws as well.Lets say you're in the Big Ten 184 you would intentionally forfeit your placement match to be seeded away from MyMar..

In PA the regional tournaments are somewhat equal college conference tournaments are not even close to being equal. The current system can work with a few tweeks. First get rid of coaches rankings, they don’t have time to do homework on everybody they should involve the media rankers. Second more transparency, we need to know more about the process. Third they should take their time and get it right, no need to rush these things out. Maybe have them out by Saturday it would suck for us but I’d rather them be right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flo critique of NCAA-seeding shortcomings is thoughtful, focused, fair, oriented towards improvement. Sounds a lot like forum critique of Flo shortcomings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ogalthorpe Haywood said:

In theory this sounds ok but the guy who wins big ten and the guy who wins socon are equals in the eyes of this rational. So say the 5th guy out of the big ten would wrestle the 1 seed from the socon and beats him would take over that seed. IMO that would put a premium on that 5 seed out of the big ten to get that good draw. 

No they are not. I can devote more time to this later, but a brief summary. 

Let's say the consensus ranking, not seeding but ranking, for the Big10 number 1, is 1. Take this year's 125lbs class. The week before conference tourney's Rivera is ranked 1. So by virtue of that ranking the Big10 first place finisher at the conference tourney, whether it is Rivera or Spencer Lee, gets the 1 seed at NCAA's. If the top ranked So Con 125 is consensus ranked 10th the week before the conference tourneys then the winner of the So Con 125 bracket gets the 10 seed at NCAA's. 

Share this post


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

I like the idea, but I would like to see a mock bracket first to see how this tournament would have laid out as a result of that seeding criteria. Will you get on that Tbar?

I am actually going to do this for one weight class before the day ends. I'll provide an actual example. 

Share this post


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

No they are not. I can devote more time to this later, but a brief summary. 

Let's say the consensus ranking, not seeding but ranking, for the Big10 number 1, is 1. Take this year's 125lbs class. The week before conference tourney's Rivera is ranked 1. So by virtue of that ranking the Big10 first place finisher at the conference tourney, whether it is Rivera or Spencer Lee, gets the 1 seed at NCAA's. If the top ranked So Con 125 is consensus ranked 10th the week before the conference tourneys then the winner of the So Con 125 bracket gets the 10 seed at NCAA's. 

If this is the case, the NCAA seeds are gonna look a whole lot like B1G Tourney results.  I'm not saying that is a bad thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TBar1977 said:

I am actually going to do this for one weight class before the day ends. I'll provide an actual example. 

Awesome! I think what your getting at would certainly help. It seems to help issues with not wrestling at conference, but would also fix the problem in Cassers situation where he is hurt by winning the toughest conference. Many don't think thats a big deal, but I think a win over the #1 guy at conference should trump a head to head loss that happened earlier in the year, especially if you are supposedly putting more value in a conference tourney performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As LU_Alum pointed out in another thread, the regional champs are seeded by formula and ranked A/B/C/D (and E in  AAA with 5 regions). And then they are placed with minor adjustments into a single pattern not based on conference but by conference champ seeding. But in the PIAA they all have nearly similar qualifier numbers (3-5 for AAA and 4-6 for AA). I don't think this would work in NCAAs as the qualifier numbers are way too variant to come up with a simple pattern. Perhaps a pattern for the champs, then for the seconds, etc. Not sure this wouldn't cause problems though also.

Share this post


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

If this is the case, the NCAA seeds are gonna look a whole lot like B1G Tourney results.  I'm not saying that is a bad thing...

Not necessarily. If the top 10 ranked wrestlers in any bracket are spread out over multiple conferences then the seeds would also be spread out. Keep in mind also that my little system here would average the rankings. 

Share this post


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

As LU_Alum pointed out in another thread, the regional champs are seeded by formula and ranked A/B/C/D (and E in  AAA with 5 regions). And then they are placed with minor adjustments into a single pattern not based on conference but by conference champ seeding. But in the PIAA they all have nearly similar qualifier numbers (3-5 for AAA and 4-6 for AA). I don't think this would work in NCAAs as the qualifier numbers are way too variant to come up with a simple pattern. Perhaps a pattern for the champs, then for the seconds, etc. Not sure this wouldn't cause problems though also.

There would be weaknesses for sure. The auto qualifier spots are not going to line up symmetrically with the rankings. That is the biggest hurdle, imo. But maybe it can be tweaked somehow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main two issues of seeding/qualifying right now imo:

  • Zero penalty for MFF's (whether they're genuine or ducking)
  • The coaches ranking and ranking bias

Fixing these two components may help the process and prevent abuse of the system. However, I believe the current length of the season creates further abuse of whatever system is in place. Coaches will always find loopholes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a terrible idea if you are qualifying out of conferences.  If you were to make 4 balanced regional qualifers that each qualified 8 guys (or something similar), then I'd have no problem with a matrix.  Or even 4 qualifiers that qualified 4 guys each for the 16 seeds, and then 17 at large guys drawn in randomly.  

But to have a matrix off of the current conference system doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

You could do this at the NCAA level by Conference. If you took a consensus of rankings the week before conference tourneys and knew how many conference qualifiers you had, you could combine this information into a pre determined bracket. This way if you want a good seed, you have to wrestle for it at your conference tournament. It makes conference tournaments matter. 

Pre-determined bracket slots would open things up to more forfeiting and gamesmanship, not less.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea splitting up the conference tournament into regions or seeding them strictly off of conference tournament placement. Here is my proposal.

Seeding the NCAA tournament in 2020

 

1) Head to Head competition = 25%

2) Qualifying event placement = 25%

3) Quality wins = 20 %

4) Coaches Rankers ranking = 15%

5) Results against common opponents = 5%

6) RPI = 5%

7) Win percentage = 5%

The 2019 Season and all other previous seasons should only count for your initial ranking at the beginning of the year. ( I don't want any talk of what someone did the previous year(s) after the first week of the 2020 season. (It no longer matters for ranking or seeding purposes in the future, get over it). You should be docked for missing matches, It doesn't matter if you have a Dr.'s excuse or not. MFF does not count as a loss in a tournament setting but it is noted what place you finished in that tournament. (ex. CKLV you make it to the semi's and MFF out to 6th place you do not have a loss on your record but your placement counts as missed matches and your placement for the tournament is 25% of your seeding criteria as stated above). If you MFF out your opponent gets the credit for the win but not credit for the win against the ducking opponent. Recency bias is something that is taken into account (still). A loss in November does not hurt you as bad as a loss in February.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, boconnell said:

I think this is a terrible idea if you are qualifying out of conferences.  If you were to make 4 balanced regional qualifers that each qualified 8 guys (or something similar), then I'd have no problem with a matrix.  Or even 4 qualifiers that qualified 4 guys each for the 16 seeds, and then 17 at large guys drawn in randomly.  

But to have a matrix off of the current conference system doesn't work.

Just listened to a bit of FRL, it actually sounds like this is what Willie is suggesting.

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  

×