Live updates: Big Ten wrestling preseeds release on BTN
- Thread starter GregPickel
- Start date
The Coaches definitely need to get involved before the tournament starts. As Cael mentioned we need a human element of common sense here. Young men have worked extremely hard for the proper seed.
H2H (vs. the field) is what is known as an oxymoron.
- It is either H2H (involving two parties confronting each other)
- Or, it is vs. the field (versus all other competitors).
It looks like it is not a head to head measure, but a vs. the field measure as @LostInTransition points out above.
Then the question becomes what was the intent of the people who outsourced this to wrestlestat? Did they intend this to be a head to head measure? Or did they intend this to be a vs. the field measure?
Given that there are other measures that encapsulate a vs. the field measure (common opponent, dual record) it seems they meant this as a true head to head measure. If that is the case, why was it not implemented that way?
It feels like a requirement was poorly communicated, then it was poorly executed, then it was poorly QAed, or not QAed at all.
What about treating a dual win against a school's backup as if it was against their starter/returning AA temporarily out with an injury, etc.? This way you are still rewarding the wrestler who makes himself available in the dual and the starter is still penalized.
That is certainly sensible, but even absent that a true H2H measure would result in a 50 points swing in the calculation.
Do you know if they published the scores anywhere, or just the seeds?
I understand that as well, but what it does is really mess up a bracket. Just like in these cases you have Duke wrestling the #1 guy (arguably) at his weight in his first match. So that can effect a guy trying to qualify by getting wacked in the consis by a guy that normally isn't going to be there.
Undefeated, has only wrestled 1 top 25 guy. # 6 ranking is a joke. Blood round at best.
Rumor was partial tear of meniscus. You don't scope someone to check if there is any damage. That is what MRI machines are for.
I do mainly for the fact of head to head and no ducking or sitting at all... Blaze / Caliendo doesn't sit well. I think looking back to last year is a tie breaker not a given for a top seed.
OK, that's different entirely. I'd presume that a partial meniscus tear MIGHT be a pretty simple procedure that wouldn't cause a ton of pain (I remember Dirk Cowburn winning a state title on a torn meniscus), but that IS entirely different than simply scoping for a look-see I guess. Could have kept him entirely off the mat until very recently or I suppose hypothetically could still cause some discomfort (though I doubt it with a young, well-trained athlete). Thanks for the info.
Does it really matter whether Haines is seeded #1 or #2? Either way, he'll likely get either Kennedy or Kharchla in the semis. The PSU staff might not bother to challenge.
Not that long ago Scooter beat the kid from Princeton 11-8, Olivieri beat the same kid, same weekend, 19-2.
Nope, I don't think this one matters too much to the PSU staff or wrestlers. It's not even entirely unfair to the lower seeded guys. If you're the 7 or the 8, you're going to get #1 or 2 in the quarterfinals, so on paper, you're a substantial underdog anyway. The one that seems more unfair to the PSU wrestlers is Cannon at #7 for tOSU or Ferrari at #8 at 184. That's not fair to Cannon/Ferrari or to Duke/Welsh. That said, Levi at #2 is utterly stupid and just makes the conference look bad.
Must be a Rutgers guy. What does Davis have to do with Olivieri being over rated? And he beat such and such by so many but but he only beat such and such by so many, doesn't carry much weight. Style differences, training through meets. Too many variables.
Creative brainstormed idea, but with unintended consequences imo. A (down the road) low seed (#14, 13, 12, 11, and so on) wrestling a back-up and getting a win would give them credit for beating the starter. A problem still exists when the low seeds move up the ladder when they didn't deserve to.
Kind of unfortunate for Duke and Welsh, due to the low seeds for Cannon and Ferrari, respectively. Makes for a tough quarterfinal match for the #1 seeds.
Lilledahl maybe gets a tougher quarterfinal opponent than expected in Peterson. Same goes for Davis, with Oliveri. Not the best draws but, hey, it's the B1G tournament, not supposed to be easy.
Haines seeded #2 at 174 makes no sense (would love to see that logic), but doesn't much matter.
Absolutely nothing to complain about at 133, 149, 165, 197, and 285.
Wrestle stat and BIG are both morons for not testing this before releasing absolute garbage. They could have done that 3 weeks ago, seen the screwed results and easily fixed it. Now it’s a
show and they both have to eat . A combination of stupidity, arrogance and lazinessAdjacent wrestlers with H2H rule should override every thing.Wrestle stat and BIG are both morons for not testing this before releasing absolute garbage. They could have done that 3 weeks ago, seen the screwed results and easily fixed it. Now it’s a
Meanwhile Byrd is an undefeated returning national champ and can't control his schedule other than he wrestled every match. Byrd should be #1.
Cannon is a perfect example of poor wisdom and wrecking the backside of a bracket by dropping the #1 or #3 guy in the nation into the consy in the 2nd round. Brutal on the guys fighting back to get on the podium. This is where bad seeding hurts the most.
