Jump to content
moveurfeet32

2021 NCAA Tournament Allocations

Recommended Posts

5 hours 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.

But why? We want the best wrestlers, not novelty selections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But why? We want the best wrestlers, not novelty selections.

This argument isn't that compelling to me. The "best" wrestlers are going to be there no matter what. That's what happens when half of D1 starters qualify. If the 48th guy qualifies and the 30th misses out, have we really kept the "best" guys out?

I'm more concerned that the wrestlers qualify who have earned it with their performance, so I agree that the allocation should at least be fixed to account for which teams are trying to qualify. The 30th guy should be in the field because he earned his way into the top 33, not because of some thought that he is part of the "best" of D1 wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really need to just get over the allocations. They are what they are at this point. However, I looking at this more tonight and looking at BY TEAM who qualified the allocations over the past five years. I took out all of the Ivies + F&M + all cut programs and assigned all the UNI bids to the Big 12 for all years, etc. just to see what it would look like if we had done this more realistically for the teams that are actually competing this year.

Here is the allocation average by weight over the past five years for the team's currently competing in their current conference.

image.png.b0adf254afa8ee7896b8409710c331a9.png 

If you assign the numbers proportionately to get to an even 29 per weight (which they said they were going to do). You get the following allocations.

image.png.417586676372a0ad4c6739cdffaec830.png

Using this method, the following changes would be made to what was actually released. So the MAC was not hindered as much as I thought based off this year's data but UNI's bids are counting in the Big 12 averages. Willie touched on this during his show and it really got my working on this tonight.
ACC +5
Big 12 +2
Big 10 +9
EIWA: -14
MAC: -9
PAC 12: +3
SoCon: +3

Using Pirate's top 29 above, here is how by weight they would have been under/over allocated. Positive means they would have gotten too many. I found this interesting because the EIWA was not punished at all and if they had weighed Cornell's loss, plus Penn's loss, etc. by team, they still would have gotten too many bids based on this year's data. The Ivies are strong but also Lehigh being down skews this data as they are historically very strong. This year was never going to be perfect but except for the few cases where the Big 10 and MAC are under/over allocated, that could have been somewhat fixed in at-larges. Plus the Big 10 and MAC seem to cause the biggest issues and I don't really think they Big 10 needs 12 qualifier in a weight like the coaches ranking suggests at 125 and 149. MAC would have been punished by 133 and 149 being historically weaker than they are this year.

image.png.103e7123d8d38c317f4a9279e41cf567.png

This is just the first chart but somehow I can't delete it.

image.png

Edited by bracketbuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how many allocations teams have earned over the past five years:

ACC: North Carolina State - 44; Virginia Tech - 39; North Carolina - 31; Pittsburgh - 23; Virginia 21; Duke - 13
Big 12: Oklahoma State - 42; Northern Iowa - 28; Oklahoma - 24; Wyoming - 24; Iowa State - 23 South Dakota State - 23; North Dakota State - 20; Utah Valley - 16; Northern Colorado- 14; West Virginia - 10; Fresno State - 9; Air Force - 2
Big 10:  Iowa - 43; Ohio State - 43; Penn State - 41; Nebraska - 39; Minnesota - 32; Michigan - 31; Wisconsin - 29; Illinois - 28; Rutgers - 28; Purdue - 26; Northwestern - 18; Indiana - 11; Michigan State - 10; Maryland - 6
EIWA: Lehigh - 40; Cornell - 28; Navy - 23; Princeton - 23; Army - 22; American - 16; Penn - 16; Bucknell - 14; Drexel - 13; Columbia - 10; Binghamton - 8; Brown - 8; Harvard - 6; Hofstra - 3; Franklin & Marshall - 2; LIU - 0; Sacred Heart - 0
MAC: Missouri - 42; Central Michigan - 29; Edinboro - 19; Lock Haven - 19; Ohio - 18; Rider - 18; Buffalo - 13; Kent State - 10; Clarion - 8; Northern Illinois - 8; Cleveland State - 5; George Mason - 5; Southern Illinois Edwardsville - 4; Bloomsburg - 1; EWL Auto - 6
PAC 12: Stanford - 28; Arizona State - 27; Oregon State - 17; CSU Bakersfield - 15; Cal Poly - 4; Little Rock - 0; PAC 12 Auto - 5
SoCon: Campbell - 16; Appalachian State - 15; Chattanooga - 11; Gardner-Webb - 8; Citadel - 4; VMI - 3; Davidson - 0; Presbyterian - 0; SoCon Auto - 11

