Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBar1977

Willie Saylor Seeding Idea on FRL Today

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, steamboat_charlie v2 said:

 

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

 

I believe Tbar noted that now they do it randomly so you don't know the slots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, unbiased said:

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.

I have never liked going to a qualifier because the conference tournaments matter and have history.  Or at least they did.  At this point every coach in the country completely ignores the conference element and focuses only on NCAAs.  Guys gladly forfeit their chance at a conference title and schools don't care about conference team titles. 

Just go to a regional system and recognize what coaches already do, conferences don't matter.

Share this post


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

I have never liked going to a qualifier because the conference tournaments matter and have history.  Or at least they did.  At this point every coach in the country completely ignores the conference element and focuses only on NCAAs.  Guys gladly forfeit their chance at a conference title and schools don't care about conference team titles. 

Just go to a regional system and recognize what coaches already do, conferences don't matter.

Or make conference placement a bigger percentage of the seeding puzzle for nationals and they will be forced to care about it. Tell me Tom Ryan doesn't care about BIg Tens (when he wins it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, unbiased said:

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.

Seeing systems will never be perfect but I think this is on the right track towards making them more fair. We are able to verbalize the issue, "reward tougher schedules and punish ducking" so why not adjust the seeding formula accordingly? People say that emphasizing strength of record (SOR) could put wrestlers in danger of competing while injured but that sort of works itself out because coaches won't put an injured wrestler on the mat for the sake of improving their SOR if it means they might get banged up and miss subsequent matches (thereby hurting their SOR rating) or ultimately miss the postseason altogether.

Also we live in a big data world now and I would love to see more sophisticated analytics applied to rankings and seedings. Like why can't we have a Kenpom of wrestling that takes a quantitative swipe at factors like pace, scoring efficiency, scramble win %, weight cut, opponent's strength of schedule, "luck", etc.? That would be a real treat for us sports data nerds, and it would help justify seeding decisions... or maybe add more fuel to the fire, haha.

Edited by pamela
My grammar is awful

Share this post


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

Or make conference placement a bigger percentage of the seeding puzzle for nationals and they will be forced to care about it. Tell me Tom Ryan doesn't care about BIg Tens (when he wins it).

How can you make conference placement matter more when it is approximately 50 times harder to win one conference than all of the others?  When you make conference placement worth more you end up with Brucki seeded over Moore at 197 and a dozen other dumb seeds.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

I agree, Gimp, that the discrepancies in # of AQs by weight by conference would be challenge to say the least.  The other shortcoming of using the PIAA model for NCAA is that it would bring back conference separation - which everyone (except maybe the B1G) agreed was a bad thing.

Share this post


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

How can you make conference placement matter more when it is approximately 50 times harder to win one conference than all of the others?  When you make conference placement worth more you end up with Brucki seeded over Moore at 197 and a dozen other dumb seeds.  

Micic took 6th at Big Tens and is the 2 seed at Nationals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lu_alum said:

I agree, Gimp, that the discrepancies in # of AQs by weight by conference would be challenge to say the least.  The other shortcoming of using the PIAA model for NCAA is that it would bring back conference separation - which everyone (except maybe the B1G) agreed was a bad thing.

Is it not worth the effort to put one of the weight classes out there? I can do it or not do it. I do agree that there isn't going to be a direct correlation between qualifiers and rankings which will cause issues. 

Share this post


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

How can you make conference placement matter more when it is approximately 50 times harder to win one conference than all of the others?  When you make conference placement worth more you end up with Brucki seeded over Moore at 197 and a dozen other dumb seeds.  

I'm not asking for conference placement to be 50% of the criteria but a bigger portion than it is now. You need to do your best to make the entire season relevant for seeding purposes. That is one thing that is missing from the current system.

Share this post


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

So let's come up with an imaginary solution for that problem that doesn't create 10 newer and bigger problems.

So throw in a caveat that will solve any other issues you see coming up. Number of ranked wrestlers in any given weight at a conference. Number of participants in a conference. Automatic bids for a conference. There are ways to work around it but you can't let wrestlers miss a conference tournament without punishing their seed at nationals.

Share this post


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

I'm not asking for conference placement to be 50% of the criteria but a bigger portion than it is now. You need to do your best to make the entire season relevant for seeding purposes. That is one thing that is missing from the current system.

Doing that won't make the entire season matter.  It will instead insure that non Big 10 teams wrestle nobody and let their winning percentage and conference title vault them to a seed they don't deserve (like many Mizzou guys from a year ago were vaulted through no fault of their own...except it will happen far more often if conference title is worth more).

You cannot use a mathematical formula that weighs 1st in the PAC 10 the same as 1st in the Big 10.  It's absurd.  And making that absurd data point more valuable to fix a problem will only create more and different problems.  

