Toggle sidebar

Roar’s Annual Big Ten Seeding Review: 2026

El_Jefe

El_Jefe

Heisman
Oct 11, 2021
3,316
13,126
113
F7Mello said:
Some smaller NCAA basketball leagues get this right. They go by record to seed a tournament. But because they want to get the best teams of the season into the NCAA national tourney, top seeds get additional rounds of byes. Pigtail (PT) round is 12 - 13 with least conference wins. Round 1 is between pigtail winner and lowest wins seed 5 - 11 +PT. This group wrestles off to Round 2. Winner of round 2 goes to round 3, quarter finals and wrestles 3- 4 seeds based on # of wins. Winner of rounds 3 wrestles 1 & 2 seeds. in "semifinals". This would make the season matches very important. Get the leagues best wrestlers during the season through with good looking wins for the National tourney without risking injury if they wrestled during the year. If they did not wrestle during the year the path gets harder. While this still relies on seeding have a simple criteria (division wins) with simple subsequent criteria (Real Head to Head, followed by overall record, followed by RPI, whatever.) Make wrestlers wrestle during the wrestling season, but that appears to be an idea most coaches oppose, so ....
Click to expand...
Actually there is the beginnings of an idea that might work here: the guys who don't have enough matches get dropped into a 6-man mini tourney along with the bottom seeds -- BEFORE the main tourney. Matches are held with the minimum allowable rest in between. Winner gets the 1, again with minimum rest beforehand.

If Ferrari had to wrestle 3 matches on short rest, and then immediately wrestle Welsh on short rest ... that would be a real incentive. And would be a lot less likely to cause problems in consis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: creamery freak, PSUer89, SkiSkiSki and 8 others
F

F7Mello

Junior
Aug 5, 2025
168
300
63
El_Jefe said:
Actually there is the beginnings of an idea that might work here: the guys who don't have enough matches get dropped into a 6-man mini tourney along with the bottom seeds -- BEFORE the main tourney. Matches are held with the minimum allowable rest in between. Winner gets the 1, again with minimum rest beforehand.

If Ferrari had to wrestle 3 matches on short rest, and then immediately wrestle Welsh on short rest ... that would be a real incentive. And would be a lot less likely to cause problems in consis.
Click to expand...
Just have Tony P send me a check ;^)
 
A

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
1,231
2,164
113
El_Jefe said:
The coaches' actual role in the factory:

Click to expand...
we'll see.
 
F

Fink26

Freshman
Jul 30, 2001
41
86
18
I posted this on HR as well as there is an on point discussion of whether the formula's inputs are what was intended.

I
Wrestleknownothing, knows a lot. His question goes right to the heart of the matrix -- what was item 1 supposed to mean -- Head to Head or Versus the Field -- those mean two different things.

So while the numbers likely add up, were the inputs what was intended or understood? The main reason for the question is totally removing head to head seems strange (it was the dominant factor previously and is the largest component at NCAAs) also there are two ways to run the matrix -- (1) as the NCAA does and create a win/loss record for each person in the field or (2) add up the 13 individual results and compare them. Given the reference to needing to be within 15 points to challenge, it has to be the latter. This changes the results. As we have seen, Minto is ahead of Haines by the aggregation method but would be behind him with a record of 12-1 versus 13-0 under the NCAA method.

It just seems odd that Big10 went so far from the NCAA model instead of just tweaking it to focus on conference matches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkiSkiSki and kingstown
Cstroke

Cstroke

All-Conference
Feb 10, 2019
525
1,683
93
Isn't this as simple as running it through a matrix and then do a peer review?? Why do they insist on making things worse than they need to?
Submit it to Willie, Flo, and maybe a few others that can be unbiased...
 
El_Jefe

El_Jefe

Heisman
Oct 11, 2021
3,316
13,126
113
Cstroke said:
Isn't this as simple as running it through a matrix and then do a peer review?? Why do they insist on making things worse than they need to?
Submit it to Willie, Flo, and maybe a few others that can be unbiased...
Click to expand...
Umm ... that's exactly what happened. This is what the matrix spat out. The peer review is Friday.
 