Old Dominion - 17; Eastern Michigan - 6; Boise State -1

Share this post


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

Here is how many allocations teams have earned over the past five years:

ACC: North Carolina State - 44; Virginia Tech - 39; North Carolina - 31; Pittsburgh - 23; Virginia 21; Duke - 13
Big 12: Oklahoma State - 42; Northern Iowa - 28; Oklahoma - 24; Wyoming - 24; Iowa State - 23 South Dakota State - 23; North Dakota State - 20; Utah Valley - 16; Northern Colorado- 14; West Virginia - 10; Fresno State - 9; Air Force - 2
Big 10:  Iowa - 43; Ohio State - 43; Penn State - 41; Nebraska - 39; Minnesota - 32; Michigan - 31; Wisconsin - 29; Illinois - 28; Rutgers - 28; Purdue - 26; Northwestern - 18; Indiana - 11; Michigan State - 10; Maryland - 6
EIWA: Lehigh - 40; Cornell - 28; Navy - 23; Princeton - 23; Army - 22; American - 16; Penn - 16; Bucknell - 14; Drexel - 13; Columbia - 10; Binghamton - 8; Brown - 8; Harvard - 6; Hofstra - 3; Franklin & Marshall - 2; LIU - 0; Sacred Heart - 0
MAC: Missouri - 42; Central Michigan - 29; Edinboro - 19; Lock Haven - 19; Ohio - 18; Rider - 18; Buffalo - 13; Kent State - 10; Clarion - 8; Northern Illinois - 8; Cleveland State - 5; George Mason - 5; Southern Illinois Edwardsville - 4; Bloomsburg - 1; EWL Auto - 6
PAC 12: Stanford - 28; Arizona State - 27; Oregon State - 17; CSU Bakersfield - 15; Cal Poly - 4; Little Rock - 0; PAC 12 Auto - 5
SoCon: Campbell - 16; Appalachian State - 15; Chattanooga - 11; Gardner-Webb - 8; Citadel - 4; VMI - 3; Davidson - 0; Presbyterian - 0; SoCon Auto - 11

Old Dominion - 17; Eastern Michigan - 6; Boise State -1

The 17 ODU and 6 EMU bids went to the MAC. And well as the 18 from UNI.  Some coaches would like to be able to vote as a conference to move allocations from one weight to another. Coaches say this is a different year using historical data over 5 years doesn't address having a very deep weight vs a weak weight.  Big 12 149 & 165 arent deep weights  while 133 is really deep 11 guys in the  top 33.  Coaches are saying we know our conference better then anyone so why can't we vote to move the allocations to a different weight. Obviously in a typical year no need to do that because the data is taken from the current year which would address that issue 

Edited by calot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, calot said:

Coaches are saying we know our conference better then anyone so why can't we vote to move the allocations to a different weight. 

Because then weights would end up unbalanced numerically. That may or may not be a problem given that we only balanced them a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Because then weights would end up unbalanced numerically. That may or may not be a problem given that we only balanced them a few years ago.

