Jump to content
lu_alum

Ranking 165

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Are Missouri and Iowa in the same pool in the Rofkin Duals?

Not if using the latest Intermat Dual Meet rankings.  I assume they'd use dual rankings since it's a dual championship.  Also assume they'd use Intermat rankings due to Willy's relationship with Rofkin.  If these assumptions are correct, last week's rankings would have the pools setting up like this:

  • Pool 1:  #1 Iowa / #22 Lehigh / (N Iowa, Oregon St or Central Michigan; cannot be Hofstra)
  • Pool 2:  #3 PSU / #11 Cornell / (N Iowa, Oregon St or Central Michigan; cannot be Hofstra)
  • Pool 3:  #4 Mizzou / #10 Va Tech / (Oregon St, Central Michigan, or Hofstra; cannot be N Iowa)
  • Pool 4:  #5 NC State / #7 ASU / (Central Michigan, Hofstra, or N Iowa; cannot be Oregon St)
  • Last four (N Iowa, Oregon St, Hofstra, Central Michigan) placed in brackets, avoiding conference matchups.

Pool winners are then bracketed into a mini-tourney for the championship.

Edited by lu_alum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I heard each side of this graphic would be the two groups. and in each of those groups would be two mini pools of 3. winner of each mini-pool would wrestle each other the other winner within the same group, 2nd place vs 2nd place and 3rd vs third. then in each group you'd have placements 1st thru 6th. 

 I don't know if the mini pools have been created yet. and please anyone in the know, please correct me if i'm wrong. I definitely heard that each team would get three matches. the two teams in their mini pool and then the cross pool match, all within each group. 

The good news is Missouri and Iowa are in the same group. so it will be possible they see each other, no matter how the pools are drawn up. they'll only be guaranteed to wrestle each other if theyre in the same mini pool. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not if using the latest Intermat Dual Meet rankings.  I assume they'd use dual rankings since it's a dual championship.  Also assume they'd use Intermat rankings due to Willy's relationship with Rofkin.  If these assumptions are correct, last week's rankings would have the pools setting up like this:
  • Pool 1:  #1 Iowa / #22 Lehigh / (N Iowa, Oregon St or Central Michigan; cannot be Hofstra)
  • Pool 2:  #3 PSU / #11 Cornell / (N Iowa, Oregon St or Central Michigan; cannot be Hofstra)
  • Pool 3:  #4 Mizzou / #10 Va Tech / (Oregon St, Central Michigan, or Hofstra; cannot be N Iowa)
  • Pool 4:  #5 NC State / #7 ASU / (Central Michigan, Hofstra, or N Iowa; cannot be Oregon St)
  • Last four (N Iowa, Oregon St, Hofstra, Central Michigan) placed in brackets, avoiding conference matchups.
Pool winners are then bracketed into a mini-tourney for the championship.
I don't think it's happening that way anymore. I think it might just be two large pools. No bracketing.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's this

Pool A     Pool C
Iowa     Penn State
Lehigh     Cornell
C. Mich     N. Iowa
Pool B     Pool D
Missouri     ASU
NC State     Tech
Oregon St.     Hofstra

 

Winner of A wrestles winner of B

Winner of C wrestles winner of D

Marinelli and O'Toole can hit. Neither can wrestle Valencia or Ramirez. We could see Hayden Hidlay vs Kemerer, should NC State win, but neither can see Brooks. But Brooks-Keckeisen seems like a sure bet.

 

Edited by Husker_Du

Share this post


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

It's this

Pool A     Pool C
Iowa     Penn State
Lehigh     Cornell
C. Mich     N. Iowa
Pool B     Pool D
Missouri     ASU
NC State     Tech
Oregon St.     Hofstra

 

Winner of A wrestles winner of B

Winner of C wrestles winner of D

Marinelli and O'Toole can hit. Neither can wrestle Valencia or Ramirez. We could see Hayden Hidlay vs Kemerer, should NC State win, but neither can see Brooks. But Brooks-Keckeisen seems like a sure bet.

