moveurfeet32 99 Report post Posted February 11 (edited) Thanks Bracketbuster Edited February 11 by moveurfeet32 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bracketbuster 76 Report post Posted February 11 (edited) 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. Edited February 11 by bracketbuster 1 moveurfeet32 reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bracketbuster 76 Report post Posted February 11 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taylor 5 Report post Posted February 11 “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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bracketbuster 76 Report post Posted February 11 (edited) 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 February 11 by bracketbuster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SetonHallPirate 846 Report post Posted February 11 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 1 bracketbuster reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taylor 5 Report post Posted February 11 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. 1 Coachp reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
klehner 447 Report post Posted February 11 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bracketbuster 76 Report post Posted February 11 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TLS62pa 49 Report post Posted February 11 How can they do that with EIWA with Ivy's opted out, which SHOULD make a large impact Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
klehner 447 Report post Posted February 11 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" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bracketbuster 76 Report post Posted February 11 (edited) 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 February 11 by bracketbuster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uncle bernard 622 Report post Posted February 11 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. 1 moveurfeet32 reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SetonHallPirate 846 Report post Posted February 11 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uncle bernard 622 Report post Posted February 11 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? 1 southend reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gimpeltf 1,643 Report post Posted February 11 I hesitate to do this since I'm with EIWA and someone might actually read this but they should have been able to do the same computations with active teams. 5 moveurfeet32, Idaho, uncle bernard and 2 others reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ionel 1,477 Report post Posted February 11 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 ;) 1 SetonHallPirate reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bracketbuster 76 Report post Posted February 11 If nothing else, maybe some not the usual EIWA teams can get some guys to nationals. Thinking like maybe Sacred Heart or LIU. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
moveurfeet32 99 Report post Posted February 11 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bracketbuster 76 Report post Posted February 11 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. 1 moveurfeet32 reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TBar1977 3,953 Report post Posted February 11 I agree with uncle bernard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MadMardigain 1,362 Report post Posted February 11 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LHU125 100 Report post Posted February 12 I mean I think we can all agree that no matter what they came up with people would be upset with the decision. This is the NCAA we're talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Idaho 839 Report post Posted February 12 Let them all in. 64 man bracket. Any out matches and round of 64 are single elimination. 1 cjc007 reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
calot 205 Report post Posted February 12 (edited) 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 February 12 by calot 1 bracketbuster reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites