Roar’s Annual Big Ten Seeding Review: 2026

RoarLions1

Senior
May 11, 2012
97
638
83
Welcome to my 18th annual B1G Wrestling Championships seeding review. Before I begin, an explanation is needed this year. The Big Ten will be using point-based criteria to compare wrestlers and come up with seeds. Good for them. I’m still going to do my seeds the old-fashioned way, imperfect (though sometimes perfection and I do meet!) as they are; not to “compete” with the Big Ten’s process but to add color commentary to the shared notion that head-to-head wins and comparing results against common opponents should be the basis for pre-seeding and final seeding. The rest of the point-based criteria I’m not as sold on, for a variety of reasons that you may catch below, or in the weight class write-ups.

For those that are not familiar, this is my attempt to deep-dive into conference results and look for differentiation, moving wrestlers up and down my seed list until all the results and their impact on seeding have been exhausted. When I don’t see differentiation, I resort to a secret weapon – the “coin flip”, which will be proudly announced when it happens.

Rankings do not matter, only results between conference foes. Frankly, within the Big Ten it is tough enough to seed when only wrestling eight out of 13 potential opponents at most, with tons of other match-ups missed due to injury/illness/whatever. A smidge over 50% of the 140 (14 teams, 10 wrestlers each) wrestlers wrestled a full slate of matches, or eight bouts, while about 20% of the 140 wrestling five conference bouts or fewer. Eight are not enough, in my opinion; five or fewer can at times make it nearly impossible. Regardless of system used, I call these “traps & gaps”, even with a numbers-based criteria system. There was a time when supplemental bouts from Midlands, Southern Scuffle, and a dozen or so other tournaments would help, even if used only for tiebreakers. I might be wrong, but it appears many-a-team have adopted the Penn State system, as it appears fewer of those bouts happen today than say a decade ago. Is it possible coaches are emulating a system that keeps wrestlers fresher and allows them to peak in the post-season? I don’t know for sure. As an aside, it is true that the National Duals happened, with five match-ups between Big Ten teams. Three of those five match-ups were repeated during the regular season, leaving only a small amount of new information.

Last year I provided a bit of history in this preface. It is worth repeating that I do this for fun, for you my fellow fans. I am human, and an imperfect one at that, so you might find a mistake or two. Let me know, and it will be fixed pronto. Differences of opinion are harder to fix, but have at it, I’ll listen, and then if it is nothing more than an opinion, it will be handled accordingly. That said, thank you for the kind words and thoughtful agreements and disagreements of the past. You HAVE impacted my process!

My process is this, as a reminder; after the final Big Ten Conference dual of the season, my work begins, though I’m cheating a bit this year. Several days after, and I will publish one weight class at a time, sometimes one per day, sometimes two, until all 10 weight classes are done. All shall be published BEFORE the Big Ten pre-seeds are announced. Then the Coup de grâce will be a few paragraphs on the team race. Please note that I shall publish a few weight classes this week, prior to the weekend’s final match, Indiana vs Purdue, focusing on the weight classes where those two teams have no one in my top 9.

Well, I believe that does it for my remarks. Please enjoy!! The first weight class, 149, is finished and shall be posted tomorrow (Wednesday).
 
Last edited:

gabletrained1990

Sophomore
Feb 27, 2024
14
111
27
Welcome to my 18th annual B1G Wrestling Championships seeding review. Before I begin, an explanation is needed this year. The Big Ten will be using point-based criteria to compare wrestlers and come up with seeds. Good for them. I’m still going to do my seeds the old-fashioned way, imperfect (though sometimes perfection and I do meet!) as they are; not to “compete” with the Big Ten’s process but to add color commentary to the shared notion that head-to-head wins and comparing results against common opponents should be the basis for pre-seeding and final seeding. The rest of the point-based criteria I’m not as sold on, for a variety of reasons that you may catch below, or in the weight class write-ups.

For those that are not familiar, this is my attempt to deep-dive into conference results and look for differentiation, moving wrestlers up and down my seed list until all the results and their impact on seeding have been exhausted. When I don’t see differentiation, I resort to a secret weapon – the “coin flip”, which will be proudly announced when it happens.

Rankings do not matter, only results between conference foes. Frankly, within the Big Ten it is tough enough to seed when only wrestling eight out of 13 potential opponents at most, with tons of other match-ups missed due to injury/illness/whatever. A smidge over 50% of the 140 (14 teams, 10 wrestlers each) wrestlers wrestled a full slate of matches, or eight bouts, while about 20% of the 140 wrestling five conference bouts or fewer. Eight are not enough, in my opinion; five or fewer can at times make it nearly impossible. Regardless of system used, I call these “traps & gaps”, even with a numbers-based criteria system. There was a time when supplemental bouts from Midlands, Southern Scuffle, and a dozen or so other tournaments would help, even if used only for tiebreakers. I might be wrong, but it appears many-a-team have adopted the Penn State system, as it appears fewer of those bouts happen today than say a decade ago. Is it possible coaches are emulating a system that keeps wrestlers fresher and allows them to peak in the post-season? I don’t know for sure. As an aside, it is true that the National Duals happened, with five match-ups between Big Ten teams. Three of those five match-ups were repeated during the regular season, leaving only a small amount of new information.

Last year I provided a bit of history in this preface. It is worth repeating that I do this for fun, for you my fellow fans. I am human, and an imperfect one at that, so you might find a mistake or two. Let me know, and it will be fixed pronto. Differences of opinion are harder to fix, but have at it, I’ll listen, and then if it is nothing more than an opinion, it will be handled accordingly. That said, thank you for the kind words and thoughtful agreements and disagreements of the past. You HAVE impacted my process!

