NCAA allocations, third coaches rankings, second RPI rankings discussion thread
- Thread starter GregPickel
- Start date
Allocations:
LINK: https://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling...ee-releases-qualifying-tournament-allocations
| Conference | 125 | 133 | 141 | 149 | 157 | 165 | 174 | 184 | 197 | 285 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlantic Coast Conference | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 39 |
| Big 12 Conference | 5 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 63 |
| Big Ten Conference | 9 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 87 |
| Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 26 |
| Ivy League | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 23 |
| Mid-American Conference | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 27 |
| Pacific-12 Conference | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 13 |
| Southern Conference | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Pre-Allocations | 28 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 288 |
| At-Large | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 42 |
LINK: https://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling...ee-releases-qualifying-tournament-allocations
Here's where each Penn State wrestling starter must finish at Big Tens to earn an auto bid to nationals
Penn State wrestling expects to have all 10 starters at this year's NCAA Championships. Here's how they can earn an auto bid.
Where are Penn State wrestlers in the third NCAA Coaches', second RPI rankings of the 2025-2026 season?
Penn State wrestlers know where they stand in two key postseason seeding metrics heading into Big Tens. Here are the details.
The Division I Men’s Wrestling Committee will use the following weighted criteria, in priority order, to evaluate the
wrestlers:
● Head-to-head competition — 25%.
● Quality wins — 20%.
● Qualifying event placement — 15%.
● Results against common opponents — 10%.
● RPI — 10%.
● Coaches rankings — 10%.
● Win percentage — 10%.
NOTE: Coaches’ Ranking — A wrestler must have wrestled eight matches at the championships weight class to be eligible
to be ranked in that weight class. He also must have wrestled at least one match in the 30 days preceding each ranking
period in the respective weight class. If a wrestler does not meet each of these two criteria, he will be removed from the
ranking list for that ranking period.
SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA
The committee may also consider the following subjective measures to supplement established selection and seeding
criteria:
● Bad Losses.
● Outside the top 30 CR and/or 30 RPI.
● Conference Champion.
● Performance in last five matches.
● Number of Injury default or medical forfeits wins/losses.
● Best quality win.
● Recency of win.
● Wrestler availability (injured or medically unable to compete).
Source: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ch...tling/d1/men/2025-26D1MWR_PreChampsManual.pdf
You also must have 15 matches for an RPI. That's why Davis isn't ranked there. He needs 3 matches at B1Gs to get an RPI ranking which will help his NCAA seeding.
2025-26 NCAA Allocations and who earned them
125 (threshold 28-28-.720): ACC (5): Vincent Robinson, NC State; Kysen Terukina, North Carolina; Nico Provo, Stanford; Keyveon Roller, Virginia; Eddie Ventresca, Virginia TechBig 12 (5): Stevo Poul…
wrestlingbypirate.wordpress.com
Seems like a lot of spots will get "stolen" at Big Tens. A lot of good wrestlers that didn't earn allocations.
Here are the deltas to last year.
The 288 allocations this year are the highest since at least 2021. It is as hard as every to get an At-Large.
This year there are 42 At-Large spots. In the past five tournaments there were 43, 47, 45, 43, and 64 (ah, COVID).
The 288 allocations this year are the highest since at least 2021. It is as hard as every to get an At-Large.
This year there are 42 At-Large spots. In the past five tournaments there were 43, 47, 45, 43, and 64 (ah, COVID).
Coaches' Ranking vs Flo.
Iowa and Virginia down 2, Army, Princeton, SIUE up 2.
Iowa and Virginia down 2, Army, Princeton, SIUE up 2.
| Team | Wrestlers in CR | Wrestlers in Flo | Diff |
| Army West Point | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Princeton | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| SIU Edwardsville | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Iowa | 7 | 9 | -2 |
| Virginia | 3 | 5 | -2 |
Since we have a lot of members who enjoy doing their statistical analysis, instead of doing it myself I have a question.
Has anybody looked at the Ivy v EIWA breakup to see if it has been beneficial for one conference v the other or has it been detrimental for either or both.
