Or will it be like referees reviewing their own blunders and refusing to rectify them?
Live updates: Big Ten wrestling preseeds release on BTN
- Thread starter GregPickel
- Start date
If Clemsen is voting, do all pins count against a wrestler?
Interesting comment over on the Intermat forum that the results from the Paycom duals were included in the seeding numbers. I am not sure if the poster is correct or not. If so, I could see it as a subtle dig at Penn State for not participating.
I think with regard to 133 there is a valid argument either way. I do think past season's accomplishments should be a part, but only if the wrestlers are tied and both wrestled all their scheduled matches.
If an injury caused matches to be missed then that is out the window, this sport is tough and even unranked opponents matter.
At 174 there is just stupidity. We know it doesn't matter, but that's even more of a reason it's stupid.
165 also nonsense. It was a recent H2H also, it's not like it was back in Nov. Blaze probably not affected but still.
If an injury caused matches to be missed then that is out the window, this sport is tough and even unranked opponents matter.
At 174 there is just stupidity. We know it doesn't matter, but that's even more of a reason it's stupid.
165 also nonsense. It was a recent H2H also, it's not like it was back in Nov. Blaze probably not affected but still.
I wouldn't think that would be fair. What about the teams that were not invited. But i guess I wouldn't be all that surprised.
The brother had a bad moment but what may have been even worse was the lack of integrity showed by his Dad and Mcknight.
So then should we then consider all the international and high school accolades as well.. This is the 2026 B1G tournament to determine who is the best 2026 B1G wrestlers… It’s not like Byrd was slighted horribly with the #2 seed. Based on their 2026 accomplishments Blaze should be #1 IMO…
Well I can see a gripe when what happened this year is not born out in the seeds…
I think every bracket is messed up. Defenders will say it is just math, but the math does not seem to add up. It does not help that unlike the NCAA seeding matrix, no explanation has been provided as to whether categories are all or nothing or can be split.
141 Does not seem crazy at first glance as the 1-3 seem right and no high ranked guy very low. However, if you dig deeper, it does not make sense either.
How is Bailey ahead of Ragusin, Clark and Davis. Bailey is 1-3 vs. the filed and 1-2 in Big Ten duals. He has 2 QWs and a very good RPI and a better Coaches Ranking then those three. However, Davis is 3-3 vs. the field, 4-3 in Big Ten duals and also has 2 QWs. Ragusin is 3-1 vs. the field, 6-2 in duals with 1 QW. Clark is 1-1 vs. the field, 4-0 in duals and 1 QW.
By my scorecard:
Davis beats Bailey 69.5-39.5 (there is 105 points because they both got AQs for conference). I believe Willie said it is a 3/2 split if both have a CR.
Ragusin beats Bailey 64.5-40
Clark and Bailey tie 52.5 each if Bailey gets 25 points for beating Seltzer.
Davis beats Clark 68-37
Ragusin beats Davis 74.5-30
I can't reverse engineer the numbers where Bailey has mor points than Ragusin.
141 Does not seem crazy at first glance as the 1-3 seem right and no high ranked guy very low. However, if you dig deeper, it does not make sense either.
How is Bailey ahead of Ragusin, Clark and Davis. Bailey is 1-3 vs. the filed and 1-2 in Big Ten duals. He has 2 QWs and a very good RPI and a better Coaches Ranking then those three. However, Davis is 3-3 vs. the field, 4-3 in Big Ten duals and also has 2 QWs. Ragusin is 3-1 vs. the field, 6-2 in duals with 1 QW. Clark is 1-1 vs. the field, 4-0 in duals and 1 QW.
By my scorecard:
Davis beats Bailey 69.5-39.5 (there is 105 points because they both got AQs for conference). I believe Willie said it is a 3/2 split if both have a CR.
Ragusin beats Bailey 64.5-40
Clark and Bailey tie 52.5 each if Bailey gets 25 points for beating Seltzer.
Davis beats Clark 68-37
Ragusin beats Davis 74.5-30
I can't reverse engineer the numbers where Bailey has mor points than Ragusin.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
OKST Duals would be included in the "H2H vs the field" criterion. But that's not the claim on the linked post.
I doubt they were included in the "Conference Duals" criterion. First, those aren't conference duals. Second, without those, all teams had 8 duals. Third, including those gives some wrestlers a mathematical out for skipping a regular dual.
Then again, B10 Transparency yada yada yada.
two different situations imo
What’s basketball?
For the most part, it's much ado about nothing. They will fix most of this mess Friday but not all, and even some new screwage will be the result of the well intentioned meddling. Then next year the algorythm will get a tweak or two (unless they sh$t can the whole idea)..
I guarantee none of our opponents at the weights where we got hosed are very happy right now. If nothing changes, the biggest winner in all of this IMO is Max.
Levi will breeze no matter who he faces. If PJ and Blaze really are the best it shouldn't matter there either.
That said my money is on Rocco getting screwed even with an adjustment.
I guarantee none of our opponents at the weights where we got hosed are very happy right now. If nothing changes, the biggest winner in all of this IMO is Max.
Levi will breeze no matter who he faces. If PJ and Blaze really are the best it shouldn't matter there either.
That said my money is on Rocco getting screwed even with an adjustment.
