Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MSU158

Seeding Criteria missing a key element

Recommended Posts

For those looking for some clarity on what the committee's process is - here's an interview with Jason Borelli who is on the committee:

 

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/251957-Flowrestling-Radio-Live/article/30388-FRL-Ep-18-Jason-Borelli-Explains-NCAA-Seeds#.VQOKz9LF91Y

 

Long interview, but there is a lot of detail here.  Kudos to Jason for putting this out there, and to Flo for doing the interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Completely disagree.  It is simply not that "Black and White".

 

Don't get me wrong, a wrestlers Seeding should be penalized for missing large portions of the season.  WITHIN REASON. 

 

Past performance IS an indicator of future performance the majority of the time.  It is not that difficult to see the correlation. Of course there are exceptions.

 

Current season should matter the most in seeding criteria.  However, previous results should at least be considered as a secondary factor.

 

IMO, seeding credibility is suspect when completely ignoring previous results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brewers seed is an atrocity. Tell me this, honestly, if Logan Stieber got hurt early, came back late in season and was 14-0 going into the NCAAs (without have wrestled Port or Carter) what seed do you think he would get?

 

Mind you, past years DONT factor in right???

 

He would be no less than 2, if not 1

 

He sure as hell wouldnt be less than 5th. How the hell does 2x AA 17-1 Brewer get such a low seed??? BS!

His seeding makes you wonder about "what if" scenarios.

What if a returning heavyweight champ or all-american also played football in the fall, so his season didn't start until the 2nd or 3rd week of January?

Because he only has 8-12 matches, would they not seed him? 

 

It is a big "what if", but apparently that guy wouldn't be seeded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a returning heavyweight champ or all-american also played football in the fall, so his season didn't start until the 2nd or 3rd week of January?

Because he only has 8-12 matches, would they not seed him? 

Dylan Palacio played soccer this past fall, and so didn't return to the mat until the Southern Scuffle, I believe.  He did get seeded, but a bit lower (12) than I would have expected - likely due to being low on matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oldsuper,

 

The main purpose of my bet is to show the value of "past accomplishments" relative to the NCAA tournament.  At 165, I really don't have a guy to use since I think the top 4 are the only truly accomplished guys and were properly seeded.  I took Harger because he had AA'd 1x*((albeit barely).  Jordan is very good and has only lost 1 razor close match in 2 years.  Walsh hasn't produced at the NCAA tournament in 3 tries.  I think Harger compares to Walsh much closer than Jordan. Now if he wanted to give me any of the top 4 I would gladly give him Jordan.

 

 

 

Edited to add:  Another significant point to this bet was to stress seeding inconsistencies in this year's brackets.  I wanted to choose proven(NCAA tournament) guys who were not seeded as well and give SHP unproven guys seeded higher.  165 and 285 really didn't fall into that category which is why Harger vs. Walsh is comparable and I chose the lowest seeded accomplished guy at 285(Telford) vs. Coon.

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know MSU158, it seems a bit arbitrary to me. I personally believe that the Jordan pick is perfectly consistent with the criterion you originally put forth of  "guys seeded high that don't have a proven track record". I'm not sure how Jordan being "very good" changes how unproven that he is. He had one loss in two years, but you're including his redshirt year in that. He didn't really beat anyone of note that year if I recall correctly (and even if he did, he's still not proven at the ncaas). I think the only time he wrestled any notable wrestlers last year is when he tried freestyle last spring/summer and lost a few times. Is there any wins that I'm forgetting? Who has he beaten of note this year that put him above unproven status?

 

Also, if you aren't going to give him Bo Jordan, should you really give him Martinez at 157? Or Snyder at 197? Bo's unfair but they aren't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I don't have time to fully breakdown your post right now the way I'd ilke to MSU158, but I think there is a lot wrong and/or confused about it. I will say this though, it seems that you are changing the argument/bet after the fact in order to ensure that you win. I'm still not seeing how a guy with no track record at the ncaas can be "unfair"? I don't see exactly why the picks that you and SHP made have to be comparable. How is that a relevant factor that applies to your original challenge? The original argument had to do with comparing unproven guys at the ncaas vs. guys that are proven. Now you will only allow unproven guys to be chosen if you believe that you have a proven guy who is likely to do as well as the unproven guy at ncaas.  In other words, you dismiss guys as unfair because your proven guy is not proven enough. 

 

Something seems very odd about this whole situation. It seems to me if you feel confident about the value of past accomplishments and how they relate to future tournaments, then you should just pick your guys and let SHP or anyone else pick the best unproven guys available. I think many would find it funny that you won't allow Bo Jordan to be picked, but you'll allow Martinez to be picked but only because there is a Ness around. Or you'll only allow Snyder to be picked because there is a Schiller and so on. 