F

Fink26

Freshman
Jul 30, 2001
41
86
18
Some math for those inclined:

There should be 1300 points possible for a wrestler that swept every category unless there are splits. 13 head to head matches with 100 possible.

There must be splits because the numbers don't add up. Willie said that the Coaches is a 3/2 split if both ranked, so I used that. Others must as well.

Corby says Haines had 818.

See below application. (Might be a small mistake or two as I did this quickly, but should not be off by 200+)

CR -- At 174, 11 of 14 are ranked so Haines should get 54 points

RPI, Haines is 4th in the Big10 so he gets 100 points.

AQ -- Hines should get all 65.

QW -- Haines had the 5th most QWs in conference, so 90

Big 10 Dual Record -- Haines is the 1, so 260

Common Opp. -- Haines is undefeated so he can only lose points for a split with someone that did not lose to anyone he wrestled. Minto and Digby (3-11) did not lose to anyone that Haines beat. Digby did not wrestle any. That would be 300 11 wins and 2 ties at 25).

H2H vs. Field -- if by percentage, LH would defeat everyone. If counting wins, he (4-0) is behind PK (7-1) , Minto (7-3), BMan (7-3), Kharchla (6-3) and tied with Gilcher (4-3) and Riddle (4-5) Seems silly that 4-0 would tie with 4-3 and 4-5. That would be 200 points.

Added up that is 1109, well above 818.


The unintended consequences of the formula are that the person ducked gets hurt in the record vs. field and the common opponents. By aggregating the points instead of running a win/loss formula (how the NCAA does it), Anomalies happen, like Haines being punished because he beat the 14 seed, who did not wrestle many matches -- thus there is a split on common opponents. By having CR being half of RPI and then splitting it, SOS is actually 9-10x the ranking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyChi, SkiSkiSki, Reslo1 and 1 other person
C

Corby2

All-American
Jul 14, 2025
3,457
7,514
113
Fink26 said:
Some math for those inclined:

There should be 1300 points possible for a wrestler that swept every category unless there are splits. 13 head to head matches with 100 possible.

There must be splits because the numbers don't add up. Willie said that the Coaches is a 3/2 split if both ranked, so I used that. Others must as well.

Corby says Haines had 818.

See below application. (Might be a small mistake or two as I did this quickly, but should not be off by 200+)

CR -- At 174, 11 of 14 are ranked so Haines should get 54 points

RPI, Haines is 4th in the Big10 so he gets 100 points.

AQ -- Hines should get all 65.

QW -- Haines had the 5th most QWs in conference, so 90

Big 10 Dual Record -- Haines is the 1, so 260

Common Opp. -- Haines is undefeated so he can only lose points for a split with someone that did not lose to anyone he wrestled. Minto and Digby (3-11) did not lose to anyone that Haines beat. Digby did not wrestle any. That would be 300 11 wins and 2 ties at 25).

H2H vs. Field -- if by percentage, LH would defeat everyone. If counting wins, he (4-0) is behind PK (7-1) , Minto (7-3), BMan (7-3), Kharchla (6-3) and tied with Gilcher (4-3) and Riddle (4-5) Seems silly that 4-0 would tie with 4-3 and 4-5. That would be 200 points.

Added up that is 1109, well above 818.


The unintended consequences of the formula are that the person ducked gets hurt in the record vs. field and the common opponents. By aggregating the points instead of running a win/loss formula (how the NCAA does it), Anomalies happen, like Haines being punished because he beat the 14 seed, who did not wrestle many matches -- thus there is a split on common opponents. By having CR being half of RPI and then splitting it, SOS is actually 9-10x the ranking.
Click to expand...
I have tried making sense of it myself. And wish someone would just answer a few basic questions but wrestling and transparency are like oil and water
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingstown
R

Rmg975

Sophomore
Feb 22, 2017
39
124
33
tullfan68 said:
that may be true but their system is a mess and has been for yrs!why keep using it?
Click to expand...
But you are thinking that part of wrestlestats rankings went into this formula, they did not. Wrestle stat was given the formula from the B10 to use and they simply input the data and this is what came out. Not wrestlestats fault at all as nothing they did influenced the seeds that the B10's formula spit out
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snoopy226 and Lumps Pajamas
A

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
1,231
2,164
113
Corby2 said:
I have tried making sense of it myself. And wish someone would just answer a few basic questions but wrestling and transparency are like oil and water
Click to expand...
Which, at a macro level, is truly bizarre. Presumably, one goes to an algorithm in the name of/search for objectivity. But what should go hand in hand with that is the principle of transparency rather than opacity. Really scratching my head why, somewhere, there isn’t a public facing, detailed disclosure of methods. It’s not like this is some uber valuable ip that they’re going to be able to license to someone for some other purpose. And beyond that”public” interest, one would think that competitors might deserve some clear understanding of what they need to do to maximize success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUer89, SkiSkiSki, District 4 and 2 others
A

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
1,231
2,164
113
Aardvark86 said:
Which, at a macro level, is truly bizarre. Presumably, one goes to an algorithm in the name of/search for objectivity. But what should go hand in hand with that is the principle of transparency rather than opacity. Really scratching my head why, somewhere, there isn’t a public facing, detailed disclosure of methods. It’s not like this is some uber valuable ip that they’re going to be able to license to someone for some other purpose. And beyond that”public” interest, one would think that competitors might deserve some clear understanding of what they need to do to maximize success.
Click to expand...
Also scratching my head that there seems to be a limited universe of people who purport to have seen some data, some of which doesn’t square with what’s been described methodologically in the public realm.

as to that, it seems to me that there are four possibilities:
1. They are under some sort of bizarre nda, though for what reason one exists I have no idea
2. They have informal access via some gentleman’s agreement with their source re confidentiality
3. They have informal access but like their ego stroked so do not disclose further to maintain the appearance of insider status
4. They are just lying, and see #3.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: District 4
N

Nitlion1986

All-Conference
Apr 13, 2024
1,595
4,742
113
Aardvark86 said:
Also scratching my head that there seems to be a limited universe of people who purport to have seen some data, some of which doesn’t square with what’s been described methodologically in the public realm.

as to that, it seems to me that there are four possibilities:
1. They are under some sort of bizarre nda, though for what reason one exist I have no idea
2. They have informal access via some gentleman’s agreement with their source re confidenyiality
3. They have informal access but like their ego stroked so do not disclose further to maintain the appearance of insider statis
4. They are just lying
Click to expand...
Of course they are under a non disclosure. If you wrote this algorithm woukd you want people see your work. Releasing the results had to embarrassing enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: District 4
A

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
1,231
2,164
113
Nitlion1986 said:
Of course they are under a non disclosure. If you wrote this algorithm woukd you want people see your work. Releasing the results had to embarrassing enough.
Click to expand...
You think, like, people like Willie and Corby are under NDAs for writing the algorithm?

I have my doubts about that. I suppose another theory is that this is perhaps the most brilliant marketing scheme the BiG has ever conceived -- drop a complete shitshow pre-seed, have surrogates drop little bits of information that is both weird and unsourced, while simultaneously stirring the pot over the interwebs about the shitshow to drive interest in the weekend tourney, and then come thursday or friday, have the coaches 'fix' things and save the day. High drama indeed! In some ways, it's the only plausible basis for the fact that people have made comments to the effect that "so and so is (or isn't) within 15 points" with literally no further granularity, either as to methodology or even something as simple as numerical values.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: District 4
El_Jefe

El_Jefe

Heisman
Oct 11, 2021
3,316
13,126
113
Nitlion1986 said:
Of course they are under a non disclosure. If you wrote this algorithm woukd you want people see your work. Releasing the results had to embarrassing enough.
Click to expand...
The actual coding maybe, but even then, huh?

The B10's specifics on scoring within each criteria, and the resulting points, God no. None of this is black box type ops requiring top secret clearance. B10 is not going out of business because some other conference copied its wrestling seeding system -- as if any other conference would design the Tacoma Narrows Bridge of seeding systems.

Even the resulting points wouldn't be necessary if B10 released the scoring specifics. Folks could calculate from there.

There's no excuse for this lack of transparency from the conference.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: SkiSkiSki, TheRedandtheBlue, F7Mello and 4 others
N

Nitlion1986

All-Conference
Apr 13, 2024
1,595
4,742
113
El_Jefe said:
The actual coding maybe, but even then, huh?

The B10's specifics on scoring within each criteria, and the resulting points, God no. None of this is black box type ops requiring top secret clearance. B10 is not going out of business because some other conference copied its wrestling seeding system -- as if any other conference would design the Tacoma Narrows Bridge of seeding systems.

Even the resulting points wouldn't be necessary if B10 released the scoring specifics. Folks could calculate from there.

There's no excuse for this lack of transparency from the conference.
Click to expand...
OK, so a serious response. They didn't release the how, what and where prior to because they didn't want people calculating the seeds prior to the Big10 doing their own release show.
Just guessing now, but they haven't released to working formula since for 2 reasons. Just in case they use the same formula next year they still don't want people calculating and knowing the seeds prior to the Big10 show. The second reason is the formula produced some really ridiculous results, indicating nobody from the Big10 did any pre-testing and they have no interest in wearing anymore "egg on face" than necessary.
 
C

Corby2

All-American
Jul 14, 2025
3,457
7,514
113
Aardvark86 said:
You think, like, people like Willie and Corby are under NDAs for writing the algorithm?

I have my doubts about that. I suppose another theory is that this is perhaps the most brilliant marketing scheme the BiG has ever conceived -- drop a complete shitshow pre-seed, have surrogates drop little bits of information that is both weird and unsourced, while simultaneously stirring the pot over the interwebs about the shitshow to drive interest in the weekend tourney, and then come thursday or friday, have the coaches 'fix' things and save the day. High drama indeed! In some ways, it's the only plausible basis for the fact that people have made comments to the effect that "so and so is (or isn't) within 15 points" with literally no further granularity, either as to methodology or even something as simple as numerical values.
Click to expand...
You obviously love a good conspiracy theory. Wrong I said Minto 829 and Haines 818.
 
C

Corby2

All-American
Jul 14, 2025
3,457
7,514
113
Nitlion1986 said:
OK, so a serious response. They didn't release the how, what and where prior to because they didn't want people calculating the seeds prior to the Big10 doing their own release show.
Just guessing now, but they haven't released to working formula since for 2 reasons. Just in case they use the same formula next year they still don't want people calculating and knowing the seeds prior to the Big10 show. The second reason is the formula produced some really ridiculous results, indicating nobody from the Big10 did any pre-testing and they have no interest in wearing anymore "egg on face" than necessary.
Click to expand...
We never see the #s for seeding at NCAAs either and they've a formula thats public as well
 
El_Jefe

El_Jefe

Heisman
Oct 11, 2021
3,316
13,126
113
Nitlion1986 said:
OK, so a serious response. They didn't release the how, what and where prior to because they didn't want people calculating the seeds prior to the Big10 doing their own release show.
Just guessing now, but they haven't released to working formula since for 2 reasons. Just in case they use the same formula next year they still don't want people calculating and knowing the seeds prior to the Big10 show. The second reason is the formula produced some really ridiculous results, indicating nobody from the Big10 did any pre-testing and they have no interest in wearing anymore "egg on face" than necessary.
Click to expand...
People have calculated and posted likely national seeds for years. Somehow the NCAA tournament has survived.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F7Mello
A

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
1,231
2,164
113
Corby2 said:
You obviously love a good conspiracy theory. Wrong I said Minto 829 and Haines 818.
Click to expand...
Actually, I hate them, but I do find them entertaining, and as I've often told my wife, any person with half a brain can take a nearly unlimited number of unrelated data points and spin them into a coherent yarn, for fun and profit.

829, 818 - 6, 7. Ok, fine (and I do love the seeming twist with the non-base 10 magnitude system that normal human beings use to order most of their behavior, rather than the old "SAT" approach).

So....source (name or nature)? Buildup components? Heck, I'd even be thrilled to hear something exceptionally simple and seemingly completely noncontroversial like "reason I can't disclose anything further".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: District 4 and ccdiver
W

Wrestleknownothing

All-Conference
Oct 30, 2021
1,692
4,495
113
Corby2 said:
You obviously love a good conspiracy theory. Wrong I said Minto 829 and Haines 818.
Click to expand...
The only way I can think of to get to 800+ points on a 100 point scale is if they are taking each wrestler's thirteen individual comparisons and summing them up to create a rank order list. This is different than doing 13 individual comparisons for every wrestler that creates a matrix of A>B, A>C, A<D, ..... B<A, B>C, B=D, etc. It changes how the math works. It simplifies the calculation, but precision can be lost in the simplification.