This is not that hard, as others have pointed out. The method confounds variables that are not independent of one another. The algorithm does not account for this interdependence because the designers (read AI) were too lazy to actually do the math and design a system that focuses on independent variables. They also failed to account for ducking higher ranked wrestlers. Furthermore, as pointed out, the highest ranked wrestlers appear to be penalized for not wrestling against themselves. If this sounds preposterous, it because the algorithm is preposterous. Any reasonable model is tested. For instance, the algorithm should have been tested earlier in the year, but they were too lazy to do so. It's standard practice to calibrate a model using past data. This is NOT that hard, they should have used the past tournaments entrants, run the seeding model and compared results to both the "human" seeds and actual results. This would have yielded a data driven model (which is how you use math to separate and weight co-dependent variables). But, I guess the BIG just doesn't have enough money to do that. Either that or the people running the BIG are just stupid and lazy....
Because improper seeding can artificially drop a bomb in the backside of a bracket and unfairly punish someone fighting back thru.
If there is more than 15 points difference between the seeds most are having an issue with, then nothing will change on Friday.
I haven’t seen much about 285.
2 beat 1, but 1 beat both 3 and 4
3 beat 2 (twice), but 2 beat both 1 and 4
4 beat 3. 3 beat 2 and lost to 1, and 4 lost to both 1 and 2
so how many times have you seen seeds where
4 beat 3, 3 beat 2, and 2 beat 1
2 beat 1, but 1 beat both 3 and 4
3 beat 2 (twice), but 2 beat both 1 and 4
4 beat 3. 3 beat 2 and lost to 1, and 4 lost to both 1 and 2
so how many times have you seen seeds where
4 beat 3, 3 beat 2, and 2 beat 1
Not sure if this was already talked about out in this thread already but on what planet does Illinois 125 Spencer Moore get the #2 seed over Bouzakis!??
Moore is 14-6, Bouzakis 1 loss in SV to the #1. Moore has a loss to Dean Peterson, who Bouzakis has beaten twice including via pin once, and has losses to Tyler Klinksy of Rider and Mack Mauger of Missouri. His best win is over Jacob Moran 5-2 in SV who Bouzakis majored 11-2.
So better record, 5 less losses and best overall loss, way better wins including majoring the guys best win… how on earth would any metric place him above Bouzakis!??
This and the Levi situation should IMMEDIATELY scrap this whack *** system. It literally is adding up the amount of matches someone wrestles (quantity) over quality. It’s basically saying if you wrestle 30 matches and lose 10 of them, that will put you ahead of someone who is 13-1.
Moore is 14-6, Bouzakis 1 loss in SV to the #1. Moore has a loss to Dean Peterson, who Bouzakis has beaten twice including via pin once, and has losses to Tyler Klinksy of Rider and Mack Mauger of Missouri. His best win is over Jacob Moran 5-2 in SV who Bouzakis majored 11-2.
So better record, 5 less losses and best overall loss, way better wins including majoring the guys best win… how on earth would any metric place him above Bouzakis!??
This and the Levi situation should IMMEDIATELY scrap this whack *** system. It literally is adding up the amount of matches someone wrestles (quantity) over quality. It’s basically saying if you wrestle 30 matches and lose 10 of them, that will put you ahead of someone who is 13-1.
At the expense of patting myself on the back ... I pointed this out 45 min before Kozak did. (Compare the timestamp on post #75 above.)
Coincidence?
I like his enthusiasm and knowledge, but for his own sake needs to reduce the caffeine intake.
We're still talking about seeding the B10 Tournament, right?
These guys could miss the entire months of November and December, and since B10 duals start in January, the only difference would be for guys who don't get an RPI, which is unlikely to drop a top guy into a low enough seed to cause a consi bomb.
In any case, the controversial seeds at 133, 165, and 174 won't change consis at all.
Cannon and Ferrari will have the biggest consi impact, but they got plenty of early-season matches. They missed conference action -- punishing that was an intended feature of the seeding. IMO they should move to 6 and 11 respectively in order to minimize that impact. Cannon maybe could happen. Seriously doubt Ferrari would get dropped that far.
Agreed, Bouzakis at 3 is stupid on stilts. But we all know how it happened: he got punished for missing two B10 duals, and he didn't get enough matches for an RPI.
Let's not confuse the rest. Overall record, non-conference opponents, and bonus are not part of seeding -- and were not last year either. They fuel the sniff test, but nothing more.
I don't know what these big words mean. But coming from a smart lawyer like yourself, I will assume it means I am smart?!
Hey @lobolion , no need to reply to me, I know for certain now that it means smart.
after seeing wrestle stat rankings for the last few yrs why would you pick them for anything I think a few times after the NCAA tourney they still have the champ not ranked first!how can that be?
Just wondering how Friday coaches meeting works.?
I assume that each team probably gets a few challenges regarding wrestler placement of their own wrestlers. Do they start at a specific weight and if coaches have issues ,they present points of issue. After listening a neutral coach(es)adjust.??
Above is just a guess by me. I would think the decision should be done by a 3rd party (Willie
) but I don't think that is the situation.
I assume that each team probably gets a few challenges regarding wrestler placement of their own wrestlers. Do they start at a specific weight and if coaches have issues ,they present points of issue. After listening a neutral coach(es)adjust.??
Above is just a guess by me. I would think the decision should be done by a 3rd party (Willie
) but I don't think that is the situation.
Last edited:
I bet you are a trip in a strip club lmfao. Love it