Has anybody looked at the Ivy v EIWA breakup to see if it has been beneficial for one conference v the other or has it been detrimental for either or both.
Who did Brands submit....since it's always a question and again this year?
Iowa only allocated five weights for the BIG TEN. 125, 157, 184, 197 and 285 did not allocate.
Terrill at 285 for Michigan State allocated a spot which should help Keuter.
Peterson's win% of .714 fell just short of the .720 required for the weight.
Connell at 197 just missed with CR of 32 and RPI 31 which would have helped Arnold.
174 and 157 had the strongest allocation litmus with 26/26/.740. 165, 184 and 285 stayed at 30/30/.700
Terrill at 285 for Michigan State allocated a spot which should help Keuter.
Peterson's win% of .714 fell just short of the .720 required for the weight.
Connell at 197 just missed with CR of 32 and RPI 31 which would have helped Arnold.
174 and 157 had the strongest allocation litmus with 26/26/.740. 165, 184 and 285 stayed at 30/30/.700
Iowa didn’t allocate 125,157,184,197,285!2025-26 NCAA Allocations and who earned them
125 (threshold 28-28-.720): ACC (5): Vincent Robinson, NC State; Kysen Terukina, North Carolina; Nico Provo, Stanford; Keyveon Roller, Virginia; Eddie Ventresca, Virginia TechBig 12 (5): Stevo Poul…
One way to think of it is that between the two conferences they now have twice as many AQ as they did before. So for any weight where either has just an AQ that is a spot where there was a potential benefit to splitting (but not guaranteed benefit).
Last year there were five weights where that was the case (four for EIWA and 1 for Ivy).
This year there are three weights where that is the case (1 for EIWA and 2 for Ivy).
Last edited:
Penn State remains the RPI leader, as expected. But now it is official.
There are a fair number of differences between the NCAA RPIs and the Wrestlestat version which cannot be explained by timing. For example, they match on Lilledahl, but not on Provo even though they both wrestled their last match on 2/20.
There are a fair number of differences between the NCAA RPIs and the Wrestlestat version which cannot be explained by timing. For example, they match on Lilledahl, but not on Provo even though they both wrestled their last match on 2/20.
I believe the variances are on how they are treating Mercyhurst. It looks as though Wrestlestat's math might include them as DI since they are in transition while the NCAA isn't counting them.Penn State remains the RPI leader, as expected. But now it is official.
There are a fair number of differences between the NCAA RPIs and the Wrestlestat version which cannot be explained by timing. For example, they match on Lilledahl, but not on Provo even though they both wrestled their last match on 2/20.
Maybe Oklahoma would have made the list if they didn’t send out 5 scrubs at the BJC. :-/
Does Brands do this on purpose? Seems like he doesn’t care about getting the conference an allocation, not sure I ever see Iowa guys going to opens to get matches .
Wondering if our Stat experts here have the data on Big Ten allocations versus wrestlers that eventually grab the spot for NCAAs? Find out the teams that "take more than allocated" versus "give up more than allocated" spots (I know that you earn what you get on the mat). There are certain situations like Kyle Synder only having 10 matches one year if I recall, and didn't allocate, but certainly grabbed from another
how the F are these RPI rankings beneficial. it has Mitch 2nd, van ness 6th, levi 5th...
Nobody looks at that and says Levi is the 5th best 174.
It's one of several postseason seeding components, used to measure strength of schedule. If 2 guys have the same W-L record, you'd give the higher seed to the guy who faced the tougher schedule, right?
Generally speaking and why seeding is not based on one factor. Also why Roar always calls for openness in seeding so we don’t have to explain this all the time. RPI is one of several considerations. Byrd v Marcus. Byrd’s performance demands a look backwards to the previous year, like it or not.
A lot of people feel this way and I respect your opinion.
I just can’t ignore Byrd has a much easier schedule and a 29% bonus rate, compared to Blaze’s hard schedule and a 84% bonus. In a vacuum it’s clearly Marcus. I was told last year that when voting for the Hodge, we couldn’t take into account Carter’s previous 4 NCAA titles. We can’t have it both ways (IMO).
