Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scrambler

Long way to travel to wrestle guys from your conference...

Recommended Posts

Is it just me or are there a lot of first round and second matches that will feature guys from their same conference? I know that it is the nature of the beast, i just found it odd that there were so many.

 

Does that have anything to do with them seeding 16?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has more to do with the EIWA, Big Ten, and even the MAC being so large now. There are so few conferences any more that this is bound to happen. In the last few years we lost the East Region and the CAA and we will likely lose the Big 12 as we know it too.

 

When you get less schools and less conferences you lose that aspect that made the sport exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule limiting these matches to the round of 16 was removed this year. I did a quick visual scan (This will probably get SHP to do some work) and it seems that the B1G still doesn't have as many as I might have otherwise thought. I think the reason is simply that most of the B1Gs are seeded- especially given the jump from 12 to 16 seeds. So this new rule might mainly apply to the other conferences.

I also have a thought on the seeming increase in complaints about how tough the draws are. When I used to run the draws from '87 to '06 everyone blamed me for everything, of course but this seems worse this year. I think it might be the combination of the new selection criteria along with the addition of seeds 13-16. The newish criteria eliminates the occasional 'riff-raff' we might see. We now come pretty close to getting the best 33 per weight. The only exception I can think of would be where a quality wrestler gets hurt in the qualifier and some lower caliber wrestler replaces him. Adding 4 seeds also tends to reduce the clustering effect that might occur during randomization. By that I mean that since the top 4 seeds didn't have a seed until the quarters in the past, it's possible that the best of the rest (now seeds 13-16) might cluster or more likely cluster away from one of these areas giving them an easier path. Now even the top seeds have to face someone of decent caliber in the round of 16 and since I doubt there's really much difference in the last 8 or so seeds it does make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting insight Gimp!! Thanks for responding. definitely more under the surface of what i thought.

 

Also, the comment about conferences absorbing other conferences make perfect sense.

 

It just makes me think that some of these guys will be looking at the brackets thinking "Oh No! I have him again!!" The more times you wrestle someone plays into the probability of you adjusting or them adjusting and maybe reversing a prior result, the excpetion is now is when it really counts.

 

Can't wait!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? This subject was about conference separation. I was simply trying to explain a few things from the point of view of somebody who was at least peripherally involved.

The only thing I mentioned about seeding was that by adding 4 seeds it dispersed supposedly better people out more. I made no mention of the committee whatsoever or possible motives and suggested that at the most it might have filled an occasional hole in the bracket. And when I ran the brackets, there was no real seeding committee in the usual sense anyway. The preseeding committee (2 coaches per conference) sent me their voting sheets that were done independently and generally before they arrived at the event. I tallied them up eliminating the high and low and then sorting them out to give the 12 preseeds per weight. Then the other committee got together and made a few swaps (very few each year- other than breaking ties one or two changes per year across all ten weights).

You need to stop trying to read more into things than are actually there.

 

 

Thanks Gimp! Nice of you to admit that seeding was about who "you" thought was a better wrestler,made a difference. You seem to be saying thatthe committee's you worked with were trying to influence outcomes. Lol, btw I'm not attacking you but your ideas on seeding. I know you are an honorable guy just completely disagree with you on this issue..

 

Seeding not only makes a difference it makes a huge difference. For example, drawing slugs would go a long way toward solving the "cutting issue" and any possibility of "fixing" or the accusations of impropriety by a group of honorable men and women.. I think if some of these wrestlers thought they might catch a top flight opponent on day 1 or early day 2, they would evaluate their wgt class differently. Same with having weigh ins before each medal match. I really don't care about wgt cutting or not. It is the wink and nod attitude of the rule breakers, especially those who are prone to exclaiming at every turn "The rules are the rules" or "It's all the officials fault". I am concerned with the NCAA and the wrestling community mgmt (old time, running in pea coats gloves and woolen hats, in the boiler room ,types) giving the rules lip service and then manipulating the situations to accommodate those who abridge the intent of the rules. One great example, of turning a blind eye, was appointing to head NCAA exec committee that martinet from PSU, Spanier. Another might question Minkel on the committee for anything regarding wrestler evaluation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×