Now instead of the binary system they described in their graphic you have a non-binary system that is built off binary inputs. Fine. But I still wonder if that is what they wanted.

This also calls into question at what level do they apply the 15 point threshold? Is it at the individual wrestler comparison on the 100 point scale? Is it at the average score of the thirteen individual scores? Is it at the sum of the thirteen individual scores?

This is a big deal. On a 100 points scale it is a 15% spread, on an average score scales it is closer to a 7.5% spread, and on a 1,300 point scale it is a 1.1% spread.

Using this assumption Minto has an average score against the other 13 wrestlers of 63.77 (829/13) and Haines has an average score against the other 13 wrestlers of 62.92 (818/13).

All that said, I still think the big issue is the first category. H2H (vs. the field) is not head-to-head, the single most important variable for seeding, and it is redundant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pilot, Fatwoodchuck, District 4 and 1 other person
C

Corby2

All-American
Jul 14, 2025
3,457
7,514
113
Wrestleknownothing said:
The only way I can think of to get to 800+ points on a 100 point scale is if they are taking each wrestler's thirteen individual comparisons and summing them up to create a rank order list. This is different than doing 13 individual comparisons for every wrestler that creates a matrix of A>B, A>C, A<D, ..... B<A, B>C, B=D, etc. It changes how the math works. It simplifies the calculation, but precision can be lost in the simplification.

Now instead of the binary system they described in their graphic you have a non-binary system that is built off binary inputs. Fine. But I still wonder if that is what they wanted.

This also calls into question at what level do they apply the 15 point threshold? Is it at the individual wrestler comparison on the 100 point scale? Is it at the average score of the thirteen individual scores? Is it at the sum of the thirteen individual scores?

This is a big deal. On a 100 points scale it is a 15% spread, on an average score scales it is closer to a 7.5% spread, and on a 1,300 point scale it is a 1.1% spread.

Using this assumption Minto has an average score against the other 13 wrestlers of 63.77 (829/13) and Haines has an average score against the other 13 wrestlers of 62.92 (818/13).

All that said, I still think the big issue is the first category. H2H (vs. the field) is not head-to-head, the single most important variable for seeding, and it is redundant.
Click to expand...
My understanding is it's 15 from the total points of 829 in Minto/Haines case. What they were trying to achieve I'm not sure but what they did achieve was making a mess of the preseeds
 
  • Like
Reactions: WV lion and Nitlion1986
C

CowbellMan

Senior
Feb 1, 2024
276
692
93
Wrestleknownothing said:
The only way I can think of to get to 800+ points on a 100 point scale is if they are taking each wrestler's thirteen individual comparisons and summing them up to create a rank order list. This is different than doing 13 individual comparisons for every wrestler that creates a matrix of A>B, A>C, A<D, ..... B<A, B>C, B=D, etc. It changes how the math works. It simplifies the calculation, but precision can be lost in the simplification.

Now instead of the binary system they described in their graphic you have a non-binary system that is built off binary inputs. Fine. But I still wonder if that is what they wanted.

This also calls into question at what level do they apply the 15 point threshold? Is it at the individual wrestler comparison on the 100 point scale? Is it at the average score of the thirteen individual scores? Is it at the sum of the thirteen individual scores?

This is a big deal. On a 100 points scale it is a 15% spread, on an average score scales it is closer to a 7.5% spread, and on a 1,300 point scale it is a 1.1% spread.

Using this assumption Minto has an average score against the other 13 wrestlers of 63.77 (829/13) and Haines has an average score against the other 13 wrestlers of 62.92 (818/13).

All that said, I still think the big issue is the first category. H2H (vs. the field) is not head-to-head, the single most important variable for seeding, and it is redundant.
Click to expand...
The new ducking plan from the top tier will not be built around risking a loss, but screwing your opponent by them not getting a higher RPI.

