Jump to content
calot

Iowa St. Open (merged topic)

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, calot said:

Borrelli,Erisman,Sharratt,Wirnsberger,Eggum,Clemsen,Spates

Gordon,Robie,Gavin,Lausier,Cody,Williams and Branch vote 184

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Your solution for one coach doing something wrong is to have 13 other coaches collude and openly ruin whatever integrity the Coaches Poll has left.  If they do this then they are no better than Dresser.   

 

Share this post


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

Not worried about his seed at NCAA need the spot allocated.He will be in coaches poll top 30 and be in RPI now top 30 which will get him silver and allocate a spot.He can make the seed position up by beating guys at the big 10 tournament

Part of the problem with the system is that this isn't only about him.

Other coaches in your conference have an incentive to help athletes in the conference get a bid because the whole system of conference allocations allows conferences to steal bids.  You want as many guys in your conference to get bids as possible, even if you don't believe those athletes deserve them, because they give an opportunity for your athletes to steal the bids.

If you want your athletes who are not going to earn an allocation to  have the easiest path to getting into the NCAA tournament, you need to help get other kids in your conference allocations.

The current "earning" of bids at conference tournaments is actually about defending your bid or stealing bids from others who actually earned them.  It is such a strange system.

Steps to the process:

1. Award allocations based on the kids who performed good enough during the season (based on the metrics established, which can be manipulated) to be worthy of getting a bid to the NCAA tournament.

2. Give the bid not to the kid who was deemed worthy of earning a spot to the NCAA tournament but to the athlete's conference.

3. Wrestle a tournament where kids who didn't earn a bid can steal bids from those who did earn them by placing higher in the tournament, even if the results of the placement are only a result of seeding or injury defaults.  Only kids in the same conference can steal bids.  No kids outside the conference will have an opportunity to steal the bids.

4. After the bids are defended or stolen.  Give back bids to kids who had their bids stolen because those kids actually deserved to have the bids in the first place by performing good enough during the season (based on the metrics established, which can be manipulated) to be worthy of getting a bid to the NCAA tournament.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 8:30 PM, ConnorsDad said:

However track and field is done against the clock or the measuring tape. It's different in this case.

Agreed.  Completely different.  

It is absurd that wrestling has wins without losses.  Amazing that forfeits in duals count as a win for one wrestler without being at the expense of another wrestler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is the bracket manipulation.  Dresser knew that Coleman was getting injury defaults the first 2 rounds.  Yes it was possible for him to meet up with a Minnesota or SDSU wrestler in the semis and/or finals, and he would have wrestled if that was the case.  I can assure you that the Gopher and Jackrabbit wrestlers in that bracket are walk on, room guys.

 

it is a near mathematical impossibility that the bracket was randomly drawn that way. And if it was seeded, Sebastian should have been on the 1 or 2 seed line.

Share this post


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

Just never thought that Wrestling would get like this thought our sport had more integrity then that.RTCs  have made the arms race  real recruits with cellphones and prepaid credit cards what's next.Wrestling has gone over the ledge.Hope this situation with fixing matches will stop it now.But I have a feeling FLO will make a joke of it today.Like nothing to see here move along. Are you ok with recruits getting phones and prepaid credit cards if someone found away around the rules thru  RTCs ?

None of this is new.  There was a lot of RTC drama in the 80s and 90s.

All of this has been going on for decades.

No one batted an eye at Edinboro redrawing the 184 lbs bracket half way through the tournament was complete to change matchups.

https://gofightingscots.com/news/2012/8/1/GEN_27030.aspx?path=general

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

Part of the problem with the system is that this isn't only about him.

Other coaches in your conference have an incentive to help athletes in the conference get a bid because the whole system of conference allocations allows conferences to steal bids.  You want as many guys in your conference to get bids as possible, even if you don't believe those athletes deserve them, because they give an opportunity for your athletes to steal the bids.

If you want your athletes who are not going to earn an allocation to  have the easiest path to getting into the NCAA tournament, you need to help get other kids in your conference allocations.

The current "earning" of bids at conference tournaments is actually about defending your bid or stealing bids from others who actually earned them.  It is such a strange system.

Steps to the process:

1. Award allocations based on the kids who performed good enough during the season (based on the metrics established, which can be manipulated) to be worthy of getting a bid to the NCAA tournament.

2. Give the bid not to the kid who was deemed worthy of earning a spot to the NCAA tournament but to the athlete's conference.

3. Wrestle a tournament where kids who didn't earn a bid can steal bids from those who did earn them by placing higher in the tournament, even if the results of the placement are only a result of seeding or injury defaults.  Only kids in the same conference can steal bids.  No kids outside the conference will have an opportunity to steal the bids.

4. After the bids are defended or stolen.  Give back bids to kids who had their bids stolen because those kids actually deserved to have the bids in the first place by performing good enough during the season (based on the metrics established, which can be manipulated) to be worthy of getting a bid to the NCAA tournament.

 

Im well aware of how it works.Need to eliminate the coaches poll and take the average of the national polls.How and why would the Air Force coach know what the 184 from Hofstra did?He should be training his guys and worrying about his team.The system in place with the coaches poll is nothing but a buddy system.

Edited by calot

Share this post


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

Im well aware of how it works.Need to eliminate the coaches poll and take the average of the national polls.How and why would the Air Force coach know what the 184 from Hofstra did?He should be training his guys and worrying about his team.The system in place with the coaches poll is nothing but a buddy system.

The coaches poll isn't the problem.  It is the pre-allocation process that is the problem. 

If the athlete is getting awarded a bid in step one, it should be their bid.  The whole stealing of bids is absurd.  If the athlete earned it they should have the bid. 