My process is this, as a reminder; after the final Big Ten Conference dual of the season, my work begins, though I’m cheating a bit this year. Several days after, and I will publish one weight class at a time, sometimes one per day, sometimes two, until all 10 weight classes are done. All shall be published BEFORE the Big Ten pre-seeds are announced. Then the Coup de grâce will be a few paragraphs on the team race. Please note that I shall publish a few weight classes this week, prior to the weekend’s final match, Indiana vs Purdue, focusing on the weight classes where those two teams have no one in my top 9.

Well, I believe that does it for my remarks. Please enjoy!! The first weight class, 149, is finished and shall be posted tomorrow (Wednesday).
Thanks so much Roar! I look forward to this every year and very much appreciate you doing this. Thx again!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Headlock

RoarLions1

Senior
May 11, 2012
97
638
83
149
#1 Shayne Van Ness (PSU, 8-0)
#2 Carter Young (MD, 6-1)
#3 Joseph Zargo (WIS, 6-2)
#4 Lachlan McNeil (MICH, 5-2)
#5 Ethan Stiles (tOSU, 4-1)
#6 Andrew Clark (RUT, 5-3)
#7 Drew Roberts (MINN, 5-3)
#8 Ryder Block (IOWA, 3-5)
#9 Chance Lamer (NEB, 4-3)
#10 Michael Gioffre (ILL, 4-4)
#11 Joey Buttler (IND, 2-6)
#12 Gavin Brown (PUR, 1-7)
#13 Clayton Jones (MSU, 1-5)
#14 August Hibler (NW, 0-7)

There is one man left standing as undefeated in conference action, that being Van Ness (PSU). He easily gets the number one seed, defeating the likes of Young (MD), McNeil (MICH), Lamer (NEB) and Block (IOWA) along the way, all of which are top-8 for me AND doing so in spectacular fashion with only a seven-point win vs Lamer preventing 100% bonus point wins in conference. #2 Young is easily next, with a lone conference loss to Van Ness, and a very good win against #3 Zargo (WIS) and a win vs #6 Clark (RUT) his next best. While Zargo was next with HTH (head-to-head) wins against #4 McNeil (MICH) and #5 Stiles (tOSU), he also has an inexplicable loss to Buttler (IND) who is 1-6 in the conference with only the Purdue match to go. Bouts are wrestled for a reason, and here we see that upsets do happen. While it helps Buttler just a little, Zargo’s body of work keeps him at #3. McNeil (5-2 in conference action) and Stiles (4-1) are very close, but I gave the nod to McNeil for two reasons; 1) his Clark (RUT) win is ever-so-slightly better than Stiles’ win over Roberts (MINN), both guys best wins, and 2) McNeil has two losses, to Van Ness and Zargo, while Stiles has one, also to Zargo, but he missed the Penn State dual, which arguably would have also settled this in McNeil’s favor. Regardless, they should get each other in the quarterfinals.

#6 Clark won a HTH match-up with #7 Roberts, both with better than average seasons and no bad losses. #8 Block (IOWA) lands next, with a HTH loss to #7 Roberts and a win, by fall, over #9 Lamer (MICH). Block’s five losses are a bit misleading, as they are all to guys in front of him, so even though Gioffre (ILL) and Lamer have better records, Block gets seeded higher based on body of work. To be honest, by my seeds Block and Lamer will meet in the first round, and I would pick Lamer slightly favored over Block in a rematch if he can stay off his back. #10 Gioffre (ILL) has a HTH loss to #9 Lamer, sealing the deal for the #10 seed, despite a decent 4-4 conference record. Only wins against back-ups or guys seeded 11 through 14 makes Gioffre’s seed an easy one despite the average looking record.

From here it is #11 Buttler with the very good win against Zargo as a differentiating factor, then #12 Brown (PUR), #13 Jones (MSU) and #14 Hibler (NW). The Indiana vs Purdue result could cause me to flip a few of these seeds in the #11 through #14 range, but no one will move appreciably.

This was a straight-forward weight class, so I am glad I picked it as the first one done. It gets the juices flowing for me! Only one significant result to muddy the waters, but the affected wrestler had multiple other results that made the loss moot. Most of the 14 wrestlers had a full slate of results, or only missed one conference dual, which helped too. This will not be the case at all weight classes which will be explained when they are analyzed, but a heads-up that some interesting situations may exist at 141, 157, 165 and 184.

EDIT: Fixed. Removed Cartella, replaced with Hibler (NW).
 
Last edited:

Fink26

Freshman
Jul 30, 2001
41
86
18
Great job as always. Thanks ROAR. It will be interesting to see if the Big10 follows the new process. If so, Blaze should be one subject to the coaches changing it. 285 also could be interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F7Mello

RoarLions1

Senior
May 11, 2012
97
638
83
133
#1 Lucas Byrd (ILL, 8-0)
#2 Marcus Blaze (PSU, 8-0)
#3 Ben Davino (tOSU, 7-1)
#4 Zan Fugitt (WIS, 6-2)
#5 Drake Ayala (IOWA, 5-3)
#6 Jacob Van Dee (NEB, 4-3)
#7 Sean Spidle (NW, 2-2)
#8 Braxton Brown (MD, 4-3)
#9 Blake Boarman (PUR, 3-5)
#10 Dylan Shawver (RUT, 4-4)
#11 Caleb Weiand (MSU, 4-4)
#12 Gauge Botero (MICH, 0-8)
#13 Chris Cannon (MINN, 0-2)
#14 Blaine Frazier (IND, 0-3)