Share this post


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

Doing that won't make the entire season matter.  It will instead insure that non Big 10 teams wrestle nobody and let their winning percentage and conference title vault them to a seed they don't deserve (like many Mizzou guys from a year ago were vaulted through no fault of their own...except it will happen far more often if conference title is worth more).

You cannot use a mathematical formula that weighs 1st in the PAC 10 the same as 1st in the Big 10.  It's absurd.  And making that absurd data point more valuable to fix a problem will only create more and different problems.  

It makes it matter more than It does right now. With my idea win % is 5%, that is nothing. That helps prevent those that have undefeated seasons with a cake schedule not as relevant as before.

Share this post


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

It makes it matter more than It does right now. With my idea win % is 5%, that is nothing. That helps prevent those that have undefeated seasons with a cake schedule not as relevant as before.

So your idea to make the whole season matter is to make the conference tournament matter more and the season record matter less.  Good luck with that.  

Share this post


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

So your idea to make the whole season matter is to make the conference tournament matter more and the season record matter less.  Good luck with that.  

Lowering win % hurts those that have a better record (17-0 or 15-2) more then those who are (23-4). I don't see how that makes the regular season matter less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Formulas of any kind that are known ahead of time will lead to coaches catering to the formula and then quitting as soon as they get ahead.  And the only answer inside the formula is to make the end of season tournament worth more.  But in wrestling that is extremely counter productive due to wildly disparate conference strengths.  There is no formula that will fix current problems. 

We can accept current problems that come from use of a formula, we can go back to no formula and send 10 guys into a room to decide seeds, or we can create qualifiers and a matrix.  All have merits and all have problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not expecting to make everyone happy because I am a realist. I also know (as you noted) that coaches are going to try and get away with as much as they can to maximize there potential to win at Nationals. The idea should be to limit their ability to do that and make every match important. Whatever the method may be, there is one out there that will give better results than we see this year. The on e way to fix the National seeding issue is to random draw and make everyone mad. That takes the gaming of the system away but it also make the regular season and conference tournament meaningless. I am not a fan of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a reason that the iowa state tournament moved away from the model suggested.  It doesn't account for upsets at the conference tournaments as well as a couple other things.  It leads to marquee matchups happening in the early rounds which is not good for business.

I don't have the answer for the current system being broken.  Part of me thinks that throwing the premier rankers (flo, intermat, etc) in a room and letting them figure it out is the best option.  They are the ones that are paying attention to every result in every conference for the entire season and even they get it wrong sometimes.

For sure what we have today is broken though.

Share this post


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

there's a reason that the iowa state tournament moved away from the model suggested.  It doesn't account for upsets at the conference tournaments as well as a couple other things.  It leads to marquee matchups happening in the early rounds which is not good for business.

I don't have the answer for the current system being broken.  Part of me thinks that throwing the premier rankers (flo, intermat, etc) in a room and letting them figure it out is the best option.  They are the ones that are paying attention to every result in every conference for the entire season and even they get it wrong sometimes.

For sure what we have today is broken though.

I agree with this, plus it gives us a reason to rip on flo a little more on this forum which we don't have enough of IMO

Share this post


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

I agree with this, plus it gives us a reason to rip on flo a little more on this forum which we don't have enough of IMO

Good for you that you're tolerant of Flo's shortcomings. Your original post and your subsequent posts in discussions of seeding present the same sort of critique that Flo detractors put forth about Flo. Civil discourse, man. Why do you feel so inspired to mock Flo detractors?

Share this post


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

Doing that won't make the entire season matter.  It will instead insure that non Big 10 teams wrestle nobody and let their winning percentage and conference title vault them to a seed they don't deserve (like many Mizzou guys from a year ago were vaulted through no fault of their own...except it will happen far more often if conference title is worth more).

You cannot use a mathematical formula that weighs 1st in the PAC 10 the same as 1st in the Big 10.  It's absurd.  And making that absurd data point more valuable to fix a problem will only create more and different problems.  

My idea does not use a mathematical formula. It uses a consensus of rankings. Suppose in the 149 bracket the Big10 1rst place finisher is ranked #3 going into the tournament, then his NCAA seed is 3. If he gets upset in the tournament and finishes 2nd in the conference tourney, then his seed becomes where ever the 2nd best Big10 wrestler was ranked prior to the tournament. Conversely, if the ranking of the top 149 in the Pac10 was 4, then the winner of the Pac 10 gets the 4 seed. 

Share this post


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

Good for you that you're tolerant of Flo's shortcomings. Your original post and your subsequent posts in discussions of seeding present the same sort of critique that Flo detractors put forth about Flo. Civil discourse, man. Why do you feel so inspired to mock Flo detractors?

Jon, I was just kidding man. I do really believe the media should play a part of our seeding system, but just saw it as a chance to be sarcastic about a common theme on these forums. Believe it or not, I have been plenty critical of Flo in the past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

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.

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...