Simply give an auto-bid to conference champions and then award at-large bids to the best remaining athletes who didn't win their conference.  You know, the process that the majority of NCAA sports use for awarding bids to championships.  You can still use the gold and silver standards to expedite the committee process of allocation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WF89 said:

it is a near mathematical impossibility that the bracket was randomly drawn that way. And if it was seeded, Sebastian should have been on the 1 or 2 seed line.

I think they'll say it was a random draw.   I checked out the others, and 125, 133, 141 appear as if they could have been seeded, but that was about it.   

I don't know about mathematically impossible particularly if talking about 184 specifically, but the odds of Coleman, Carr and Degen all getting first round matches in 9-man brackets had to be pretty low.    Degen and Carr MFF'd out anyway (Degen wrestled twice, Carr just once), but I'm betting they probably left after they were done.

Share this post


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

I think they'll say it was a random draw.   I checked out the others, and 125, 133, 141 appear as if they could have been seeded, but that was about it.   

I don't know about mathematically impossible particularly if talking about 184 specifically, but the odds of Coleman, Carr and Degen all getting first round matches in 9-man brackets had to be pretty low.    Degen and Carr MFF'd out anyway (Degen wrestled twice, Carr just once), but I'm betting they probably left after they were done.

Bracketing 101 in in the United States seems to be to separate teammates first round...

Share this post


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

Well he did also claim one of the guys that injury defaulted was sick so he didn’t want that guy to get Coleman sick.  Then said one of the other guys supposedly got hurt in a match he actually wrestled.   Didn’t explain the 3rd ISU guy that defaulted.

I am glad he allowed his sick wrestler to infect another school's wrestler, but not his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

The coaches poll isn't the problem.  It is the pre-allocation process that is the problem. 

If the athlete is getting awarded a bid in step one, it should be their bid.  The whole stealing of bids is absurd.  If the athlete earned it they should have the bid. 

Simply give an auto-bid to conference champions and then award at-large bids to the best remaining athletes who didn't win their conference.  You know, the process that the majority of NCAA sports use for awarding bids to championships.  You can still use the gold and silver standards to expedite the committee process of allocation.

The way you want it the coaches poll will still matter.It should be eliminated from the allocation process.Its nothing but a I scratch your back you scratch mine system.

Share this post


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

I think they'll say it was a random draw.   I checked out the others, and 125, 133, 141 appear as if they could have been seeded, but that was about it.   

I don't know about mathematically impossible particularly if talking about 184 specifically, but the odds of Coleman, Carr and Degen all getting first round matches in 9-man brackets had to be pretty low.    Degen and Carr MFF'd out anyway (Degen wrestled twice, Carr just once), but I'm betting they probably left after they were done.

Trackwrestling would be able to tell if they were random or manual brackets.Hopefully the NCAA looks into it.But we are supposed to believe that Coleman got his teammate and Sebastian got a bye and then they had each other.He ran a sham open and  told other coaches they were full.Not only did he set the brackets up he setup the competition as well

Share this post


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

The way you want it the coaches poll will still matter.It should be eliminated from the allocation process.Its nothing but a I scratch your back you scratch mine system.

It is only a third of the system.  And coaches from all conferences are represented.  Each weight has a different set of coaches.

There needs to be an "eye test" component where people can see athletes compete and not simply look at data on a spreadsheet.  College basketball and football use administrators to perform this task.  But the MAC commissioner or the Gardner-Webb AD are probably not going to watch enough wrestling around the country to be able to rank them.  Especially if they don't know wrestling.

The coaches component is really only for the highest level of athletes.  The at-large selection process still compares athletes on the bubble and that would remain.  The line has to be drawn somewhere.  I don't have a concern about the #34 ranked wrestler getting a bid and the #32 ranked wrestler (in your opinion) not getting a bid.  That is simply personal preference.

Share this post


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

It is only a third of the system.  And coaches from all conferences are represented.  Each weight has a different set of coaches.

There needs to be an "eye test" component where people can see athletes compete and not simply look at data on a spreadsheet.  College basketball and football use administrators to perform this task.  But the MAC commissioner or the Gardner-Webb AD are probably not going to watch enough wrestling around the country to be able to rank them.  Especially if they don't know wrestling.

The coaches component is really only for the highest level of athletes.  The at-large selection process still compares athletes on the bubble and that would remain.  The line has to be drawn somewhere.  I don't have a concern about the #34 ranked wrestler getting a bid and the #32 ranked wrestler (in your opinion) not getting a bid.  That is simply personal preference.

Use the wrestling polls ( Flo,intermat,track and open mat) average them.Coaches shouldn't be involved.

Share this post


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

Use the wrestling polls ( Flo,intermat,track and open mat) average them.Coaches shouldn't be involved.

No.  You don't use outsiders that aren't accountable within the NCAA framework.   Coaches can face NCAA penalties, the media can not.

Share this post


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

No.  You don't use outsiders that aren't accountable within the NCAA framework.   Coaches can face NCAA penalties, the media can not.

What we saw this weekend from Dresser not sure accountability exists in the NCAA anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Is it a straight up quid pro quo, or does it go "First I need a favor though"

Don't forget about my 125 ...... He's beat so and so and I have my eye on your 157 I see he's best so and so.

Or I will vote your 125 top .... I need my 174 to be top .....

It's a total joke.Yesterday was the day if you could see the texts,emails and call logs from coaches yesterday.They weren't training guys yesterday assistants were it was a phone day.The list is made public it's a free for all

Edited by calot

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...

×
×
  • Create New...