This weight class was fun to seed. Not everything fell into perfect order as with 149. First challenge happened right off the bat with two guys at 8-0 in conference action, Byrd (ILL) and Blaze (PSU). Byrd is a 7th year senior, three-time All-American and former national champion (2025). Blaze is a true freshman, undefeated this season, but just starting his collegiate career. By the numbers-based criteria, starting with “# of quality wins against the 33 ranked wrestlers in the coaches ranking”, Blaze has the clear edge, and the Big Ten should seed the young Nittany Lion number 1. In the Big Ten alone, Byrd wrestled four back-ups and four guys in the number 9 through 14 seed range for his eight wins. Only a National Duals win against Ayala (IOWA) is remotely impressive. Blaze on the other hand wrestled my number 3 seed (Davino, tOSU), as well as my numbers 5 and 6 seeds (Ayala and Van Dee, respectively) in conference duals. Adding other criteria, as Acacia has already done in another thread, and Blaze must be the number 1 seed, or the mathematical criteria system falls apart.

However, I must be true to myself. Consistently, for nearly two decades, I have ALWAYS given benefit of the doubt to the guy previously on top, as he cannot control the schedule, and in this case as in past cases, has done everything asked during the season by winning all his matches. Without a hiccup on his record he stays number one, and I will accept the difference compared to the Big Ten, assuming there is one, proudly. It is #1 Byrd and #2 Blaze for me. I do believe that a number one seed has a slight benefit, as the top three seeds seem to have ever so slightly separated themselves from the pack, meaning a slightly easier semifinal (wow, I just used the word "slight" or a variation, three times in one sentence, which is slightly awesome!).

An easy next seed is #3 Davino, at 7-1, with a lone loss HTH vs Blaze, he has great HTH wins over #4 Fugitt, #5 Ayala and #6 Van Dee. Both freshman, and assuming no weight class changes, Blaze vs Davino should delight fans for years to come. Add super-frosh’s named Larkin, Forrest and Seidel from the national scene and 133 looks like a dogfight for the foreseeable future.

#4 Fugitt is only clear in that he beat #5 Ayala HTH, which carries more weight than a loss to Blum (IND), a back-up with a 1-2 conference record and 4-6 overall record. This is another upset that caused a second look, but I’m staying with a 4-seed for Fugitt based on the HTH result. #5 Ayala, a two-time NCAA finalist, only has losses to guys in front of him and a HTH victory against #6 Van Dee, so these seeds are nice and clean.

Here is where the results are messy (technical term). Brown (MD) has the better record at 4-3, but his best wins are Shawver (RUT) and Boarman (PUR), neither of whom set the world on fire this season. Brown also has a loss to Spidle (NW) HTH. Spidle only has losses to my #2 and #4 seeds to go with an abbreviated conference season, going 2-2, leaving little to go on despite the fact that beating Brown stands out. Here’s where I will include a couple results from outside the conference duals, including a HTH win for Spidle against Shawver. Not much to go on, but my lean is #7 Spidle, then #8 Brown.

Weiand (MSU) and Shawver have the next best conference records at 4-4, but a look below the surface is needed. Weiand’s four wins are against two back-ups and my #12 and #14 seeds. Shawver has a HTH win vs Weiand which is huge, but also a loss to 2-5 Boarman. Boarman’s other win is HTH against Weiand. With no bad losses, the guy with a 2-5 record gets the nod over two guys with 4-4 records. It is #9 Boarman, #10 Shawver and #11 Weiand for me. None of the final three seeds have a single conference win under their belt, so I’m going with #12 Gauge Botero (MICH), as he wrestled a full slate, while #13 Chris Cannon (MINN) and #14 Blaine Frazier (IND) were both 0-2. To be honest, I’m not sure who is going at the conference championships for Minnesota or Indiana.
 
Last edited:

Nitlion1986

All-Conference
Apr 13, 2024
1,588
4,730
113
149
#1 Shayne Van Ness (PSU, 8-0)
#2 Carter Young (MD, 6-1)
#3 Joseph Zargo (WIS, 6-2)
#4 Lachlan McNeil (MICH, 5-2)
#5 Ethan Stiles (tOSU, 4-1)
#6 Andrew Clark (RUT, 5-3)
#7 Drew Roberts (MINN, 5-3)
#8 Ryder Block (IOWA, 3-5)
#9 Chance Lamer (NEB, 4-3)
#10 Michael Gioffre (ILL, 4-4)
#11 Joey Buttler (IND, 1-6)
#12 Gavin Brown (PUR, 1-6)
#13 Clayton Jones (MSU, 1-5)
#14 Sam Cartella (NW, 0-7)

There is one man left standing as undefeated in conference action, that being Van Ness (PSU). He easily gets the number one seed, defeating the likes of Young (MD), McNeil (MICH), Lamer (NEB) and Block (IOWA) along the way, all of which are top-8 for me AND doing so in spectacular fashion with only a seven-point win vs Lamer preventing 100% bonus point wins in conference. #2 Young is easily next, with a lone conference loss to Van Ness, and a very good win against #3 Zargo (WIS) and a win vs #6 Clark (RUT) his next best. While Zargo was next with HTH (head-to-head) wins against #4 McNeil (MICH) and #5 Stiles (tOSU), he also has an inexplicable loss to Buttler (IND) who is 1-6 in the conference with only the Purdue match to go. Bouts are wrestled for a reason, and here we see that upsets do happen. While it helps Buttler just a little, Zargo’s body of work keeps him at #3. McNeil (5-2 in conference action) and Stiles (4-1) are very close, but I gave the nod to McNeil for two reasons; 1) his Clark (RUT) win is ever-so-slightly better than Stiles’ win over Roberts (MINN), both guys best wins, and 2) McNeil has two losses, to Van Ness and Zargo, while Stiles has one, also to Zargo, but he missed the Penn State dual, which arguably would have also settled this in McNeil’s favor. Regardless, they should get each other in the quarterfinals.