 

I was thoroughly impressed with Keckeisen at NCAA's last season.  He wrestles so hard and for every second.  As much as I like Hidlay, I didn't come away from that tournament positive that Hidlay was better.  I know Brooks beat him then, but he will need to bring his A game every time against Parker.  I hope that match happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SignificantACCBias said:

Here's how the remaining tourneys could look at 165:

CKLV: Wick, Griffith, Romero, Kharchla, Amine, J Ramirez

Niceville: Marinelli, O'Toole, Valencia, Ramirez

Midlands: Marinelli, Wick, Wentzell, Hartman

Scuffle: Griffith, O'Toole, Wittlake, Ramirez

FIFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

It's this

Pool A     Pool C
Iowa     Penn State
Lehigh     Cornell
C. Mich     N. Iowa
Pool B     Pool D
Missouri     ASU
NC State     Tech
Oregon St.     Hofstra

 

Winner of A wrestles winner of B

Winner of C wrestles winner of D

Marinelli and O'Toole can hit. Neither can wrestle Valencia or Ramirez. We could see Hayden Hidlay vs Kemerer, should NC State win, but neither can see Brooks. But Brooks-Keckeisen seems like a sure bet.

 

I have no idea why the format was changed and that there's no opportunity for Iowa and Penn State to wrestle, and I find it to be a huge bummer, but I'll be there, driving 5+ hours to support a major D1 wrestling event in my state.  Glad to have the big dogs in my state for once!

Share this post


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

I have no idea why the format was changed and that there's no opportunity for Iowa and Penn State to wrestle, and I find it to be a huge bummer, but I'll be there, driving 5+ hours to support a major D1 wrestling event in my state.  Glad to have the big dogs in my state for once!

If I were a betting man (and I've been known to place a wager or two)... I'd say Carl's extreme opposition to having a 'National Duals' event won out & they changed the format so the 'Nits wouldn't have to wrestle the Hawkeyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lu_alum said:

If I were a betting man (and I've been known to place a wager or two)... I'd say Carl's extreme opposition to having a 'National Duals' event won out & they changed the format so the 'Nits wouldn't have to wrestle the Hawkeyes.

You mean they wouldn't have to wrestle them again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, lu_alum said:

If I were a betting man (and I've been known to place a wager or two)... I'd say Carl's extreme opposition to having a 'National Duals' event won out & they changed the format so the 'Nits wouldn't have to wrestle the Hawkeyes.

It may be a mutual thing.  I do not think there is any love lost between the two parties.  Whatever it is, it sucks, but I'm still excited to see some potentially elite matchups.  Marinelli-O'Toole near the top of the list.  Nick Lee vs. Yianni D being the top if Yianni comes down.

Share this post


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

I have no idea why the format was changed and that there's no opportunity for Iowa and Penn State to wrestle, and I find it to be a huge bummer, but I'll be there, driving 5+ hours to support a major D1 wrestling event in my state.  Glad to have the big dogs in my state for once!

you're pretty sharp, Vak.

i think you DO know why.

and i didn't really make it a secret. the coaches (almost every single one of them) will only wrestle who they want. 

and they didn't want to wrestle anyone they already had scheduled for a dual. it kinda made the pools and format pretty straight forward

Share this post


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

you're pretty sharp, Vak.

i think you DO know why.

and i didn't really make it a secret. the coaches (almost every single one of them) will only wrestle who they want. 

and they didn't want to wrestle anyone they already had scheduled for a dual. it kinda made the pools and format pretty straight forward

Ok, so maybe I've heard some things, lol.  It's all just so rumory I don't want to put it out there in that way, I'm nobody's newsbreaker.

EDIT:  To be clear, I have heard the official word and what's been reported, obviously.

Edited by VakAttack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

won't know for sure until sometime tomorrow but I expect the top 5 will go Marinelli > Wick > O'Toole > Griffith > Wentzel.

will be giving it a lot of thought though so am definitely interested in hearing all the arguments. 

I'm curious what the argument is for Marinelli over O'Toole?  I'd have thought the question would be settled by the fact that O'Toole took 3rd last year while Marinelli DNP'd, and O'Toole hasn't lost yet this year. 

