Flo's Rankings are atrocious!

[ConnorsDad 480]

Start by saying I'm a big fan of Flowrestling. I love what they've done for the sport and while they're not perfect nobody is. I don't know for sure who did their rankings last year. Maybe it was Willie & maybe it wasn't but their rankings this year are shambolic. Here are a few of the things I have noticed and then I'll give you one specific example from this past week. I haven't had time to look up anymore but I'm sure they're there.

1. Too reactionary to the most recent result. Some guy who's not ranked has a good win and all of a sudden he's halfway up the top 30.

2. People being dropped even though they won all of their matches during a specific week or two between rankings. I know it's not exactly like football but if you rank 24th out of 25 and you have two victories out of two matches in a week/2 weeks, you shouldn't be falling unless there's some really weird going on. If you win, you stay where you're at or move up if somebody above you loses.

3. Head to head trumps everything if my record is better. If I am 10-1 and you are 12-2 and I beat you, there is no way you should be ranked ahead of me.

4. The rankings are totally screwed/biased to the Big 10.

You may not agree with all four of these points but what happened last week I can't see how any objective person  could say that's correct. Here's what happened last week at 184.

Last ranking on Flo (2 weeks ago) - 184. Also, in parentheses beside it is the wrestlers rank on track today which I find much better. Even Wrestlestat, who's algorithm for picking winners is not great because it doesn't take in head-to-head all the time, still has better rankings than Flo.

19. Stewart Army (17)
20. Sebastian  Wisc. (24)
24. Harvey American (16)
NR Lyon Purdue (23)

At their conference tourney:
Stewart finished 4th losing to Weiler 17th & Harvey 24th.

Harvey was 3rd beating Stewart, Stefanik and Loew and losing to Deprez 3-2

Sebastian went 1-2 losing to Webster, beating Braunagel and then ID while losing 11-2 to Jordan.

Lyon lost to Jordan, beat Jasenski and Janzer and then lost to Assad.

So, after that, this weeks rankings:

14. Sebastian +6
21. Lyon +5 at least
23. Harvey +1
24. Stewart -5

What!! I realize this isn't the worst thing in the world but this is a wrestling messageboard. This is effing atrocious. How does a guy who went 1-2 at the Big Ten move up six spots? How does Harvey, who's only loss last week is to the #5 guy in the country, beat 3 ranked wrestlers and get jumped by someone who was not ranked and went 2-2 with 1 ranked win. Stewart, who has a win over Sebastian, drops 5 spots after going 2-2. Stewart beat Stefanik, #22 by Track, while losing to 2 ranked guys and went down 5. Sebastian, beat Braunagel, #15 by Flo, while losing to 2 ranked guys and went UP 6 SPOTS.

Harvey had the best week by far and goes up 1. The other 3 you could pick in any order and it's about the same. The 2 B10 guys went up big and Stewart went down big. SMMFH

This is the 1st weight class I looked at but if this is how their rankings are going to fluctuate, by the seat of their pants, give me the coaches rankings everyday.

[jchapman 913]

1 minute ago, ConnorsDad said:

Start by saying I'm a big fan of Flowrestling. I love what they've done for the sport and while they're not perfect nobody is. I don't know for sure who did their rankings last year. Maybe it was Willie & maybe it wasn't but their rankings this year are shambolic. Here are a few of the things I have noticed and then I'll give you one specific example from this past week. I haven't had time to look up anymore but I'm sure they're there.

1. Too reactionary to the most recent result. Some guy who's not ranked has a good win and all of a sudden he's halfway up the top 30.

2. People being dropped even though they won all of their matches during a specific week or two between rankings. I know it's not exactly like football but if you rank 24th out of 25 and you have two victories out of two matches in a week/2 weeks, you shouldn't be falling unless there's some really weird going on. If you win, you stay where you're at or move up if somebody above you loses.

3. Head to head trumps everything if my record is better. If I am 10-1 and you are 12-2 and I beat you, there is no way you should be ranked ahead of me.

4. The rankings are totally screwed/biased to the Big 10.

You may not agree with all four of these points but what happened last week I can't see how any objective person  could say that's correct. Here's what happened last week at 184.

