2021 NCAA Tournament Allocations

[moveurfeet32 99]

Thanks Bracketbuster

Edited February 11 by moveurfeet32

[bracketbuster 47]

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

[bracketbuster 47]

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

[taylor 4]

“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.      

[bracketbuster 47]

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

[SetonHallPirate 831]

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

[taylor 4]

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.  

[klehner 395]

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.

[bracketbuster 47]

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.

[TLS62pa 47]

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

[klehner 395]

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"

[bracketbuster 47]

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

[uncle bernard 384]

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.

[SetonHallPirate 831]

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.

[uncle bernard 384]

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?

[gimpeltf 1,521]

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.

[ionel 1,314]

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  ;)

[bracketbuster 47]

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

[moveurfeet32 99]

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

[bracketbuster 47]

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.

[TBar1977 3,818]

I agree with uncle bernard. 

[MadMardigain 1,268]

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.  

[LHU125 97]

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.

[Idaho 790]

Let them all in.  64 man bracket. Any out matches and round of 64 are single elimination. 

[calot 191]

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