 

Since you insist on the picks between you and  being comparable, wouldn't it be fairer to pick Walters to go up against his Eblen pick at 174?

 

I think you have a valid point on past accomplishments being factored in as part of the seeing criteria. I just don't think the way that you are trying to prove it here with this bet is very convincing. Since it's early in the morning I can't quite lay my finger on it, but it seems that you are trying to conflate multiple things together that shouldn't be.              

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methinks a couple of my guys were too injured and should not have been wrestling, namely Stieber and Schopp.  Schopp is so injured he is choosing top and his opponents are getting away in 15 secs.  He may want to rethink his strategy for today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHP,

 

MSU is lucky they even had 1 guy make it. At least, Rizqallah won a match. He has Dechow this morning, so say buh-bye. .5 is pretty respectable for a Minkel coached program!

Why is Trackwrestling showing Michigan State at negative half a point (-0.5)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah.  Seeding, shmeeding.  I think I saw somewhere (didn't check myself) that first round, thirty- some seeded wrestlers were beaten by unseeded wrestlers.  All were matched up by random draw, so where the seeded guys were didn't matter - unless the contention is that most of those unseeded guys should have been seeded.  And then second round, you get upsets like Moisey over Garrett, Terao over Delgado - both Moisey and Terao again unseeded, but even if they had been seeded - likely they would have been low enough for these matches to occur.

 

Face it - it's the Animal Show, and all of these guys are dam good!  Guys can't just sit on their seeds, and seeding doesn't project the end results.  That's why they wrestle.

 

Sit back, and enjoy the show!

Edited by redblades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm up 64-36.5 through session 3, and that's counting the flagrant misconduct for Eblen as going against me.

Who would have thought how an athlete performance in a season would be a good indication of how they would perform at that season's championship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my defense, it's not like I picked the most accomplished guy at each weight.  Injuries are the great equalizer in this sport.  Stieber and to a lesser extent Schopp and Harger are not close to 100%.  Also, this has been a crazy year.

 

Still,

 

125:Garrett can still wrestle back for 3rd.

133:Schopp can still wrestle back for 3rd.

141:Carter can still wrestle back for 3rd.

149:Shouldn't have even wrestled................

157:Ness can be my hero!

165:I didn't like this weight any which way.  Still my hat goes off to Walsh even though I would have liked to see a healthy Harger wrestle him in the semis!

174:Storley, borely can still wrestle back for 3rd.

184:Dechow................................flu???? ;)

197:Schiller can still get his redemption when he meets up with Snyder again for 5-6th.

285:Telford is a pinning machine!  He will also place ahead of Coon in wrestlebacks!

 

I am down but not out!  The fat lady may be clearing her throat but she isn't singing yet!

 

Looking at SHP's team

 

125:  Being the 1 seed in this bracket has it's advantages.  His first true test will be tonight.

133:  Diwhoooolius?

141: Carter will wreck thee, cometh and see-eth!

149: Snorenson had the luxury of wrestling with 2 arms.  No fair!  ;)

157: Martinez is a machine.  Green is a cog waiting to trip up the machine!

165: This weight is under protest!

174: Eblen proves my point.  All the other guys are anomalies...................

184: If Brooks had to wrestle the only MSU qualifier he would have lost his next match as well.................

197: tOSU cheats.  Just ask Tressell.......

285: Myers was bored after back to back upsets.  He is ready to get back to the gridiron..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's foolish to ignore previous success I think. It should be a component of the seeding. If a guy stumbles to a 15-10 record after finishing as a runnerup the year before..yeah, obviously he probably doesn't deserve a seeding, but a guy who is 19-2 and a 3 time All American I think can be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

I didn't realize Realbuto was 19-2...yet that entitles him to a #2 seed, while Cody Brewer was 19-1 and somehow "didn't have enough matches" to be seeded higher than 13th (despite hammering Earl Hall the week before in Big 12 finals)? I guess the "cutoff" for number of matches is, specifically, 21 matches. If Brewer had only managed to lose one more match maybe he'd have been a #2 seed like Realbuto?

 

Wild inconsistency. Maybe next year only people with fully functional brains should be allowed to handle the seeding.

 

While on the topic...where the hell were the coaches for underseeded wrestlers when their guys were getting the shaft? What, if anything, did Cody say to try to convince the seeding committee that his 19-1 two time AA wrestler MIGHT rate better than a #13 seed?

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...