MonagFam 41 Report post Posted January 21 I was watching the Iowa State vs Missouri dual on ESPN+ this morning. I saw the rankings with Iowa State listed as #8 and Missouri listed as #10. As the event unfolded I noticed that there were only three matches on paper/individual ranking that I felt Iowa State would have been favored to win (they went 1-2 in those matches). It isn't that Missouri won, but rather why, specifically, Iowa State was ranked ahead of them in the first place. I would have anticipated Iowa State having a slight edge in paper (say favorites in 6 matches). Were they missing wrestlers for that match which helped them get to #8? So how do team rankings work in general? Should I anticipate that # 5 should have at least a one or two wrestler edge in paper than #6? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ionel 1,324 Report post Posted January 21 8 minutes ago, MonagFam said: I was watching the Iowa State vs Missouri dual on ESPN+ this morning. I saw the rankings with Iowa State listed as #8 and Missouri listed as #10. As the event unfolded I noticed that there were only three matches on paper/individual ranking that I felt Iowa State would have been favored to win (they went 1-2 in those matches). It isn't that Missouri won, but rather why, specifically, Iowa State was ranked ahead of them in the first place. I would have anticipated Iowa State having a slight edge in paper (say favorites in 6 matches). Were they missing wrestlers for that match which helped them get to #8? So how do team rankings work in general? Should I anticipate that # 5 should have at least a one or two wrestler edge in paper than #6? Which rankings? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nhs67 1,053 Report post Posted January 21 Iowa State did have more higher ranked gents. Gomez at 133, Mackal at 125, their mess at 174/184 were also well ranked in many preseason polls. Mizzou had a few gents not ranked due to wrong weight class or being true frosh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MonagFam 41 Report post Posted January 21 13 minutes ago, nhs67 said: Iowa State did have more higher ranked gents. Gomez at 133, Mackal at 125, their mess at 174/184 were also well ranked in many preseason polls. Mizzou had a few gents not ranked due to wrong weight class or being true frosh. Perhaps some people were out or the rankings displayed next to the wrestlers was wrong. I went back and here were the rankings on the tv coverage (lots of 19s for Miz) and bolded those where ISU had a higher ranking. 125 19 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 133 17 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 141 13 (Miz) vs 5 (ISU) 149 3 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 157 14 (Miz) vs 3 (ISU) 165 13 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 174 19 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 184 19 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 197 19 (Miz) vs 16 (ISU) HWT 8 (Miz) vs 9 (ISU) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nhs67 1,053 Report post Posted January 21 1 hour ago, MonagFam said: Perhaps some people were out or the rankings displayed next to the wrestlers was wrong. I went back and here were the rankings on the tv coverage (lots of 19s for Miz) and bolded those where ISU had a higher ranking. 125 19 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 133 17 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 141 13 (Miz) vs 5 (ISU) 149 3 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 157 14 (Miz) vs 3 (ISU) 165 13 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 174 19 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 184 19 (Miz) vs unranked (ISU) 197 19 (Miz) vs 16 (ISU) HWT 8 (Miz) vs 9 (ISU) I was referring to preseason rankings as a possibility. ISU is down 4 expected starters from then. I didn't go into the weekend expecting anything but a Mizzou victory in at least 5 matches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nhs67 1,053 Report post Posted January 21 Also looking at those rankings and ISU should be abead. 19 doesn't gain anything in a tournament of 33 people in an individual format. The two top 5 rankings of ISU garnered them a higher ranking. That was why @MonagFam. The rankings used are from Individual formatting. Apologies for the confusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MonagFam 41 Report post Posted January 21 1 minute ago, nhs67 said: Also looking at those rankings and ISU should be abead. 19 doesn't gain anything in a tournament of 33 people in an individual format. The two top 5 rankings of ISU garnered them a higher ranking. That was why @MonagFam. The rankings used are from Individual formatting. Apologies for the confusion. So it isn't so much which team is better than it is this is what team would score more points? So it is weighted to top 8 and higher? (Or just enjoy some wrestling and dont worry about rankings until Championship time...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JasonBryant 1,674 Report post Posted January 21 15 minutes ago, MonagFam said: So it isn't so much which team is better than it is this is what team would score more points? So it is weighted to top 8 and higher? (Or just enjoy some wrestling and dont worry about rankings until Championship time...) Use dual meet rankings when watching teams in dual meets - tournament points stink in that regard. The NWCA Coaches Poll is the longest running dual meet ranking in the nation (going back to the late 1950s), while WIN, Flo and InterMat have dual rankings in addition to tournament point rankings. 1 nhs67 reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Billyhoyle 1,988 Report post Posted January 21 21 minutes ago, MonagFam said: So it isn't so much which team is better than it is this is what team would score more points? So it is weighted to top 8 and higher? (Or just enjoy some wrestling and dont worry about rankings until Championship time...) There are two ways to think about it-if you put Mizzou and ISU in a field of 2 teams, Mizzou is better. If you put them in a field of every team, ISU is better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigerfan 161 Report post Posted January 21 24 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said: There are two ways to think about it-if you put Mizzou and ISU in a field of 2 teams, Mizzou is better. If you put them in a field of every team, ISU is better. At least that’s what the rankings at the time would have predicted. Anyone who still believes that is seriously underestimating Mizzou. 1 gallison reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Husker_Du 573 Report post Posted January 21 2 reasons. 1) every set of preseason/early season rankings stink because they play dumb with the individual rankings. 2) team rankings in wrestling are very difficult with dual and tourney having significant disparities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nhs67 1,053 Report post Posted January 21 29 minutes ago, tigerfan said: At least that’s what the rankings at the time would have predicted. Anyone who still believes that is seriously underestimating Mizzou. I do believe Mizzou outplaces ISU at Nationals, however I would not be surprised to see ISU outplace them. In a dual I would take Mizzou even against a full ISU lineup every time right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
