Jump to content
moveurfeet32

2021 NCAA Tournament Allocations

Recommended Posts

I think they seriously didn't realize which conference is missing teams or they just did numbers based off of solely MAC and did not include EWL. Here are the previous 5 year averages and what they got this year:

ACC: 34.2; 33 this year
Big 12: 45.0; 45
Big 10: 77.0; 76
EIWA: 46.4; 45
MAC/EWL: 47.4; 35
PAC 12: 19.4; 19
SoCon: 13.8; 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The committee knew that there wasn’t going to be enough regular-season competition to utilize the existing process where wrestlers earned pre-allocations for their conference based on regular season performance,” said Karen Langston, senior associate athletics director at California State University, Bakersfield and chair of the wrestling committee. “The option to utilize the five-year historical average was an equitable alternative, and the way it worked out has opened more at-large spots this year for deserving wrestlers who don’t qualify through their conference tournament.”

 

Big 10 and the EIWA made out like bandits.  EIWA really made out.   Does not look like they added the MAC and EWL together.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EIWA gets incredibly lucky. Big 10 just got its average. I will have to look at this later but EIWA gets 6 bids at 184. The sixth ranked kid in the conference at 184 is ranked 61st according to wrestlestat. They're are only 71 teams competing.

Edited by bracketbuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, compared to the coaches' ranking, the Big Ten is the most underallocated, by 17 spots, and while the EIWA did make out like bandits (overallocated by 20), the MAC really didn't get hurt by the allocation process (overallocated by 3).

Note that the allocations aren't apples-to-apples, as we were looking at the CR determining all 290 bids, whereas the NCAA Committee allocated 266, and held an additional 24 back for the at-large selection process.

By the coaches' ranking:

ACC: 2, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3, 5, 5, 4 = 42, underallocated by 9
Big 12: 6, 8, 6, 4, 6, 4, 8, 5, 6, 7 = 60, underallocated by 15
Big Ten: 12, 7, 8, 12, 9, 9, 10, 10, 8, 8 = 93, underallocated by 17
EIWA: 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 1, 2, 4, 2 = 25, overallocated by 20
MAC: 3, 3, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 5 = 32, overallocated by 3
Pac-12: 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2 = 21, underallocated by 2
SoCon: 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1 = 17, underallocated by 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said:

Ironically, compared to the coaches' ranking, the Big Ten is the most underallocated, by 17 spots, and while the EIWA did make out like bandits (overallocated by 20), the MAC really didn't get hurt by the allocation process (overallocated by 3).

Note that the allocations aren't apples-to-apples, as we were looking at the CR determining all 290 bids, whereas the NCAA Committee allocated 266, and held an additional 24 back for the at-large selection process.

By the coaches' ranking:

ACC: 2, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3, 5, 5, 4 = 42, underallocated by 9
Big 12: 6, 8, 6, 4, 6, 4, 8, 5, 6, 7 = 60, underallocated by 15
Big Ten: 12, 7, 8, 12, 9, 9, 10, 10, 8, 8 = 93, underallocated by 17
EIWA: 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 1, 2, 4, 2 = 25, overallocated by 20
MAC: 3, 3, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 5 = 32, overallocated by 3
Pac-12: 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2 = 21, underallocated by 2
SoCon: 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1 = 17, underallocated by 4

  If you are in the Big 10 you always get that edge.  There are guys in those coaching rankings that are not proven and are ranked because of what school they go to and what conference they are in.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, bracketbuster said:

20 minutes ago: https://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling/article/2021-02-11/ncaa-releases-pre-allocations-and-first-coaches-ranking-2021-division-i-wrestling

EIWA didn't get punished at all it seems for almost half the conference missing.

Absurd.  The EIWA (according to Flo rankings) has all of twenty guys ranked in the top 25, one guy in the top 5, and six in the top 10.  They've earned no more than fifteen slots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I count 11 bids the EIWA is getting at different weights where they don't have one of those spots ranked in the top 33.