That was my first thought as well 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 2:59 PM, bracketbuster said:

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

Good data... If they are going to do it this way, there’s absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t have included the combination of the MAC and the EWL, and they should have taken into account all the teams missing from the EIWA. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 3:10 PM, 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

Good point too. But one factor that would skew that data are teams or wrestlers that did not compete enough to get in the coaches ranking. For example, I know Lock Haven in the MAC has no matches and none of them are ranked. So just with that factored in, the MAC is probably under allocated but not by as much as I would have thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eagle26 said:

Good data... If they are going to do it this way, there’s absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t have included the combination of the MAC and the EWL, and they should have taken into account all the teams missing from the EIWA. 
 

UNI,ODU and EMU had 41 bids to NCAA over the 5 year period and the MAC got those as well. So that's a extra 8.2 bids this year. And EWL would be 13 bids. So MAC maybe was down 5 bids. The issue is everything was spelled out for the coaches in the manual months ago and nobody said a word. Now coaches are complaining and want change but they didn't read the rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, these are the guys who most harmed. I took the chart on Rokfin of guys who would still need at-larges if the placements followed coaches rankes and then took out the top 6 or 7 coaches rankings remaining depending on how many at-large bids a weight has. These are the guys who will not advance to the NCAA Tournament without pulling an upset at the conference tournament. Of course this is imperfect because it implies coaches rankings are the only criteria and of course they are not. It doesn't look terrible right now but bids are always stolen at the conference tournaments and this year you could have top seeds sitting out due to COVID protocols and that bid is not going back into the NCAA at-large pool as far as I know.

I guess the other thing I sometimes have conflicting thoughts about is that I treat the top 33 like a hard and fast 33 and how much effort do the coaches really put into the 25-33 rankings when they do these? Really those are the most important and probably the hardest to do. That is a very valid point raised on Willie's show yesterday I thought.

image.png.6b25497a6db24107b9546b82625660e8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, calot said:

The issue is everything was spelled out for the coaches in the manual months ago and nobody said a word. Now coaches are complaining and want change but they didn't read the rules

I don't get the coaches materials/emails obviously but the pre-championship manual and qualifying documents posted on the NCAA website were anything but clear. It listed the data but nowhere did it say we are ignoring the fact that 41% of the EIWA teams have opted out in the public documents. I have heard this stated but I find it hard to believe that no coaches or staff read the manual. It really only takes is one coach out of 77 to notice this and it would have become a thing I have to believe as coaches talk. A large part of their job performance is based on how they do at nationals and so that would be something they would be interested in.

Share this post


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

I don't get the coaches materials/emails obviously but the pre-championship manual and qualifying documents posted on the NCAA website were anything but clear. It listed the data but nowhere did it say we are ignoring the fact that 41% of the EIWA teams have opted out in the public documents. I have heard this stated but I find it hard to believe that no coaches or staff read the manual. It really only takes is one coach out of 77 to notice this and it would have become a thing I have to believe as coaches talk. A large part of their job performance is based on how they do at nationals and so that would be something they would be interested in.

It said MAC wouldn't get the EWL bids because the conference no longer exists and the bids belonged to the conference not the universities.  It also said regardless of EIWA not having all the teams or will not effect the bids for the EIWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 4:06 PM, klehner said:

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

"The competition status of schools for 2021 also did not impact the calculation of pre-allocations."

So Cornell impacted the 5-year historical average for EIWA qualifiers, but they will not be participating in the conference tournament.

Share this post


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

"The competition status of schools for 2021 also did not impact the calculation of pre-allocations."

So Cornell impacted the 5-year historical average for EIWA qualifiers, but they will not be participating in the conference tournament.

That is correct. And they spelled that out prior to allocations. And once allocations came out everyone was shocked when many fans had the numbers months ago. It was a math equation for all to figure. And obviously not many coaches did it.

Edited by calot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TLS62pa said:

"The competition status of schools for 2021 also did not impact the calculation of pre-allocations."

So Cornell impacted the 5-year historical average for EIWA qualifiers, but they will not be participating in the conference tournament.

Same for Princeton.  Add in the sub-par rankings of Lehigh wrestlers this year,  and this is the result.

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...