Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

General Seed discussion

Recommended Posts


·      125 – Peters (#9) – Win over #4, Returning AA

·      125 – Delgado (NS) – You either hate Delgado or you are dumb if you think 2x National Champ shouldn’t be seeded

·      125 – Terao (NS) – 2 wins over #16 for starts

·      133 – Schopp (#9) – Should be #4 seed, Minny fans should be pissed

·      141 – Carter (#4) – Should be #3, no doubt

·      141 – Abiden (#9) – Did BIG 10 mean nothing?

·      149 – Tshirts (#2) – Should be 1

·      149 – Kindig (NS) – No reason he should be unseeded, especially looking at some of the seeded

·      165 – Stafford (NS) – Should slip him into a low seed, deserves it

·      174 – Storley (#6) – Should be higher, no doubt

·      174 – Walters (#9) – Just beat the “4”, Returning AA

·      184 – Dechow (#4) – Should be #3, Both lost to unseeded, Dechow avenged his, Stauffer didn’t

·      184 – Brown (#7) – See’s the repercussion of Dean’s Scuffle

·      184 – Miklus (NS) – See Boyd (Below)

·      197 – Hartmann (#10) – SMH


Got the Hook Up

·      133 – Richards (#5) 6 seed at BIG 10, takes 5th, now a 5th seed… hmmm

·      141 – Mayes (#3)– 2 loses to #10 seed

·      149 – Mastriani (#7) –0-2 at his conference tourney getting stuck by a guy with a losing record and his best win is against a teammate… And people say Kindig shouldn’t be seeded LOL

·      174 – Eblen (#4) – Should fall right around #6 or #7 after loss to Walters

·      184 – Stauffer (#3) – See Dechow

·      184 – Boyd (#12) –This one snuck by people. Way too high, should be unseeded or 16th maybe. Yea he has some good wins but he also has some bad losses to unseeded guys (2x Miklus, Weatherspoon, Stroh)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the Delgado situations. I do like that if guys sit to much they aren't awarded with high seeds. Lower seeds should be considered, and I think Delgado is a unique situation as well hard to not seed a 2x qualifier.


I was surprised by brewer as well. I'm not sure how many matches he missed with injury but missing a few shouldn't be a big deal. Maybe he missed several, I didn't really pay attention.


I do agree with the kindig one. From an objective standpoint, if a guy is so banged up he can't wrestle one match in a 4 man bracket, let alone two matches then nothing about that should make a person think that individual is health enough to run the table at the ncaa. If he can then he was probably healthy enough to wrestle one. I don't thin he was even the original entry was he? For that reason I agree with the kindig seeding situation. I still wouldn't want him against my guy though.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As bad as the Carter seed is, I kind of like where Epperly is.  He's on the opposite side from the 2 guys that have really given him trouble (Weatherman and Butler) and he has wins over all of the guys he would face up until the semis (Julson, Martin, Brown).  I don't think it's out of the question to see him in the finals if he gets hot.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ T-Bar - Are you saying Nate Brown is seeded too low?  If so, who would you put him ahead of?  Looking at the records, I think Dean, Thomusseitt, Stauffer, and Dechow are the clear top 4 (although I think you can make a case to shuffle them around a bit).  Meeks and  Zillmer have better resumes (more matches, more wins, and higher win %) than Brown - plus both have a win over Dean!


One thing that I think hurts all of the Lehigh guys - they wrestle a pretty decent dual meet schedule, but they don't hit the early tournament schedule as hard as other teams.  This gives them lower match counts and less quality wins.  I think you'll see this if you look at their results across the board.

Edited by redblades

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to quibble with Penn's seeds.  In hindsight, their schedule (good not great), the relative weakness of the EIWA this year, and some late season stumbles hurt their seeding.


That being said, regarding Nate Brown, if the EIWAs had seeded Brown and Thomas 2-3 and let them wrestle in the semis, the winner, in my opinion, would've been seeded in front of Zillmer and most likely Meeks, as well.  (Thomas does have a win over Zillmer this season at the Midlands semis.)  But, EIWA coaches decided to factor in Thomas' loss to Harner of Princeton (when they didn't do so for Cobb's win over Villalonga at 149) and now they will hopefully meet in the Round of 16.


All in all, I think we're all looking for a little more logic in seeding these tournaments.  NCAA's seeding seems heavily weighted to RPI, which, while consistent, seems to ignore a lot of head to head matches...and our lying eyes.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I meant. Typing rapidly on my iPad. Eblen over Storley is a joke. Over butler, too, for that matter. Eblen wrestled a different weight for a good portion of the year. This is insanity!

Regarding the following criteria for seeding I'm not sure where Eblen wrestling 184/197 enters into the equation. The following mainly shows criteria comparison between Storely & Eblen. Butler & Eblen benefit from winning through a stronger schedule & and all other things being similar Butler's win over Storely bumps him one back from Eblen


Head-to-Head 25% Eblen none Butler over Storely

Quality Wins 20% by Eblen over NCAA Qualifiers - Pickett, Weatherman, McCulley, Wilps, Ellingwood, Renda, Crutchmer, Brunson. Martinez,  

- (not his fault but Storely probably trails Eblen in this category)

Common opponents 10% (Eblen - Storely) Storely-Eblen have same wins and same losses

- Wins-McCulley, Crutchmer, Brunson, Pickett, Loss-Kokesh, Evans,

RPI 10%

-(believe Eblen's is higher although 3/9/15 RPI was not released to the public - Storely was previously #9 Eblen only    had 16 matches)

Qualifying placement 10%

-4th B1G, 2nd MAC

Coaches Rank 10%

-4th Storely & 5th Eblen in Feb 27th Coaches Rankings

Win % 10%

-Eblen 0.84375 Storley 0.83871

Number of matches 5% 

- Storley 31 Eblen 19@174, 11@184, 2@197 = 32


You may disagree with the criteria used but it is not clear that either "joke or insanity" apply to these seeding results if the published formula is utilized in the seeding process

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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...