Big 10 has 13 guys ranked in the top 25 who wouldn't earn if pre-allocation if the coaches ranking reflected their placement at the conference tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TLS62pa said:

How can they do that with EIWA with Ivy's opted out, which SHOULD make a large impact

If you read above:  The option to utilize the five-year historical average was an equitable alternative"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following people would not earn pre-allocated spots at their conference tournament if the placing followed the coaches rank.

17 Cole Matthews Pittsburgh ACC 141
23 Sam Hillegas Virginia Tech ACC 141
28 Luke Kemerer Pittsburgh ACC 149
31 Ed Scott NC State ACC 149
11 Jake Keating Virginia ACC 165
17 Thomas Bullard NC State ACC 165
22 Devin Kane North Carolina ACC 184
24 Gregg Harvey Pittsburgh ACC 184
18 Max Shaw North Carolina ACC 197
29 Stanley Smeltzer Virginia Tech ACC 197
27 Cody Phippen Air Force Big 12 125
17 Job Greenwood Wyoming Big 12 133
18 Brandon Ty Smith Utah Valley Big 12 133
19 Ryan Sullivan West Virginia Big 12 133
27 Kellyn March North Dakota St. Big 12 133
30 Anthony Madrigal Oklahoma Big 12 133
31 Haiden Drury Fresno St. Big 12 133
33 Zach Redding Iowa St. Big 12 133
22 Lenny Petersen Air Force Big 12 141
24 Dusty Hone Oklahoma St. Big 12 141
30 Chase Zollmann Wyoming Big 12 141
32 Christopher Sandoval Northern Colorado Big 12 141
13 Wyatt Sheets Oklahoma St. Big 12 157
18 Cade DeVos South Dakota St. Big 12 157
19 Jacob Wright Wyoming Big 12 157
22 Jackson Hemauer Northern Colorado Big 12 174
23 Julien Broderson Iowa St. Big 12 174
25 Cody Surratt Air Force Big 12 174
27 Anthony Mantanona Oklahoma Big 12 174
31 Cade King South Dakota St. Big 12 174
28 Darrien Roberts Oklahoma Big 12 184
30 Hunter Cruz Fresno St. Big 12 184
24 Jacob Seely Northern Colorado Big 12 197
30 Keegan Moore Northern Iowa Big 12 197
32 Yonger Bastida Pomares Iowa St. Big 12 197
25 Austin Harris Oklahoma St. Big 12 285
28 Wyatt Hendrickson Air Force Big 12 285
16 Justin Cardani Illinois Big Ten 125
19 Eric Barnett Wisconsin Big Ten 125
20 Brock Hudkins Indiana Big Ten 125
29 Nic Aguilar Rutgers Big Ten 125
20 Brock Hardy Nebraska Big Ten 149
21 Mike Van Brill Rutgers Big Ten 149
23 Luke Gardner Penn St. Big Ten 149
24 Drew Scharenbrock Wisconsin Big Ten 149
26 Michael Blockhus Minnesota Big Ten 149
28 Elijah Cleary Ohio St. Big Ten 157
25 Nick South Indiana Big Ten 165
33 Gerrit Nijenhuis Purdue Big Ten 165
26 Drew Hughes Michigan St. Big Ten 174
29 Jared Krattiger Wisconsin Big Ten 174
32 DJ Shannon Illinois Big Ten 174
16 Max Lyon Purdue Big Ten 184
17 Rocky Jordan Ohio St. Big Ten 184
23 Gavin Hoffman Ohio St. Big Ten 197
25 Billy Janzer Rutgers Big Ten 197
16 Seth Nevills Penn St. Big Ten 285
32 Micah Roes Binghamton EIWA 125
32 Alex Carida Bloomsburg MAC 157
33 Johnny Lovett Central Michigan MAC 157
30 Colt Yinger Ohio MAC 165
21 Mason Kauffman Northern Illinois MAC 174
33 Angel Garcia Rider MAC 174
33 DeAndre Nassar Cleveland St. MAC 184
28 Gage Braun Northern Illinois MAC 197
23 Sam Schuyler Buffalo MAC 285
26 Jon Spaulding Edinboro MAC 285
30 Colton McKiernan SIU Edwardsville MAC 285
32 Max Ihry Northern Illinois MAC 285
30 Jackson DiSario Stanford Pac 12 125
22 Devan Turner Oregon St. Pac 12 133
24 Jason Miranda Stanford Pac 12 133
26 Paul Bianchi Little Rock Pac 12 133
27 Lawrence Saenz Cal Poly Pac 12 141
29 Angelo Martinoni CSU Bakersfield Pac 12 141
32 Cory Crooks Arizona St. Pac 12 149
29 Ryan Reyes Oregon St. Pac 12 184
31 Cade Belshay Arizona St. Pac 12 184
21 Fabian Gutierrez Chattanooga SoCon 125
29 Selwyn Porter The Citadel SoCon 149
30 Cody Bond Appalachian St. SoCon 157
23 Rodrick Mosley Gardner-Webb SoCon 165
28 Andrew Nicholson Chattanooga SoCon 165
14 Austin Murphy Campbell SoCon 174
33 Tyler Mousaw VMI SoCon 197
Edited by bracketbuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievably lazy. I can't believe they did this. Do it the same as every year. Sure, some guys didn't get a chance to prove themselves, but that just means it rewards guys who have proved themselves in past years and thus are in the rankings. Now you've created a situation where guys who shouldn't sniff the tournament will go just because their weight was good during the last 5 years which has nothing to do with this year.

