Jump to content
VakAttack

Tournament scoring thought

Recommended Posts

Something I've been thinking about as we get ready for nationals is the way we award placement points.  Obviously 1st place gets the most points, but should second place get more than third?  Often times a person takes second instead of third merely as a function of where they are placed in the bracket.  Would it make more sense to award the same placement points to 2/3, 4/5, 6/7 and then the lowest to 8?  I know it's not some top-line issue to worry about, just something I was thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, moodybooty said:

A change like this might hurt Iowa's chances when Kem is runner-up to Starocci this year and next year. Gonna be a close race; Iowa's gonna need all the help they can get.

Lets worry about his getting a regulation takedown against a high level opponent first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets phrase this in an anti-Iowa way:  there exists a distinct possibility that Anthony Cassioppi ends up the 7 seed and Mason Parris ends up the 4/5.  If Anthony Cassioppi makes the finals to lose to Gable without ever having to wrestle Parris, and Parris takes third...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Lets phrase this in an anti-Iowa way:  there exists a distinct possibility that Anthony Cassioppi ends up the 7 seed and Mason Parris ends up the 4/5.  If Anthony Cassioppi makes the finals to lose to Gable without ever having to wrestle Parris, and Parris takes third...

Then Parris deserves 3rd place pts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Something I've been thinking about as we get ready for nationals is the way we award placement points.  Obviously 1st place gets the most points, but should second place get more than third?  Often times a person takes second instead of third merely as a function of where they are placed in the bracket.  Would it make more sense to award the same placement points to 2/3, 4/5, 6/7 and then the lowest to 8?  I know it's not some top-line issue to worry about, just something I was thinking about.

Seeding impacts tournaments. I'd suggest wrestlebacks, but i hate those.  3rd often goes to a wrestler who builds some momentum on the backside.  I wonder how often 3rd actually scores more points than 2nd 

Edited by Plasmodium

Share this post


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

Lets phrase this in an anti-Iowa way:  there exists a distinct possibility that Anthony Cassioppi ends up the 7 seed and Mason Parris ends up the 4/5.  If Anthony Cassioppi makes the finals to lose to Gable without ever having to wrestle Parris, and Parris takes third...

Please fill in the blanks on the 2-7. Gable at 1 then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in the blanks on the 2-7. Gable at 1 then?
Yes. Some people who have talked about the seeding matrix used by the seeding committee say they think that's what the criteria will spit out. We've had some weird seeds in the past, but it's likely to be even more odd this year because of the limited sample sizes. Unless they change the criteria, at least for this season.

For example, the matrix apparently calculates "quality wins", but doesn't differentiate between the different quality of wins. So Parris' pin over Cassioppi counts the same as, say, Schultz' OT win over Gremmel. And whomever has the most quality wins would win that criteria over the wrestler they're being compared to.

Then you have the winning percentage criteria being black and white. Couple of undefeated guys compared to Parris' one loss.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

Stencel, Schultz, and Wilson all undefeated conference champs

Nomad actually didn’t project Wilson to be in the top 8.  He had Stencel/Schultz/Gremmel at 2/3/4 then Laird at 6.  

I could see 2/3/4 going that way but I’m not seeing the math on Laird.  Looks like he only has 2 wins over autoqualifers and didn’t even win his conference.  I get that winning a conference is “better” than not winning one, but would 2nd in the MAC really get criteria over 3rd in the B10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Something I've been thinking about as we get ready for nationals is the way we award placement points.  Obviously 1st place gets the most points, but should second place get more than third?  Often times a person takes second instead of third merely as a function of where they are placed in the bracket.  Would it make more sense to award the same placement points to 2/3, 4/5, 6/7 and then the lowest to 8?  I know it's not some top-line issue to worry about, just something I was thinking about.

Third place often scores more than second due to the extra match... which doesn't always seem fair in cases where second beat third somewhere along the way.

Share this post


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

Third place often scores more than second due to the extra match... which doesn't always seem fair in cases where second beat third somewhere along the way.

This got me curious and I did some quick research.  At the 2017 NCAAs, 3rd place outscored 2nd in 5 of 10 weights.  At 197 Moore outscored Pharr despite a head to head loss.  Other "outscorers" were  Sorenson over Mayes, Valencia over Jordan, Massa over Martinez, and Hall over Medbery

 

In 2018 and 2019 this did not occur, however, once each year an equal amount of team points were earned by second and third.  I didn't check any other years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Cass and Parrs this year?  I haven't checked.  

As a coach, I used to tell my kids who lost in the semis that they have a great chance to help us win a state title if they go on a run in the consolations.  They can score more than they would as a second place finished with a couple bonus wins.  It tended to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VakAttack said:

For example, the matrix apparently calculates "quality wins", but doesn't differentiate between the different quality of wins. So Parris' pin over Cassioppi counts the same as, say, Schultz' OT win over Gremmel. And whomever has the most quality wins would win that criteria over the wrestler they're being compared to.

Not true.  They DO differentiate between different quality of wins. They have “Tiers”.

Beating a Top 10 coaches ranked wrestler will be awarded more than beating a Top 25 coaches ranked wrestler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tommytechnique said:

This got me curious and I did some quick research.  At the 2017 NCAAs, 3rd place outscored 2nd in 5 of 10 weights.  At 197 Moore outscored Pharr despite a head to head loss.  Other "outscorers" were  Sorenson over Mayes, Valencia over Jordan, Massa over Martinez, and Hall over Medbery

 

In 2018 and 2019 this did not occur, however, once each year an equal amount of team points were earned by second and third.  I didn't check any other years.

I checked 2019 last night also.  Myles Martin outscored Max Dean by half a point at 184.  197 and 285 were equal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overthinking it.  There is no justification for giving the same amount of points for third as second.  This will always hold true, unless they decide to have "true" 2nd, 4th, 6th place patches, which doesn't seem likely to happen since there is very little point to it.  Plus you did get an extra advancement point, and in theory an extra chance at bonus points that goes with winning an extra match.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AHamilton said:

How about Cass and Parrs this year?  I haven't checked.  

As a coach, I used to tell my kids who lost in the semis that they have a great chance to help us win a state title if they go on a run in the consolations.  They can score more than they would as a second place finished with a couple bonus wins.  It tended to work.

Cass scored 18.5 points this year at B1Gs compared to Parris's 18 points, even though Cass placed third and Parris placed second while pinning Cass along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sstark46 said:

Cass scored 18.5 points this year at B1Gs compared to Parris's 18 points, even though Cass placed third and Parris placed second while pinning Cass along the way.

Thanks. I'm not surprised, and it is wrong that this happens.

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...