#6 Clark won a HTH match-up with #7 Roberts, both with better than average seasons and no bad losses. #8 Block (IOWA) lands next, with a HTH loss to #7 Roberts and a win, by fall, over #9 Lamer (MICH). Block’s five losses are a bit misleading, as they are all to guys in front of him, so even though Gioffre (ILL) and Lamer have better records, Block gets seeded higher based on body of work. To be honest, by my seeds Block and Lamer will meet in the first round, and I would pick Lamer slightly favored over Block in a rematch if he can stay off his back. #10 Gioffre (ILL) has a HTH loss to #9 Lamer, sealing the deal for the #10 seed, despite a decent 4-4 conference record. Only wins against back-ups or guys seeded 11 through 14 makes Gioffre’s seed an easy one despite the average looking record.

From here it is #11 Buttler with the very good win against Zargo as a differentiating factor, then #12 Brown (PUR), #13 Jones (MSU) and #14 Cartella (NW). The Indiana vs Purdue result could cause me to flip a few of these seeds in the #11 through #14 range, but no one will move appreciably.

This was a straight-forward weight class, so I am glad I picked it as the first one done. It gets the juices flowing for me! Only one significant result to muddy the waters, but the affected wrestler had multiple other results that made the loss moot. Most of the 14 wrestlers had a full slate of results, or only missed one conference dual, which helped too. This will not be the case at all weight classes which will be explained when they are analyzed, but a heads-up that some interesting situations may exist at 141, 157, 165 and 184.
As always. I greatly appreciate the effort you put into this and the fact you share it with us.
 

Nitlion1986

All-Conference
Apr 13, 2024
1,588
4,730
113
149
#1 Shayne Van Ness (PSU, 8-0)
#2 Carter Young (MD, 6-1)
#3 Joseph Zargo (WIS, 6-2)
#4 Lachlan McNeil (MICH, 5-2)
#5 Ethan Stiles (tOSU, 4-1)
#6 Andrew Clark (RUT, 5-3)
#7 Drew Roberts (MINN, 5-3)
#8 Ryder Block (IOWA, 3-5)
#9 Chance Lamer (NEB, 4-3)
#10 Michael Gioffre (ILL, 4-4)
#11 Joey Buttler (IND, 1-6)
#12 Gavin Brown (PUR, 1-6)
#13 Clayton Jones (MSU, 1-5)
#14 Sam Cartella (NW, 0-7)

There is one man left standing as undefeated in conference action, that being Van Ness (PSU). He easily gets the number one seed, defeating the likes of Young (MD), McNeil (MICH), Lamer (NEB) and Block (IOWA) along the way, all of which are top-8 for me AND doing so in spectacular fashion with only a seven-point win vs Lamer preventing 100% bonus point wins in conference. #2 Young is easily next, with a lone conference loss to Van Ness, and a very good win against #3 Zargo (WIS) and a win vs #6 Clark (RUT) his next best. While Zargo was next with HTH (head-to-head) wins against #4 McNeil (MICH) and #5 Stiles (tOSU), he also has an inexplicable loss to Buttler (IND) who is 1-6 in the conference with only the Purdue match to go. Bouts are wrestled for a reason, and here we see that upsets do happen. While it helps Buttler just a little, Zargo’s body of work keeps him at #3. McNeil (5-2 in conference action) and Stiles (4-1) are very close, but I gave the nod to McNeil for two reasons; 1) his Clark (RUT) win is ever-so-slightly better than Stiles’ win over Roberts (MINN), both guys best wins, and 2) McNeil has two losses, to Van Ness and Zargo, while Stiles has one, also to Zargo, but he missed the Penn State dual, which arguably would have also settled this in McNeil’s favor. Regardless, they should get each other in the quarterfinals.

#6 Clark won a HTH match-up with #7 Roberts, both with better than average seasons and no bad losses. #8 Block (IOWA) lands next, with a HTH loss to #7 Roberts and a win, by fall, over #9 Lamer (MICH). Block’s five losses are a bit misleading, as they are all to guys in front of him, so even though Gioffre (ILL) and Lamer have better records, Block gets seeded higher based on body of work. To be honest, by my seeds Block and Lamer will meet in the first round, and I would pick Lamer slightly favored over Block in a rematch if he can stay off his back. #10 Gioffre (ILL) has a HTH loss to #9 Lamer, sealing the deal for the #10 seed, despite a decent 4-4 conference record. Only wins against back-ups or guys seeded 11 through 14 makes Gioffre’s seed an easy one despite the average looking record.

From here it is #11 Buttler with the very good win against Zargo as a differentiating factor, then #12 Brown (PUR), #13 Jones (MSU) and #14 Cartella (NW). The Indiana vs Purdue result could cause me to flip a few of these seeds in the #11 through #14 range, but no one will move appreciably.

This was a straight-forward weight class, so I am glad I picked it as the first one done. It gets the juices flowing for me! Only one significant result to muddy the waters, but the affected wrestler had multiple other results that made the loss moot. Most of the 14 wrestlers had a full slate of results, or only missed one conference dual, which helped too. This will not be the case at all weight classes which will be explained when they are analyzed, but a heads-up that some interesting situations may exist at 141, 157, 165 and 184.
I have to wonder if Clemsen will challenge this seeding. You know, considering Miller pinned Shayne.
 

gimb14

All-American
May 3, 2022
4,007
7,254
113
Always appreciated these. Will be weird with them being on a board I'm a member of and can comment on.
 