Yes, Marinelli defaulted out at NCAAs, but I don't see why that means we should just assume that he'd have placed higher than O'Toole or deserves the higher ranking.  Among other things:

--O'Toole only has one career loss, against a guy (Wentzel) that Marinelli has never wrestled.  So there's no transitive property argument.

--O'Toole also had the better year overall last year, with multiple top 10 wins and a strong finish.  Marinelli had only one top 10 win, which was 3-2 (E. Smith).

--O'Toole has also had the stronger performance since NCAAs, winning a Junior World title and no matches going the distance so far this year.  Marinelli meanwhile is recovering from an injury, with no off-season wrestling and a 3-2 win over the 88th ranked guy a week ago.

It seems like the Marinelli argument requires going back to his wins from 2+ seasons ago, but that's pretty specious.  They are all pre-injury wins over guys who never wrestled O'Toole or placed higher than him.  And its not like Marinelli has a bunch of his own AA finishes to point to.  So what's left?

Not saying a healthy Marinelli couldn't or wouldn't beat O'Toole, but rankings should be earned and logically defensible, and not just based on hype.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BAC said:

I'm curious what the argument is for Marinelli over O'Toole?  I'd have thought the question would be settled by the fact that O'Toole took 3rd last year while Marinelli DNP'd, and O'Toole hasn't lost yet this year. 

Yes, Marinelli defaulted out at NCAAs, but I don't see why that means we should just assume that he'd have placed higher than O'Toole or deserves the higher ranking.  Among other things:

--O'Toole only has one career loss, against a guy (Wentzel) that Marinelli has never wrestled.  So there's no transitive property argument.

--O'Toole also had the better year overall last year, with multiple top 10 wins and a strong finish.  Marinelli had only one top 10 win, which was 3-2 (E. Smith).

--O'Toole has also had the stronger performance since NCAAs, winning a Junior World title and no matches going the distance so far this year.  Marinelli meanwhile is recovering from an injury, with no off-season wrestling and a 3-2 win over the 88th ranked guy a week ago.

It seems like the Marinelli argument requires going back to his wins from 2+ seasons ago, but that's pretty specious.  They are all pre-injury wins over guys who never wrestled O'Toole or placed higher than him.  And its not like Marinelli has a bunch of his own AA finishes to point to.  So what's left?

Not saying a healthy Marinelli couldn't or wouldn't beat O'Toole, but rankings should be earned and logically defensible, and not just based on hype.

 

So all the freestyle results are not factored in. only folkstyle wins and losses. placements at tournaments are also not factored in. wins and losses at NCAAs are weighted more heavily, but not the placement itself (this is just speaking for Flo's rankings btw).

as an extreme example for why that doesn't really happen (but less extreme versions often do), one guy could beat an eventual AA, lose to the eventual NCAA champ and 3rd placer and go 2-2, missing the podium, whereas another guy could beat two non AAs, then win by medical forfeit then semi-slide to place 6th. 

therefor the relevant resumes of O'Toole and Marinelli compare like this:

They both have 1 loss over this season and last season. Wentzel is a slightly worse loss than Griffith. They have comparable wins last two seasons. Marinelli has clearly better career wins in Wick and Cenzo.

Marinelli's longer career is the tiebreaker. but i get other reasoning and ordering of the ranking. this is just how it has to be for Flo's rankings to stay consistent. luckily its only November so both wrestlers have plenty of time to earn the undisputed #1 seed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

So all the freestyle results are not factored in. only folkstyle wins and losses. placements at tournaments are also not factored in. wins and losses at NCAAs are weighted more heavily, but not the placement itself (this is just speaking for Flo's rankings btw).

as an extreme example for why that doesn't really happen (but less extreme versions often do), one guy could beat an eventual AA, lose to the eventual NCAA champ and 3rd placer and go 2-2, missing the podium, whereas another guy could beat two non AAs, then win by medical forfeit then semi-slide to place 6th. 

therefor the relevant resumes of O'Toole and Marinelli compare like this:

They both have 1 loss over this season and last season. Wentzel is a slightly worse loss than Griffith. They have comparable wins last two seasons. Marinelli has clearly better career wins in Wick and Cenzo.