Share this post


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

Unbelievably lazy. I can't believe they did this. Do it the same as every year. Sure, some guys didn't get a chance to prove themselves, but that just means it rewards guys who have proved themselves in past years and thus are in the rankings. Now you've created a situation where guys who shouldn't sniff the tournament will go just because their weight was good during the last 5 years which has nothing to do with this year.

They couldn’t do it like every year, due to the number of matches wrestled. The number of guys with 15 matches is probably countable on one hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said:

They couldn’t do it like every year, due to the number of matches wrestled. The number of guys with 15 matches is probably countable on one hand.

I understand that, but in this scenario you make an adjustment to the existing system, not throw it out completely. If you have to use 100% coaches rankings, that's still infinitely better than what they did.

The problem: "Because of a lack of data, our usual method will likely yield results that are likely to be slightly less accurate than usual."

Their solution: "We're going to MAKE SURE we have results that are drastically less accurate than usual by basing our results 100% on data that has nothing to do with this season."

It's a joke. Did nobody think to ask them if they'd lost their minds?

Share this post


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

Ironically, compared to the coaches' ranking, the Big Ten is the most underallocated,

By the coaches' ranking:


Big Ten: 12, 7, 8, 12, 9, 9, 10, 10, 8, 8 = 93, underallocated by 17

idk: receiving 12 spots for a conference of "ten" looks like overallocated to me  ;)

Share this post


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

If nothing else, maybe some not the usual EIWA teams can get some guys to nationals. Thinking like maybe Sacred Heart or LIU.

Have you watched those teams? I still can't imagine them having a Qualifier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, moveurfeet32 said:

Have you watched those teams? I still can't imagine them having a Qualifier

I am trying to find the positive in this ... Don't bog down my argument with reality.

EIWA gets six at 184. Come on Joe Acousti! 3-1 in conference matches. I somewhat joke but for some of these programs to stick around it would be good for them to be showcased on the national stage. On the other hand, MAC has some similar programs and it will be harder than ever for those kinds of schools to qualify kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I’m sure several others are thinking I wouldn’t mind seeing a few less automatic conference qualifiers from all conferences.  Then evaluating the rest of the entires bases in season matches, as well as, the level of competition they were able to beat at their conference event.  I’m sure for most weight it ends up evening out, but for a few of them these allotments are going to less some less talented guys in and as a result leave some guys capable of winning a few matches out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bracketbuster said:

I am trying to find the positive in this ... Don't bog down my argument with reality.

EIWA gets six at 184. Come on Joe Acousti! 3-1 in conference matches. I somewhat joke but for some of these programs to stick around it would be good for them to be showcased on the national stage. On the other hand, MAC has some similar programs and it will be harder than ever for those kinds of schools to qualify kids.

157 gets 5 as well.Theyve a NJ state champ at 157 Palumbo beat Cabinillas Brown in the state finals

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...