1.Ruth 2.Taylor 3.Dake according to D1 College Wrestling

[Jaroslav Hasek 2,050]

everyone take a breath. it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a simple, objective (sorry i ever used that word on this thread) formula that ALWAYS spits out the correct ranking of wrestlers. Earl's formula is great for serving the purpose it was designed for.

 

but if anyone has a better formula, please conduct the same process Earl did and post what you come up with online so we can all enjoy and discuss the results.

[MSU158 2,008]

 

 

2.0/10

 

You forgot Burroughs!

 

Nope. This is a DI results only topic. If you want to bring up international results you can really add some thrashings like Tsargush and the first Howe match. However, that would be bad form for proper trolling.

 

Again, you are slipping. Get your head in the game. I, and most of the forum, expect more from you. Trolling is an art form and for you to actually use it in your screen name REQUIRES all posts to be at a high level.

 

You are currently on double secret probation.

[redblades 322]

 

No, but to state that an individual wrestler is better just because he wrestled in the B1G is just plain idiotic. If that's true, then maybe we should just do away with the individual NCAA tournament altogether, and declare the B1G champ the national champ as well? (Hmmm, maybe this is Earl's point?)

 

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Here is what I posted on my message board right after I posted the Recruiting Rewind...

 

"This is the first time in the five seasons that I have done the "Recruiting Rewind" that I am not too pleased with the results. I will admit that the point system is very Big Ten biased, but then again it does prove to be the best conference by far, year in and year out. However, Kyle Dake with 4 NCAA titles is tied with Tony Nelson for third. There are a couple of other guys who are from that Big Ten that may be a little higher than you would have guessed"

 

If it were strictly my opinion it would be Kyle Dake #1. As I stated above, this is the first time that the Big Ten-heavy point system produced results that I strongly disagree with.

 

Earl, thanks for clarifying your position, and I do apologize - I should have read further. :oops:

 

For my part - it's not that Taylor or Ruth show up ranked higher than Dake (who needs no defending, IMO) that got me all riled up, but rather the idea that somehow just being in the B1G automatically means someone is rated higher. Personally I think more balance across the conferences would be good for the sport; any system, then that would seem to perpetuate dominance in a single conference (and not saying that is your intent, but rather what I perceive as a result) is problematic.

 

And now it's back out to lawn mowing for me, ya'll have a good weekend!!

[oldcougar 59]

The guy came up with a formula that seemed to work over the years. You put in the records and the formula pops out a ranking.

 

I personally think it's hilarious that Taylor ranked above Dake using his formula. It put a whole bunch of people's panties in a wad.[/quot

 

And you sure know about wads in your panties.

Any ranking system that would place Ruth or Taylor above Dake is flawed.

 

any ranking system is flawed by definition. don't be your usual over the top fool. acknowledge the fact that Earl came up with a fairly good system but any system that compares apples to oranges is going to have weaknesses.

 

Come up with your own system if you think you can do better. Or do you prefer just to mouth off?

[acadia 0]

Not very goid formula if it doesn't include head to head, imagine rpi without head to head.

[jerbufoon 40]

The guy came up with a formula that seemed to work over the years. You put in the records and the formula pops out a ranking.

 

I personally think it's hilarious that Taylor ranked above Dake using his formula. It put a whole bunch of people's panties in a wad.[/quot

 

And you sure know about wads in your panties.

Any ranking system that would place Ruth or Taylor above Dake is flawed.

 

any ranking system is flawed by definition. don't be your usual over the top fool. acknowledge the fact that Earl came up with a fairly good system but any system that compares apples to oranges is going to have weaknesses.

 

Come up with your own system if you think you can do better. Or do you prefer just to mouth off?

 

Here is apples to oranges

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_azYJCx4vI

[AKHUNTER 316]

Not very goid formula if it doesn't include head to head, imagine rpi without head to head.

Indeed!

[scribe 1,835]

I would have been embarrassed to publish those results as my own, if I were Earl.