Scu88

Sophomore
Oct 11, 2021
29
153
28
@Roar I look forward to this each year, and getting excited about the potential matchups. Thanks for doing the work. Quick question - why did you start at 149? My OCD is spiking 😂
 

RoarLions1

Senior
May 11, 2012
97
638
83
@Roar I look forward to this each year, and getting excited about the potential matchups. Thanks for doing the work. Quick question - why did you start at 149? My OCD is spiking 😂
Easy. As the Purdue vs Indiana dual is the last remaining conference dual and won't be wrestled until this coming weekend, I wanted to avoid any weight class where a Boilermaker or Hoosier was in the top 8. 149 and 133 fit the bill. 285 will be next.
 

CarolinaFan1

Senior
Jun 7, 2025
182
781
93
Thanks for all the great work and analysis that goes into this each year. My only thought on Bryd/Blaze being 1 is the committee should either respect the objective formula it created or don’t bother having one. I completely understand the thoughts on Bryd being an undefeated returning champ but if that should be considered then it should be added as another criteria in the formula.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdoncsecz

paleryder

Junior
Apr 28, 2017
78
243
33
133
#1 Lucas Byrd (ILL, 8-0)
#2 Marcus Blaze (PSU, 8-0)
#3 Ben Davino (tOSU, 7-1)
#4 Zan Fugitt (WIS, 6-2)
#5 Drake Ayala (IOWA, 5-3)
#6 Jacob Van Dee (NEB, 4-3)
#7 Sean Spidle (NW, 2-2)
#8 Braxton Brown (MD, 4-3)
#9 Blake Boarman (PUR, 2-5)
#10 Dylan Shawver (RUT, 4-4)
#11 Caleb Weiand (MSU, 4-4)
#12 Gauge Botero (MICH, 0-8)
#13 Chris Cannon (MINN, 0-2)
#14 Blaine Frazier (IND, 0-2)

This weight class was fun to seed. Not everything fell into perfect order as with 149. First challenge happened right off the bat with two guys at 8-0 in conference action, Byrd (ILL) and Blaze (PSU). Byrd is a 7th year senior, three-time All-American and former national champion (2025). Blaze is a true freshman, undefeated this season, but just starting his collegiate career. By the numbers-based criteria, starting with “# of quality wins against the 33 ranked wrestlers in the coaches ranking”, Blaze has the clear edge, and the Big Ten should seed the young Nittany Lion number 1. In the Big Ten alone, Byrd wrestled four back-ups and four guys in the number 9 through 14 seed range for his eight wins. Only a National Duals win against Ayala (IOWA) is remotely impressive. Blaze on the other hand wrestled my number 3 seed (Davino, tOSU), as well as my numbers 5 and 6 seeds (Ayala and Van Dee, respectively) in conference duals. Adding other criteria, as Acacia has already done in another thread, and Blaze must be the number 1 seed, or the mathematical criteria system falls apart.

However, I must be true to myself. Consistently, for nearly two decades, I have ALWAYS given benefit of the doubt to the guy previously on top, as he cannot control the schedule, and in this case as in past cases, has done everything asked during the season by winning all his matches. Without a hiccup on his record he stays number one, and I will accept the difference compared to the Big Ten, assuming there is one, proudly. It is #1 Byrd and #2 Blaze for me. I do believe that a number one seed has a slight benefit, as the top three seeds seem to have ever so slightly separated themselves from the pack, meaning a slightly easier semifinal (wow, I just used the word "slight" or a variation, three times in one sentence, which is slightly awesome!).

An easy next seed is #3 Davino, at 7-1, with a lone loss HTH vs Blaze, he has great HTH wins over #4 Fugitt, #5 Ayala and #6 Van Dee. Both freshman, and assuming no weight class changes, Blaze vs Davino should delight fans for years to come. Add super-frosh’s named Larkin, Forrest and Seidel from the national scene and 133 looks like a dogfight for the foreseeable future.

#4 Fugitt is only clear in that he beat #5 Ayala HTH, which carries more weight than a loss to Blum (IND), a back-up with a 1-2 conference record and 4-6 overall record. This is another upset that caused a second look, but I’m staying with a 4-seed for Fugitt based on the HTH result. #5 Ayala, a two-time NCAA finalist, only has losses to guys in front of him and a HTH victory against #6 Van Dee, so these seeds are nice and clean.

Here is where the results are messy (technical term). Brown (MD) has the better record at 4-3, but his best wins are Shawver (RUT) and Boarman (PUR), neither of whom set the world on fire this season. Brown also has a loss to Spidle (NW) HTH. Spidle only has losses to my #2 and #4 seeds to go with an abbreviated conference season, going 2-2, leaving little to go on despite the fact that beating Brown stands out. Here’s where I will include a couple results from outside the conference duals, including a HTH win for Spidle against Shawver. Not much to go on, but my lean is #7 Spidle, then #8 Brown.