Marinelli's longer career is the tiebreaker. but i get other reasoning and ordering of the ranking. this is just how it has to be for Flo's rankings to stay consistent. luckily its only November so both wrestlers have plenty of time to earn the undisputed #1 seed.

Marinelli has just one loss due to FFT out of the backside where his most difficult matches of the season were set to occur.  O'Toole however wrestled through the gauntlet that is the NCAA wrestle-backs.  If that is lower on the tiebreaker scale than a longer career w/matches pulling in data from 24 months ago + that is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jaroslav Hasek said:

So all the freestyle results are not factored in. only folkstyle wins and losses. placements at tournaments are also not factored in. wins and losses at NCAAs are weighted more heavily, but not the placement itself (this is just speaking for Flo's rankings btw).

as an extreme example for why that doesn't really happen (but less extreme versions often do), one guy could beat an eventual AA, lose to the eventual NCAA champ and 3rd placer and go 2-2, missing the podium, whereas another guy could beat two non AAs, then win by medical forfeit then semi-slide to place 6th. 

therefor the relevant resumes of O'Toole and Marinelli compare like this:

They both have 1 loss over this season and last season. Wentzel is a slightly worse loss than Griffith. They have comparable wins last two seasons. Marinelli has clearly better career wins in Wick and Cenzo.

Marinelli's longer career is the tiebreaker. but i get other reasoning and ordering of the ranking. this is just how it has to be for Flo's rankings to stay consistent. luckily its only November so both wrestlers have plenty of time to earn the undisputed #1 seed.

I'm OK with not looking to freestyle (if you are consistent about it).  And I can see why NCAA placement isn't the final arbiter of rankings in very narrow circumstances -- e.g. a 2nd and 3rd place finisher who both lost to the same guy, or the example you give, where it may be a wash.  But what I can NOT see is treating not showing up at NCAAs (or a MFF loss) as the same thing as getting a win.  That's what you're doing when you treat a 3rd place finish as the same as a DNP after defaulting out following a loss.  You're looking at the two scenarios and saying, "well, they both lost only once," even though one didn't lose more than once only because he stopped wrestling altogether, while the other guy powered thru the consy bracket with win after win. 

If you're not weighting actual wins at NCAA higher than a failure to compete (or a MFF loss), then there's a flaw with the ranking system. And not just the NCAAs:  Marinelli had what, all of 2 wins before last year's post-season?  I mean, by that logic, Evan Wick should be ranked #1 because he has 0 losses over the past two seasons, compared to 1 each for O'Toole and Marinelli.

I also disagree that their wins last year are comparable (as O'Toole's tech of Valencia and win over Wittlake is more impressive than anything Marinelli did).  Marinelli's wins (and losses) from over 2 years ago, when O'Toole wasn't competing, don't strike me as relevant to the comparison, at least not for ranking purposes.  I also don't agree that length of career is a fair tiebreaker, where O'Toole's AA finish after 1 season is better than anything Marinelli achieved in 4 seasons. 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting you're biased and I do appreciate the effort at consistency.  There's a lot to like about both wrestlers.  I'm no Iowa fan but I admit I have a soft spot for guys who have battled through adversity as Marinelli has.  But I think O'Toole has earned the right to be ranked ahead of him for now.

Share this post


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

I'm OK with not looking to freestyle (if you are consistent about it).  And I can see why NCAA placement isn't the final arbiter of rankings in very narrow circumstances -- e.g. a 2nd and 3rd place finisher who both lost to the same guy, or the example you give, where it may be a wash.  But what I can NOT see is treating not showing up at NCAAs (or a MFF loss) as the same thing as getting a win.  That's what you're doing when you treat a 3rd place finish as the same as a DNP after defaulting out following a loss.  You're looking at the two scenarios and saying, "well, they both lost only once," even though one didn't lose more than once only because he stopped wrestling altogether, while the other guy powered thru the consy bracket with win after win. 

If you're not weighting actual wins at NCAA higher than a failure to compete (or a MFF loss), then there's a flaw with the ranking system. And not just the NCAAs:  Marinelli had what, all of 2 wins before last year's post-season?  I mean, by that logic, Evan Wick should be ranked #1 because he has 0 losses over the past two seasons, compared to 1 each for O'Toole and Marinelli.