Last ranking on Flo (2 weeks ago) - 184. Also, in parentheses beside it is the wrestlers rank on track today which I find much better. Even Wrestlestat, who's algorithm for picking winners is not great because it doesn't take in head-to-head all the time, still has better rankings than Flo.

19. Stewart Army (17)
20. Sebastian  Wisc. (24)
24. Harvey American (16)
NR Lyon Purdue (23)

At their conference tourney:
Stewart finished 4th losing to Weiler 17th & Harvey 24th.

Harvey was 3rd beating Stewart, Stefanik and Loew and losing to Deprez 3-2

Sebastian went 1-2 losing to Webster, beating Braunagel and then ID while losing 11-2 to Jordan.

Lyon lost to Jordan, beat Jasenski and Janzer and then lost to Assad.

So, after that, this weeks rankings:

14. Sebastian +6
21. Lyon +5 at least
23. Harvey +1
24. Stewart -5

What!! I realize this isn't the worst thing in the world but this is a wrestling messageboard. This is effing atrocious. How does a guy who went 1-2 at the Big Ten move up six spots? How does Harvey, who's only loss last week is to the #5 guy in the country, beat 3 ranked wrestlers and get jumped by someone who was not ranked and went 2-2 with 1 ranked win. Stewart, who has a win over Sebastian, drops 5 spots after going 2-2. Stewart beat Stefanik, #22 by Track, while losing to 2 ranked guys and went down 5. Sebastian, beat Braunagel, #15 by Flo, while losing to 2 ranked guys and went UP 6 SPOTS.

Harvey had the best week by far and goes up 1. The other 3 you could pick in any order and it's about the same. The 2 B10 guys went up big and Stewart went down big. SMMFH

This is the 1st weight class I looked at but if this is how their rankings are going to fluctuate, by the seat of their pants, give me the coaches rankings everyday.

Now tell us how you really feel!

I’m with you.  When Wick dropped after he went 2-0 with two falls, I stopped considering their rankings.

[TBar1977 3,660]

At one point this year Flo had Nelson Brands ranked 5th while Aaron Brooks was like 25th. Nuff said. 

[Perry 1,146]

I agree, their rankings have seemingly gotten somewhat worse this year 

[LHU125 71]

Intermat has less bias imo and my go to for rankings. No hype, just fair rankings. 

[ionel 1,024]

15 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

At one point this year Flo had Nelson Brands ranked 5th while Aaron Brooks was like 25th. Nuff said. 

Yep, that about sums it up.

That's all I have to say about that.  

:)

[Force118 86]

To be fair the ranker(s) at Flo don’t have a ton of experience. They basically seed the B1G really well at the start of the season and adjust guys up or down based on how they did against their initial rankings-which they then weigh too heavily.

They had Colbray ranked way too high and immediately after Nelson beat him they moved Brands into the top 5. The proper way would be to move Nelson into the top 15-20 and drop Colbray considerably.

I don’t think they watch much tape on those ranked 15-25. I’d be surprised if they have ever seen most of the 2nd tier guys outside the B1G. Yesterday, they said there were a ton of upsets at conference tourneys but its also possible they just suck at rankings.

Edited March 11 by Force118

[russelscout 1,504]

25 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

At one point this year Flo had Nelson Brands ranked 5th while Aaron Brooks was like 25th. Nuff said. 

Brands had beaten a highly ranked wrestler, was starting over a top 10 wrestler in Wilcke, and Brooks hadnt beaten anyone significant. In hindsight it seems silly, but it made sense at the time.

[ConnorsDad 480]

I remember the Brand's thing and thought the same thing. There's just no way I can see bringing somebody that far up. If an unranked college football team beat somebody in the top 10 they wouldn't all of a sudden be number five. I realize football and wrestling aren't the same thing. And I didn't get on to the soapbox because of one of my son's teammates, Tanner Harvey, I was just looking to see where he was ranked and then I saw Sebastian had moved up six spots and I'm like what the hell. When I get home tonight I'm going to look up some more because if that one was that easy to find, I can't imagine there aren't some more. I wasn't able to look but did Willie do their rankings last year or was it a collaborative effort?

[ConnorsDad 480]

1 hour ago, jchapman said:

Now tell us how you really feel!