Weiand (MSU) and Shawver have the next best conference records at 4-4, but a look below the surface is needed. Weiand’s four wins are against two back-ups and my #12 and #14 seeds. Shawver has a HTH win vs Weiand which is huge, but also a loss to 2-5 Boarman. Boarman’s other win is HTH against Weiand. With no bad losses, the guy with a 2-5 record gets the nod over two guys with 4-4 records. It is #9 Boarman, #10 Shawver and #11 Weiand for me. None of the final three seeds have a single conference win under their belt, so I’m going with #12 Gauge Botero (MICH), as he wrestled a full slate, while #13 Chris Cannon (MINN) and #14 Blaine Frazier (IND) were both 0-2. To be honest, I’m not sure who is going at the conference championships for Minnesota or Indiana.
Full disclosure: I had to go back and re-read the sentence in order to find "the 3 slights or variations". Getting old sucks
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoarLions1

Psalm 1 guy

All-Conference
Nov 3, 2019
1,158
4,435
113
Easy. As the Purdue vs Indiana dual is the last remaining conference dual and won't be wrestled until this coming weekend, I wanted to avoid any weight class where a Boilermaker or Hoosier was in the top 8. 149 and 133 fit the bill. 285 will be next.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2025
194
436
63
149
#1 Shayne Van Ness (PSU, 8-0)
#2 Carter Young (MD, 6-1)
#3 Joseph Zargo (WIS, 6-2)
#4 Lachlan McNeil (MICH, 5-2)
#5 Ethan Stiles (tOSU, 4-1)
#6 Andrew Clark (RUT, 5-3)
#7 Drew Roberts (MINN, 5-3)
#8 Ryder Block (IOWA, 3-5)
#9 Chance Lamer (NEB, 4-3)
#10 Michael Gioffre (ILL, 4-4)
#11 Joey Buttler (IND, 1-6)
#12 Gavin Brown (PUR, 1-6)
#13 Clayton Jones (MSU, 1-5)
#14 Sam Cartella (NW, 0-7)

There is one man left standing as undefeated in conference action, that being Van Ness (PSU). He easily gets the number one seed, defeating the likes of Young (MD), McNeil (MICH), Lamer (NEB) and Block (IOWA) along the way, all of which are top-8 for me AND doing so in spectacular fashion with only a seven-point win vs Lamer preventing 100% bonus point wins in conference. #2 Young is easily next, with a lone conference loss to Van Ness, and a very good win against #3 Zargo (WIS) and a win vs #6 Clark (RUT) his next best. While Zargo was next with HTH (head-to-head) wins against #4 McNeil (MICH) and #5 Stiles (tOSU), he also has an inexplicable loss to Buttler (IND) who is 1-6 in the conference with only the Purdue match to go. Bouts are wrestled for a reason, and here we see that upsets do happen. While it helps Buttler just a little, Zargo’s body of work keeps him at #3. McNeil (5-2 in conference action) and Stiles (4-1) are very close, but I gave the nod to McNeil for two reasons; 1) his Clark (RUT) win is ever-so-slightly better than Stiles’ win over Roberts (MINN), both guys best wins, and 2) McNeil has two losses, to Van Ness and Zargo, while Stiles has one, also to Zargo, but he missed the Penn State dual, which arguably would have also settled this in McNeil’s favor. Regardless, they should get each other in the quarterfinals.

#6 Clark won a HTH match-up with #7 Roberts, both with better than average seasons and no bad losses. #8 Block (IOWA) lands next, with a HTH loss to #7 Roberts and a win, by fall, over #9 Lamer (MICH). Block’s five losses are a bit misleading, as they are all to guys in front of him, so even though Gioffre (ILL) and Lamer have better records, Block gets seeded higher based on body of work. To be honest, by my seeds Block and Lamer will meet in the first round, and I would pick Lamer slightly favored over Block in a rematch if he can stay off his back. #10 Gioffre (ILL) has a HTH loss to #9 Lamer, sealing the deal for the #10 seed, despite a decent 4-4 conference record. Only wins against back-ups or guys seeded 11 through 14 makes Gioffre’s seed an easy one despite the average looking record.

From here it is #11 Buttler with the very good win against Zargo as a differentiating factor, then #12 Brown (PUR), #13 Jones (MSU) and #14 Cartella (NW). The Indiana vs Purdue result could cause me to flip a few of these seeds in the #11 through #14 range, but no one will move appreciably.

This was a straight-forward weight class, so I am glad I picked it as the first one done. It gets the juices flowing for me! Only one significant result to muddy the waters, but the affected wrestler had multiple other results that made the loss moot. Most of the 14 wrestlers had a full slate of results, or only missed one conference dual, which helped too. This will not be the case at all weight classes which will be explained when they are analyzed, but a heads-up that some interesting situations may exist at 141, 157, 165 and 184.
why is Cartella 0-7 in Conference on your list. He is 2-2 (0-2 against starters)
 

RoarLions1

Senior
May 11, 2012
97
638
83
285
#1 Taye Ghadiali (MICH, 8-0)
#2 Nick Feldman (tOSU, 6-2)
#3 AJ Ferrari (NEB, 7-1)
#4 Cole Mirasola (PSU, 6-2)
#5 Ben Kueter (IOWA, 3-4)
#6 Braxton Amos (WIS, 5-3)
#7 Luke Luffman (ILL, 3-1)
#8 Koy Hopke (MINN, 4-4)
#9 Hunter Catka (RUT, 3-3)
#10 Josh Terrill (MSU, 5-3)
#11 Hayden Filipovich (PUR, 3-5)
#12 Gabe Christenson (NW, 1-6)
#13 Oscar Williams (MD, 0-3)
#14 Caleb Marzolino (IN, 0-6)

No longer is 285 the “dancing bears” weight class. It is more fun to watch than ever before, and has been for many years. And this year, it was a blast to seed. There were lots of results that made it so, including the infamous transitive property being obliterated, and a very high seed losing a bout to a conference opponent, albeit at the National Duals. How would both situations play out?

Standing alone as undefeated in official conference dual action is my #1 seed, Ghadiali (MICH). He does have a HTH loss to Ferrari (NEB), by major decision no less, at the National Duals, but I will set that aside for now as the Campbell transfer has great wins over Feldman (tOSU) and Mirasola (PSU) on his resume. Here it gets tricky, uncomfortably so, as Mirasola beat Feldman, Feldman beat Ferrari and Ferrari beat Mirasola, a result showing that if A>B, and B>C, then A is NOT always greater than C in the world of college wrestling – or any sport for that matter.