I also disagree that their wins last year are comparable (as O'Toole's tech of Valencia and win over Wittlake is more impressive than anything Marinelli did).  Marinelli's wins (and losses) from over 2 years ago, when O'Toole wasn't competing, don't strike me as relevant to the comparison, at least not for ranking purposes.  I also don't agree that length of career is a fair tiebreaker, where O'Toole's AA finish after 1 season is better than anything Marinelli achieved in 4 seasons. 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting you're biased and I do appreciate the effort at consistency.  There's a lot to like about both wrestlers.  I'm no Iowa fan but I admit I have a soft spot for guys who have battled through adversity as Marinelli has.  But I think O'Toole has earned the right to be ranked ahead of him for now.

Although I actually agree with JH's reasoning on Marinelli being the #1, I actually want O"Toole to be the #1.  The #1 seed has NOT been kind to Alex.  I will happily jump on the O'Toole is #1 train!

Also, Alex beat the 5th and 7th place finishers that season so they actually ARE comparable to wins over a significantly injured Valencia and Wittlake(whom he also has a win over from the year prior)...

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


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

Marinelli has just one loss due to FFT out of the backside where his most difficult matches of the season were set to occur.  O'Toole however wrestled through the gauntlet that is the NCAA wrestle-backs.  If that is lower on the tiebreaker scale than a longer career w/matches pulling in data from 24 months ago + that is wrong.

But, you are assuming that Alex loses any of those matches if he didn't get hurt.  Injuries play a big part in rankings and it is ONLY FAIR to not penalize a guy for taking that severe of an injury while losing an OT match to the eventual Champ.  Also, let's not forget that Alex has a win over Wittlake(took 4th), the year prior and beat Smith(took 5th) and Amine(took 7th) at B1Gs less than 2 weeks prior.  Looking at the brackets he would have needed to beat Amine then Smith then Wittlake to wrestle O'Toole for 3rd.  You just don't have ANY data saying he loses those matches, while you have significant data saying he wins them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't have any data to say he would lose, but you can't just give him those wins again. that's a gauntlet.

you also didn't have any data that said he'd lose to Griffith or Mekhi. and both happened. in fact, the data said he'd win those bouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't give him those wins because he would have been wrestling them injured.  That is what I don't get.  He was actually injured and would have been extremely hampered in the most difficult part of the most difficult bracket of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marinelli has a better career resume, obviously due the length of his career vs. O'Toole.  It's perfectly defensible to put him at 1.  It's more an "eye test" thing, though.  O'Toole just seems to my eye to be better and with a steeper trajectory (which you would expect from the younger man), plus Marinelli's underwhelming NCAA results.  Either way, I expect O'Toole to win the chip this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the other way.  I think the Bull does deserve the #1 spot.  I just think using MFF as a reasoning to do it is lame AF.  He would have lost again.  It is not only his nature but he was actually seriously injured.  He would not have finished above O'Toole like that.  No handed and rib-punctured lung?  Yeah.  Give me O'Toole 10 out of 10 there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

I am the other way.  I think the Bull does deserve the #1 spot.  I just think using MFF as a reasoning to do it is lame AF.  He would have lost again.  It is not only his nature but he was actually seriously injured.  He would not have finished above O'Toole like that.  No handed and rib-punctured lung?  Yeah.  Give me O'Toole 10 out of 10 there.

What do you mean by no handed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

you don't have any data to say he would lose, but you can't just give him those wins again. that's a gauntlet.

you also didn't have any data that said he'd lose to Griffith or Mekhi. and both happened. in fact, the data said he'd win those bouts. 

Assuming you were replying to me, I didn't mean to equate them to wins, but simply not count them as losses.  That is further bolstered by the very specific data points you clearly missed in your comparison.  Marinelli was UNDEFEATED with wins against the 3 I named.  Meanwhile there actually isn't any real data to say he would beat Griffith or Mekhi, because he had never wrestled either.  That is quite a bit of a KEY difference, don't you think?

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...