Seeding Criteria missing a key element

[Cooch1 147]

Husky

Throw out all results that occurred in the past.... season. 2015 is a new year and new players... as nerd said it better than I did.

 

Technically, even the present occurs in the past because by the time you receive information Now ...it's past. Time is really a very strange think?

[IronChef 1,071]

Is there any other sport that considers previous year's finish in determining qualification or seeding?   Certainly no team sports.

 

The seeding criteria in DIII includes the following in no order:

Winning Percentage

Head to Head Matchups

Common Opponents

Returning All-American

[redblades 322]

Okay, explain this logic to me.

If the end of last season is not relevant at all (12 months ago), then why is the early in the season (4 months ago) equally relevant to the end of this season?

 

Because, using ALL of this season's results, but NONE of prior seasons' NCAA Tournament results makes the entire SEASON part of the contest - in other words, the entire regular season matters!  This is a concept the NCAA is trying to promote, albeit I do understand, for some folks, the regular season is and should be irrelevant.

 

One of the interesting wrinkles I noticed in the Wrestling Commitee's Report is that they would try to use the same principles for seeding as they use for selection criteria - I'm not sure why they feel the need to do that, unless purely out of simplifying the process.  In  other words, you could exclude previous NCAA placement from selection criteria (fair IMO), but then include it as a factor in seeding criteria (fair to the other seeded wrestlers, IMO!)

Edited March 13, 2015 by redblades

[MSU158 1,978]

I understand, and respect, many of your arguments.  But, you have to understand the NCAA tournament is like NOTHING that happens during the regular season.  How you have done in this tournament before is a HUGE indicator.  Now, nothing is absolute.  You can't look at it in a vacuum.  Still, how many 3xAA's don't AA again their senior year(unless significantly injured)?  How often do they finish worse than the prior season?  Tony Nelson had a rough senior year.  Still, minus an untimely injury in the finals he most likely finishes a 3xer.

 

Also, "peaking", which has been argued ad nauseam, is a major part of DI wrestling.  Many wrestlers focus solely on getting ready for the NCAA Tournament.  The regular season is simply a warm up.  You choose down against a tough top opponent to feel him out.  You may try to ride him longer vs. wrestling more in neutral where you feel most comfortable.  You experiment.  If the regular season were the best indicator Alan Waters would be a multiple AA and most likely finalist.  Delgado would never have placed ahead of Garnett.  Jake Percival would be an NCAA champ.  My point is, the guys you wrestle during the regular season are most often not who they are come tournament time.  Cody Brewer is another example of this.  Morrison absolutely pounded him multiple times during the regular season.  Brewer then Blitzkrieged him at the NCAA tournament.

 

Simply put, I would challenge anyone to SOLELY pick wrestlers off of this year's performance only and I will pick using how they have done before.  I have a hard time believing you will beat me...........

[teach 175]

What about the whole idea of respect?  Most people would not want the defending champ first round no matter how he has done this year, why?  probably because they respect the fact that he is, or at least was good enough to put together a great tournament.  I really believe the goal should be to get the best guys the best chance to move forward and each round is tougher.  Wrestling the defending champ first round when you could be a top 5 seed, just dosn't seem to fit?  Respect the AA.

[SetonHallPirate 988]

MSU, teach, let's look at this another way. Ohio State won the College Football Playoff last year. As a result, let's let them sit out the regular season, and automatically get the number one seed in the College Football Playoff this season.

 

See how stupid that sounds?

[HuskyHero133 52]

SHP - Why are you using that analogy like anyone here said to use last years NCAA only?

 

I  see  people specifically saying it should be just one factor out of many (like this regular season performance/placing at qualifying tournament/etc) but it definitely should be considered.

 

I have seen no good arguments for totally ignoring last years NCAA's results in seeding.

[Pinnum 836]

Should NCAA Swimming or Track allow athletes to qualify if they have hit a qualifying time in a previous season? They are the same athlete and they have shown they are capable of performing at that level. It just isn't right how they make them perform each year in order to qualify for that year's championship.

 

If anything, competing against a clock remains constant while a field of athletes, as is the case in wrestling is constantly evolving so the benchmarks change.

[Badger Fan 27]

Consider this -

Intermat and AWN both have Jesse Delgado ranked 7th, and WIN Magazine has him ranked 6th, based primarily on THIS season's results. (By the way, he did beat Lambert who is ranked in 2 of the 3 polls)

Yet the committee, and whoever created the seeding rules, does not believe he deserves a seed.

 

So we are supposed to throw out all past history and every poll that "knows" wrestling for an arbitrary system that does not consider all of the facts?

You okay with that?

[BigRedMachine 210]

Consider this -

Intermat and AWN both have Jesse Delgado ranked 7th, and WIN Magazine has him ranked 6th, based primarily on THIS season's results.

No. Just no.