I’m with you.  When Wick dropped after he went 2-0 with two falls, I stopped considering their rankings.

Sorry I didn't realize it was so long until I'd already copied and pasted

[ConnorsDad 480]

30 minutes ago, LHU125 said:

Intermat has less bias imo and my go to for rankings. No hype, just fair rankings. 

Absolutely. I like intermat, track and even wrestlestat rankings are pretty good. Like I said their algorithm needs a little work in predictions but I like their rankings. I would put the Open Mat a little below them and then this year flo at the bottom. It's amazing because I think intermat as a website has just completely falling off the face of the Earth but I like the rankings.

[Cptafw164 95]

If you listened to the FRL where they went over the EIWAs, you can tell they don’t really follow the EIWA.  There was not even a mention of Jared Prince returning at 149 and the crazy implications that would arise.

[Cptafw164 95]

Wrestlestat is nothing more than a RATING than a RANKING.  Hence the messed up predictions.  You would think that an algorithm would have someone winning if they beat another guy the past three times...nope.

[hammerlockthree 1,659]

Flo needs to break down a adopt the idea that they are professional journalists. This  fratty fanboy things doesn't even get them any inside info, they never break any story first, and it deteriorates their product in a lot of ways. I feel bad saying it, but thats pretty mild criticism for an outlet whose social media consists of flat jokes about eating tacos. 

[Jaroslav Hasek 1,802]

Willie never did NCAA rankings for Flo. I've been doing them with CP since 2017-18 and helped some with the 2016-17 season. CP has gradually stepped back from the role as the seasons went on and then this year they've been pretty much all me all year. it's possible I got much worse at rankings over the summer, but then traffic for the NCAA rankings have never been higher, and that's after we put them behind a paywall, so go figure. 

what we try to do at Flo is be as transparent as possible. we keep archives of the rankings up so you can see how the rankings have changed week over week, and include explanations so you don't have to guess as much at the reasoning. I also use Who's #1 the Show to provide more in depth explanations to the most contentious rankings conundrums on a weekly basis. 

I try not to look at other rankings too closely so as not to be overly influenced one way or another but I do keep tabs on them and feel good about the quality that Flo is publishing. we get LOTS of feedback, from fans, coaches, athletes and athletes families, and we want to be able to provide explanations using consistent methodology. For instance, I tried to address Rusty's complaint on twitter but I guess he found it insufficient. 

It's a pretty common complaint, and there's no way to avoid it in wrestling, especially after the craziest weekend of the year from a rankings perspective. Sometimes guys lose and move up because other guys ranked ahead of them take worse losses. other times guys win and move down because guys ranked below them have better wins. there was a tone of parity this year at 184 outside of the top 10 so counterintuitive moves like that were happening all the time.

and college football is probably the least helpful sport to use when trying to rationalize college wrestling rankings. the two sports are just not comparable. but its very popular and it's what people are familiar with, so we end up having to explain many times over the course of the year why something happened in the rankings that wouldn't necessarily happen in football. I don't mind though, it means college wrestling is gaining popularity. It's when the complaints or questions completely stop that I would really begin to worry! 

[Jaroslav Hasek 1,802]

10 minutes ago, hammerlockthree said:

I feel bad saying it, but thats pretty mild criticism for an outlet whose social media consists of flat jokes about eating tacos. 

I think you're confusing social media accounts, Flo hardly ever mentions tacos on their pages. 

[1032004 569]

4 minutes ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

 

It's a pretty common complaint, and there's no way to avoid it in wrestling, especially after the craziest weekend of the year from a rankings perspective. Sometimes guys lose and move up because other guys ranked ahead of them take worse losses. other times guys win and move down because guys ranked below them have better wins. there was a tone of parity this year at 184 outside of the top 10 so counterintuitive moves like that were happening all the time.

and inside of it! (bolding mine)

[Witherman 350]

I figured Spey would jump in here to defend himself. 

the real problem with Flo rankings is while he will sit here under the guise of being “as objective and transparent as possible” he actually is either A) too lazy or B) not knowledgeable enough to look at rankings BOTH objectively and subjectively to get the best and most accurate end product. (By the way that’s what AP, coaches poll, etc. do). 

the fact that someone could be unranked, beat a #9 and then guess what that person is new #9 is just laughable. Maybe at the very beginning of the season you can get away with it but not this late. 

its constructive criticism Spey - I know Flo works you guys to the bone for not nearly enough money, but if it truly is one of the most trafficked areas of the website it should be one of your top priorities to get better at. 