[EarlD1CW 12]

I would have been embarrassed to publish those results as my own, if I were Earl.

 

Not in the least bit my friend. I've been using this system for five years and there may have been a little squabble or two in past seasons, but overall the end result was pretty accurate. This is the first time that the results looked this funky. Frankly, I think its an just an outlier more than a blatant flaw in the system.

 

What it is designed to illustrate is what kind of careers these guys had. Ruth Taylor Dake/Dake Taylor Ruth, however you want to list them are in the immortal words of Denny Green "Who we thought they were". They were top five recruits back in 2009 and all three lived up to the hyped and then some. What I like seeing is that Tony Nelson was #49 back in 2009 but is now that high up on the list, or that Kendric Maple had a top ten career in this system, while he was unranked at the time. Or that much maligned guys like Eric Grajales and Ethen Lofthouse still had careers that were among the top 15 in their recruiting class.

 

For those that think that I need a more in-depth system. Maybe. However, with all due respect to my buddy SetonHallPirate, I am not him and that's not my thing. I look at some of the #'s he throws out and I'm not sure exactly how he gets them, how a win affects his computations and so forth. I think my little system is easy to understand and easy to compute for all of us who are not Math majors.

[scribe 1,835]

So you have data issues translating to odd results and you don't have the least bit of a problem with it? Any work by media for the sport is great. And I am not complaining. I'll hang up and listen.

[Jaroslav Hasek 2,050]

So you have data issues translating to odd results and you don't have the least bit of a problem with it? Any work by media for the sport is great. And I am not complaining. I'll hang up and listen.

 

why would he or anyone have a problem with it? its simple and completely transparent. the point (i believe) is NOT to get a perfect ranking every year but to have a simple and easy to follow formula that broadly measure career accomplishments.

 

the formula is doing what it is was designed to do, and it's not doing what it wasnt designed to do. there's nothing to get upset about here.

[GranbyTroll 452]

 

 

2.0/10

 

You forgot Burroughs!

 

Nope. This is a DI results only topic. If you want to bring up international results you can really add some thrashings like Tsargush and the first Howe match. However, that would be bad form for proper trolling.

 

Again, you are slipping. Get your head in the game. I, and most of the forum, expect more from you. Trolling is an art form and for you to actually use it in your screen name REQUIRES all posts to be at a high level.

 

You are currently on double secret probation.

 

Didn't Dake beat Tsargush only a few weeks after surgery on a broken ankle?

[AKHUNTER 316]

if head to head isn't included and weighed heavily it's a WEAK system...... IMO

[ocho 0]

I think Earl's formula and weight scale works pretty well overall for what he is attempting to do. He is trying to make a simple formula that re ranks the class based on collegiate success. You guys are failing the realize the rarity of these 3 individuals and the success they endured.

 

Ed Ruth 3,1,1,1 and 1,1,1,1... 3 total losses

David Taylor 2,1,2,1 and 1,1,1,1... 3 total losses

Kyle Dake 1,1,1,1 and 1,2,1,1... 4 total losses

 

Two 4x Big Ten champions(doesn't happen very often) threw a monkey wrench in the system. Kyle Dake being a dominant wrestler from outside the Big Ten also threw a monkey wrench in the system. Another wrench thrown into the system was Brent Metcalf losing a year of competition and as a result finished 5th in his class. Were Varner, Ness, Escobedo and Nickerson all better recruits than him? Well, according to the formula they were. All 5 were great wrestlers and wrestling fans took the ranking for entertainment value and moved on. I like the recruiting rewind.

 

Earl maybe you have the answer to this question or someone does. How many AA's were there from the 2009 class? 30? 50? I am just trying to get an idea of how all the numbers come together. The reson I wonder is cuz I was surprised to see Danny Zilverberg on the list and especially at 24. I know part of it is the weight given to Big Ten placement, but like I said it made me wonder since Danny was "only" a one time AA at 7th place and made the list.