[HuskyHero133 52]

Should NCAA Swimming or Track allow athletes to qualify if they have hit a qualifying time in a previous season? They are the same athlete and they have shown they are capable of performing at that level. It just isn't right how they make them perform each year in order to qualify for that year's championship.

 

If anything, competing against a clock remains constant while a field of athletes, as is the case in wrestling is constantly evolving so the benchmarks change.

 

 

Who said to only use the past years results and qualify someone only based on that?  There is a serious disconnect going on here.

 

We are talking about using last years NCAA results as just one factor.

 

Very appropriate and reasonable. 

[jammen 336]

The key element missing is that losses are not a criteria.  So all the criticism leveled at how many losses a certain seed had during the season are misguided as losses are not part of the methadology.

[LordNelson 552]

MSU, teach, let's look at this another way. Ohio State won the College Football Playoff last year. As a result, let's let them sit out the regular season, and automatically get the number one seed in the College Football Playoff this season.

 

See how stupid that sounds?

Not as stupid as comparing Football to Wrestling SHP.

Experience as a wrestler goes a long way.

An athlete that knows what to expect during the NCAA Tournament and can manage all the elements of it has an advantage over someone whose experience there wasn't so good.

 

Again, it isn't the only factor but to neglect it is insane.

[Cooch1 147]

What you did the year before is automatically included (implicit) in your mental makeup and character. Only the individual knows to what degree that mentality exists. Whatever degree the mental state is affected by last year's performance will carry over to the present year. If you were tough as nails last year it will be reflected this year. If your having difficulties, that too will be reflected in this year's record of performance.

 

My point is simply this: you don't have to consider last year. The mental toughness and skill level of any returning AA is implicit to his current statistics and seeding criteria will automatically include and reflect his skill level in up-to-date fashion. Looking at his name and being emotionally affected by it is not a good criteria. Let the wrestler decide it in the same way a referee lets him decide it by staying out of the decision making process based on his name, i.e. neutrality of judgment unaffected by yesteryear.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Cooch1

[LordNelson 552]

To not consider a 2 time National Champ for a top 16 seed is straight up insane.

You can't justify that with any argument, ever.  

[Badger Fan 27]

Why am I complaining about the seeds anyway ?

The Badgers got great seeds and draws.  On Wisconsin !!

[MSU158 1,978]

SHP,

 

Please take the challenge I listed before your response.  I will pick 10 guys with proven track records at the NCAA tournament that did not get a 1 seed(most won't be top 2).  You pick guys seeded high who don't have a proven track record.  Let's see who does better.  In fact I will pick for you but you can change it up if you would like.

 

--------------SHP                           MSU158

 

125:      Waters                         Garrett

133:       Taylor                          Schopp

141:        Mayes                        Carter

149:       Sorenson                    Stieber             Hard weight as the top 3 are the only provens except for 2 significantly injured guys(still I picked one)

157:      Martinez                       Ness

165:      Walsh                           Harger          Doesn't really apply the top 4 are the most accomplished returning AA's. Still I will give you Walsh and I will take Harger as he has AA'd before.

174:      Eblen                           Storley/Wilps/Walters  You can pick which one for me.

184:     Stauffer                         Dechow          Thomusseit was R12 the last 2 in deep weights but you can have him if you want.

197:     Snyder                          Schiller

285:      Not Applicable:  The 4 provens are where they should be.

Edited March 13, 2015 by MSU158

[SetonHallPirate 988]

Can I use the Dual Impact Index ranking instead (I am pretty sure I didn't pick anything more than a 1x All-American in my roster)?

 

125: Waters

133: Clark

141: Martinez

149: Sorensen

157: Martinez

165: B. Jordan

174: Eblen

184: Brooks

197: Snyder

285: Coon

[MSU158 1,978]

Clark is 1for1 so he is sort of off limits for you. Otherwise your roster is fine. Jordan is a little unfair since Harger is my only low seeded option and he has barely snuck onto the podium 1x. But if you pick a different 133 and give me Telford to offset your Coon pick I am good to go.

[SetonHallPirate 988]

I'll take DiJulius at 133, Walsh at 165, and give you Telford for Coon at 285.

 

125: Waters/Garrett

133: DiJulius/Schopp

141: Martinez/Carter

149: Sorensen/Stieber

157: Martinez/Ness

165: Walsh/Harger

174: Eblen/pickyourpoison

184: Brooks/Dechow

197: Snyder/Schiller

285: Coon/Telford

[MSU158 1,978]

Deal is done!

[SetonHallPirate 988]

Who's your 174-pounder?

[Motown98 13]

After the seeds are given, how are the other lines on the bracket decided? Is it a blind draw?

[MSU158 1,978]

I told you to pick! I obviously would prefer Storley.

[SetonHallPirate 988]

I'll give you Storley. Motown, to answer your question, very much so.