For seeding purposes, does Feldman get extra credit for two wins over Ferrari (regular season plus National Duals), Ferrari’s only two losses on the season? Does Ferrari get extra credit for the National Duals HTH win over Ghadiali, the Michigan wrestler’s only loss in or out of conference to another Big Ten wrestler? Drumroll, please. I actually used both! As there was no “extra credit” result for Mirasola that would have differentiated him from the others, I felt his claim for the #2 seed was the weakest of the three wrestlers noted after going outside official Big Ten duals, so he becomes my #4 seed. Yes, he beat Feldman at the dual, but each of these three was 1-1 in this mini pool, so I was looking for something extra. The next step was now easier, as #2 Feldman has two HTH wins vs #3 Ferrari.

Next for me was a tough call. Kueter (IOWA), despite having only the 10th best record in the Big Ten at 3-4, has losses to the top four guys AND owns a HTH win vs Amos (WIS). That would ordinarily be enough for the #5 seed, except that Luffman (ILL) must be inserted somewhere after wrestling an abbreviated Big Ten schedule. With four bouts, which included a loss to Ferrari and three wins against my #11, #12 and #14 seeds, even an out-of-conference win vs Marty (IOWA) does nothing that helps Luffman’s case. For me it is #5 Kueter based on the HTH win vs #6 Amos, then inserting Luffman at #7, though honestly I could drop Luffman one more spot given his body of work. I chose not to, but would be ok if Luffman and Hopke were switched.

#8 Hopke (MINN) is next with a HTH win over #9 Catka (RUT) and no bad losses for either guy. #10 Terrill (MSU) also lost HTH to Hopke, and his 5-3 record is misleading with two wins over back-ups and his three other wins against conference foes that are outside my top 10. A 5-3 record would normally put a guy in the top half of the seeds. Not here, and not even close.

The last four seeds are #11 Filipovich (PUR), #12 Christenson (NW), #13 Williams (MD) and #14 Marzolino (IND).

Well, that wasn’t all that bad. Some level of logic played out for every seed placement, though one can see a perfect case for not using conference dual record as criteria, as is done by the Big Ten. Ben Kueter, at 3-4, was seeded in front of six guys with worse records and Josh Terrill, at 5-3, was seeded below four guys with worse records. Next up is 184 with a few twists that will challenge any seeding model!
 
Last edited:

dicemen99

All-Conference
Nov 15, 2005
3,407
4,481
113
285
#1 Taye Ghadiali (MICH, 8-0)
#2 Nick Feldman (tOSU, 6-2)
#3 AJ Ferrari (NEB, 7-1)
#4 Cole Mirasola (PSU, 6-2)
#5 Ben Kueter (IOWA, 3-4)
#6 Braxton Amos (WIS, 5-3)
#7 Luke Luffman (ILL, 3-1)
#8 Koy Hopke (MINN, 4-4)
#9 Hunter Catka (RUT, 3-3)
#10 Josh Terrill (MSU, 5-3)
#11 Hayden Filipovich (PUR, 2-5)
#12 Gabe Christenson (NW, 1-6)
#13 Oscar Williams (MD, 0-3)
#14 Caleb Marzolino (IN, 0-6)

No longer is 285 the “dancing bears” weight class. It is more fun to watch than ever before, and has been for many years. And this year, it was a blast to seed. There were lots of results that made it so, including the infamous transitive property being obliterated, and a very high seed losing a bout to a conference opponent, albeit at the National Duals. How would both situations play out?

Standing alone as undefeated in official conference dual action is my #1 seed, Ghadiali (MICH). He does have a HTH loss to Ferrari (NEB), by major decision no less, at the National Duals, but I will set that aside for now as the Campbell transfer has great wins over Feldman (tOSU) and Mirasola (PSU) on his resume. Here it gets tricky, uncomfortably so, as Mirasola beat Feldman, Feldman beat Ferrari and Ferrari beat Mirasola, a result showing that if A>B, and B>C, then A is NOT always greater than C in the world of college wrestling – or any sport for that matter.

For seeding purposes, does Feldman get extra credit for two wins over Ferrari (regular season plus National Duals), Ferrari’s only two losses on the season? Does Ferrari get extra credit for the National Duals HTH win over Ghadiali, the Michigan wrestler’s only loss in or out of conference to another Big Ten wrestler? Drumroll, please. I actually used both! As there was no “extra credit” result for Mirasola that would have differentiated him from the others, I felt his claim for the #2 seed was the weakest of the three wrestlers noted after going outside official Big Ten duals, so he becomes my #4 seed. Yes, he beat Feldman at the dual, but each of these three was 1-1 in this mini pool, so I was looking for something extra. The next step was now easier, as #2 Feldman has two HTH wins vs #3 Ferrari.

Next for me was a tough call. Kueter (IOWA), despite having only the 10th best record in the Big Ten at 3-4, has losses to the top four guys AND owns a HTH win vs Amos (WIS). That would ordinarily be enough for the #5 seed, except that Luffman (ILL) must be inserted somewhere after wrestling an abbreviated Big Ten schedule. With four bouts, which included a loss to Ferrari and three wins against my #11, #12 and #14 seeds, even an out-of-conference win vs Marty (IOWA) does nothing that helps Luffman’s case. For me it is #5 Kueter based on the HTH win vs #6 Amos, then inserting Luffman at #7, though honestly I could drop Luffman one more spot given his body of work. I chose not to, but would be ok if Luffman and Hopke were switched.