What exactly is "common sense" among a group including Brands, Ryan, Manning, Clemsen, and Bono?
Haines dinged for pushing Minto off the platform?
I imagine it’s not that much work but I’d certainly challenge
I’m a big proponent of getting the brackets the way they should be, butterfly effect and all. Especially if it’s obvious.
someone raised interesting question if another coach can challenge the seed of another team’s wrestler without it directly impacting your wrestler’s seed.
All of the coaches want the duals to mean something. They can't agree on what that means exactly, some saying filling venues around the country because you have a great product on the mat grows wrestling, others pushing a dual championship of sorts that award points at the team championship. I'm sure everything in between too, but the point is, again, they all want the duals to mean something.
Well, if the duals meant something, Levi Haines would easily have earned a #1 seed at B1G's this year, and the system that determines seeds should beyond a shadow of a doubt show that. Other cases exist too, but the Haines' example is evidence enough to make my point. Every coach should consider this a mis-seed, unless of course duals mean nothing. Can't imagine that.
Well, if the duals meant something, Levi Haines would easily have earned a #1 seed at B1G's this year, and the system that determines seeds should beyond a shadow of a doubt show that. Other cases exist too, but the Haines' example is evidence enough to make my point. Every coach should consider this a mis-seed, unless of course duals mean nothing. Can't imagine that.
Rankings aren't seeds
In fairness, the Hulkster is more likely to take a shot than Angelo Ferrari despite dying last summer.
Actually, there is something common there but probably not sense!
Any formula that results in a wrestler with 3 losses being ranked over an undefeated wrestler, including head to head, is bat crap crazy!
What is needed is an accurate seeding system, not a way to try to offset the failures of a flawed system.
The point of seeding is to rank order wrestlers from perceived best to worst and thereby draw up a bracket that makes sense and properly rewards in-season performance, right? When the seeding system produces the absurd result of downgrading the consensus #l wrestler at a weight (Levi) because a formula says so, the system is broken.
It reminds me of coding in JavaScript or VBA (I'm no expert but dabble a tiny bit). When designing a system you don't just accept its output. You stress test the heck out of the logic to make sure it doesn't produce unexpected results and debug it until you're confident it is stable and trustworthy. Seems like WrestleStat skipped that part. Either that or it lost sight of commonsense and accuracy while chasing the fantasy of objectivity.
Absolutely. Makes for some interesting matches in the consolations. Also affects seedings for the national tournament. Guy comes in as the #1 seed at his conference tournament. Meets a stud in the quarters. Loses said match. Comes back to take 3rd or 4th. Possibly drops to 6, 7 or 8 seed for Cleveland.
Anybody miss the good old days where guys would wrestle 40 matches a season? And back then it was hard to find out health of wrestlers but it seems wrestlers sit out a dual due to injury or sickness but they don't wrestle as many matches in 2026 as they did in 2009. But I understand it's a year round sport for some. Just some food for thought.
I have no doubt that Ferrari’s absence was to allow him to fully focus on winning the rideouts against Rocco at B1Gs.
Algorithmic rankings are (or should be) a tool, nothing more; we'll see if they're treated as such by the coaches this year, and whether the algorithm is tweaked to get better next year. One would think that if a coach of any sport would recognize the importance of the human element, it would be the coach of a mano a mano combat sport.
Long term, my bigger concern is that if the algorithm actually does end up in control, then as in other sports, the behaviors will follow the algorithmic incentives, and the game itself will be changed. And on that note, does anyone here really think modern baseball is actually more interesting?
Long term, my bigger concern is that if the algorithm actually does end up in control, then as in other sports, the behaviors will follow the algorithmic incentives, and the game itself will be changed. And on that note, does anyone here really think modern baseball is actually more interesting?
This is one that I just don’t get.. What you did last year should have no bearing on any seeding or ranking in the current season. They are both undefeated and Blaze had a tougher schedule. This is one where I agree with the AI..
Tell that to the folks at Flo who continue to insist that their rankings have important downstream impacts on seeding (and very well might as it pertains to NCAA seeding).
Rankings aren't seeds
Corby, I think you are correct although instead of adding all the points, they may have created a record for each wrestler vs. the entire field. Basically, what it looks like happened is they tried to replicate the NCAA seeding process but with there own tweaks, many of which had unintended consequences. One might ask, why not use the NCAA's seeding process and just swap out conference finish (which does not yet exist) with record n conference duals?
Something like the following:
Head to Head 25
Quality Wins 20 or reduce to 10 if preferred
Coach's Ranking 10
RPI 10
Conference record 15 or 25 if prefer
Common Opponents 10
Winning % 10
Really not that hard.
Something like the following:
Head to Head 25
Quality Wins 20 or reduce to 10 if preferred
Coach's Ranking 10
RPI 10
Conference record 15 or 25 if prefer
Common Opponents 10
Winning % 10
Really not that hard.