[Mokoma 220]

1 hour ago, russelscout said:

Brands had beaten a highly ranked wrestler, was starting over a top 10 wrestler in Wilcke, and Brooks hadnt beaten anyone significant. In hindsight it seems silly, but it made sense at the time.

It made no sense at the time and most everyone knew it.

[hammerlockthree 1,659]

21 minutes ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

I think you're confusing social media accounts, Flo hardly ever mentions tacos on their pages. 

instagram

[Schuteandscore 35]

1 minute ago, Witherman said:

I figured Spey would jump in here to defend himself. 

the real problem with Flo rankings is while he will sit here under the guise of being “as objective and transparent as possible” he actually is either A) too lazy or B) not knowledgeable enough to look at rankings BOTH objectively and subjectively to get the best and most accurate end product. (By the way that’s what AP, coaches poll, etc. do). 

the fact that someone could be unranked, beat a #9 and then guess what that person is new #9 is just laughable. Maybe at the very beginning of the season you can get away with it but not this late. 

its constructive criticism Spey - I know Flo works you guys to the bone for not nearly enough money, but if it truly is one of the most trafficked areas of the website it should be one of your top priorities to get better at. 

Not being argumentative here, just think it’s interesting how two people can have such different perspectives, but I feel the majority of the time, not all, but majority rank the opposite.  Guys will lose and move up a spot, or a guy will win and move down.  I think they do a good job of explaining why and don’t see unranked guys just replace a guy with the previous ranking they beat, at least not without explanation, and even then it’s rare.

[TBar1977 3,660]

1 hour ago, russelscout said:

Brands had beaten a highly ranked wrestler, was starting over a top 10 wrestler in Wilcke, and Brooks hadnt beaten anyone significant. In hindsight it seems silly, but it made sense at the time.

Yeah, but Brooks was WAY better and if their ranker had a clue he would not set his rankings up to fail so miserably. 

[nhs67 557]

Meh.

Obviously folks don't listen to FRL.

Which is fine.

Every week Spey 'defended' his rankings with justification.  There is nothing wrong with any of his rankings, honestly. Quit whining.

Does that mean my rankings are the same? No.

I don't trust rankings. There is too large of a human element possible. Ratings are more my style, and in Spey's defense he attempted to mimick ratings as well. Unless the results were there he wouldn't change or move folks too high/low.

[pish6969 262]

Flo’s rankings have been a joke since Spey took over it full time. This isn’t a personal attack on Spey because I realize he works his ass off, I just don’t feel he’s the right person for these rankings. Bratke has too much of a bias against certain teams, Pyles is ok but has biases as well. Nomad is a stat nut but I think he’d be 100% result driven without giving any subjectively. Maybe some new blood? Honestly Willie would be the best but he’s not there anymore.

Many of the criticisms in this thread are 100% spot on.

Get someone in there that can be objective AND subjective. I felt this year for whatever reason the rankings were troll jobs in many cases. I’m a PSU fan and honestly as stupid as some of the rankings seemed to me from a PSU perspective, if I were fans of some other teams I’d feel like I was being trolled big time.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VakAttack 2,421]

People will like whatever rankings most closely align with they're beliefs on what the rankings should be.  Flo is process-based and they are transparent, they are the ones I like the best.  They are pretty good at unifomrly using their rankings process across all weights.  That's all I can ask for.

What shouldn't be lost is that they mean nothing.  They're literally for discussion purposes only.  And Nelson Brands beat two ranked guys (not one) at 184, a volatile weight without a lot of top end returning talent.  So he got a high ranking based off those results, and when he lost, he lost that spot.  Aaron Brooks was hugely talented, but did not have any college results of note, which is why his ranking took some time.  You can't rank someone just based on your belief about their talent level, that's a recipe for disaster.

1 hour ago, pish6969 said:

Get someone in there that can be objective AND subjective. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's so simple.  Be two opposite things at the same time!

Edited March 11 by VakAttack