#8 Hopke (MINN) is next with a HTH win over #9 Catka (RUT) and no bad losses for either guy. #10 Terrill (MSU) also lost HTH to Hopke, and his 5-3 record is misleading with two wins over back-ups and his three other wins against conference foes that are outside my top 10. A 5-3 record would normally put a guy in the top half of the seeds. Not here, and not even close.

The last four seeds are #11 Filipovich (PUR), #12 Christenson (NW), #13 Williams (MD) and #14 Marzolino (IND).

Well, that wasn’t all that bad. Some level of logic played out for every seed placement, though one can see a perfect case for not using conference dual record as criteria, as is done by the Big Ten. Ben Kueter, at 3-4, was seeded in front of six guys with worse records and Josh Terrill, at 5-3, was seeded below four guys with worse records. Next up is 184 with a few twists that will challenge any seeding model!
@RoarLions1 always love what you do here each year.

While your seeding makes the most sense to me, as we have seen in year's past the coach's don't always vote with their heads and things like past credentials (which is why I agree with Byrd being #1) weigh very big, as well as the eye test for how a guy is trending lately which is often reflected in his national ranking. This weight is kind of a mess and I think it would be really helpful to see what the new matrix spits out as that may weigh heavily on how it ends up being seeded. If I were seeding - no matrix - I would agree with Keuter at 5, but don't see that happening, no way, no how.
 

Corby2

All-American
Jul 14, 2025
3,457
7,502
113
Yep, I know. Mentioned in the preface that a point system is being used. I do think there are several other situations where my "logic" won't match the point system. There will be flaws in any system. Where do you think Kueter will land? Thanks
I could see him as high as 5 and as low as 7. He's currently 5-5 and he won't have the WP over many guys or an RPI and he won't allocate.
 

psuslu

Sophomore
Dec 29, 2012
38
102
33
Welcome to my 18th annual B1G Wrestling Championships seeding review. Before I begin, an explanation is needed this year. The Big Ten will be using point-based criteria to compare wrestlers and come up with seeds. Good for them. I’m still going to do my seeds the old-fashioned way, imperfect (though sometimes perfection and I do meet!) as they are; not to “compete” with the Big Ten’s process but to add color commentary to the shared notion that head-to-head wins and comparing results against common opponents should be the basis for pre-seeding and final seeding. The rest of the point-based criteria I’m not as sold on, for a variety of reasons that you may catch below, or in the weight class write-ups.

For those that are not familiar, this is my attempt to deep-dive into conference results and look for differentiation, moving wrestlers up and down my seed list until all the results and their impact on seeding have been exhausted. When I don’t see differentiation, I resort to a secret weapon – the “coin flip”, which will be proudly announced when it happens.

Rankings do not matter, only results between conference foes. Frankly, within the Big Ten it is tough enough to seed when only wrestling eight out of 13 potential opponents at most, with tons of other match-ups missed due to injury/illness/whatever. A smidge over 50% of the 140 (14 teams, 10 wrestlers each) wrestlers wrestled a full slate of matches, or eight bouts, while about 20% of the 140 wrestling five conference bouts or fewer. Eight are not enough, in my opinion; five or fewer can at times make it nearly impossible. Regardless of system used, I call these “traps & gaps”, even with a numbers-based criteria system. There was a time when supplemental bouts from Midlands, Southern Scuffle, and a dozen or so other tournaments would help, even if used only for tiebreakers. I might be wrong, but it appears many-a-team have adopted the Penn State system, as it appears fewer of those bouts happen today than say a decade ago. Is it possible coaches are emulating a system that keeps wrestlers fresher and allows them to peak in the post-season? I don’t know for sure. As an aside, it is true that the National Duals happened, with five match-ups between Big Ten teams. Three of those five match-ups were repeated during the regular season, leaving only a small amount of new information.

Last year I provided a bit of history in this preface. It is worth repeating that I do this for fun, for you my fellow fans. I am human, and an imperfect one at that, so you might find a mistake or two. Let me know, and it will be fixed pronto. Differences of opinion are harder to fix, but have at it, I’ll listen, and then if it is nothing more than an opinion, it will be handled accordingly. That said, thank you for the kind words and thoughtful agreements and disagreements of the past. You HAVE impacted my process!

My process is this, as a reminder; after the final Big Ten Conference dual of the season, my work begins, though I’m cheating a bit this year. Several days after, and I will publish one weight class at a time, sometimes one per day, sometimes two, until all 10 weight classes are done. All shall be published BEFORE the Big Ten pre-seeds are announced. Then the Coup de grâce will be a few paragraphs on the team race. Please note that I shall publish a few weight classes this week, prior to the weekend’s final match, Indiana vs Purdue, focusing on the weight classes where those two teams have no one in my top 9.

Well, I believe that does it for my remarks. Please enjoy!! The first weight class, 149, is finished and shall be posted tomorrow (Wednesday).
Awesome job Roar lions. I too look forward to your reviews.
 

Matter7172

Senior
Oct 30, 2021
280
939
83
Who can even take these seriously when @RoarLions1 assumes from the get go that Rutgers will qualify a guy all ten weights? I kid. I kid. Great read, as always.
Hey! Rutgers just had their best season in 10 years and wound up tied for 3rd in the B1G duals standings! Of course, that means that they had to wait 10 years to get one win over a top 10 team when they had 3 of them in 2015-16, so it's hardly progress. In 20 years at Rutgers, Goodale has a grand total of 7 wins over top 10 teams - and 6 of them were in his first 10 years. That s*** will bring you down quickly when you think about it.