The whole thing is ridiculous. I was in enough seeding meetings to know “rocket science” is not needed. It’s just some hard thinking and conversation. You know…like Roar does every year. It’s just not that hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: railbirrd, Nitlion1986 and 1Maddog
W

Wrestleknownothing

All-Conference
Oct 30, 2021
1,692
4,495
113
Corby2 said:
My understanding is it's 15 from the total points of 829 in Minto/Haines case. What they were trying to achieve I'm not sure but what they did achieve was making a mess of the preseeds
Click to expand...
Thanks.

So I thought about the idea of using a binary measure in a non-binary way some more and here is another thing that bugs me.

It is possible to have someone win all 13 individual comparisons (binary) and not have the highest total number (non-binary).

Say someone, wrestler A, wins all individual comparisons 55-45. Wrestler A's total would be 715. Now say wrestler B, who lost 45-55 to wrestler A, beats the other 12 wrestlers 57.5-42.5. Wrestler B's total would be 735.

In this scenario wrestler B would be the #1 seed in spite of losing the pair-wise comparison to wrestler A.

Wrestler A would be 13-0 against the field in pair-wise comparisons, to wrestler B's 12-1 record in pair-wise comparisons, but still be the #2 seed.

And since the total difference between the two is 20 points, it would not be reviewable.

It would be like award the championship to the wrestler who scored the most points, rather than the one who won the most matches.

On the plus side, it that would lead to more scoring than the 3 point TD did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Col
T

tullfan68

All-Conference
Jun 20, 2021
787
1,025
93
so didn't arnold only wrestle 3 matches at 97 he should be dead last in the seedings!
 
Col

Col

Sophomore
Oct 17, 2021
71
133
33
Wrestleknownothing said:
Thanks.

So I thought about the idea of using a binary measure in a non-binary way some more and here is another thing that bugs me.

It is possible to have someone win all 13 individual comparisons (binary) and not have the highest total number (non-binary).

Say someone, wrestler A, wins all individual comparisons 55-45. Wrestler A's total would be 715. Now say wrestler B, who lost 45-55 to wrestler A, beats the other 12 wrestlers 57.5-42.5. Wrestler B's total would be 735.

In this scenario wrestler B would be the #1 seed in spite of losing the pair-wise comparison to wrestler A.

Wrestler A would be 13-0 against the field in pair-wise comparisons, to wrestler B's 12-1 record in pair-wise comparisons, but still be the #2 seed.

And since the total difference between the two is 20 points, it would not be reviewable.

It would be like award the championship to the wrestler who scored the most points, rather than the one who won the most matches.

On the plus side, it that would lead to more scoring than the 3 point TD did.
Click to expand...
You can also have an elastic variable that punishes exponentially the farther away a wrestler is from the standard. For example minimum is 15 matches. If you had 14 that wrestler would receive a small penalty, 13 substantially larger (perhaps on an exponential curve), 12 even more etc. The problem with these type of variables is nailing down the relative worth it needs to be... if you are a little off you get some really bad results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrestleknownothing
Joejitsu

Joejitsu

Junior
Jun 10, 2025
283
392
63
The two I am probably most excited about is
133... How will blaze do vs Byrd? This entire weight class at NCAAs will be a gauntlet and this will give us an idea of what to expect
HVY: Curious if Cole continues this upward trajectory. He has shown real improvement this year and this is a perfect landscape to see how far he really can go this year.


Bonus...
157... PJ will avenge his only loss
184... Man Angelo got robbed but my guess is, he will duck Rocco with a MFF
 
D

District 4

All-Conference
Feb 16, 2018
1,083
2,537
113
The
Wrestleknownothing said:
Thanks.

So I thought about the idea of using a binary measure in a non-binary way some more and here is another thing that bugs me.

It is possible to have someone win all 13 individual comparisons (binary) and not have the highest total number (non-binary).

Say someone, wrestler A, wins all individual comparisons 55-45. Wrestler A's total would be 715. Now say wrestler B, who lost 45-55 to wrestler A, beats the other 12 wrestlers 57.5-42.5. Wrestler B's total would be 735.

In this scenario wrestler B would be the #1 seed in spite of losing the pair-wise comparison to wrestler A.

Wrestler A would be 13-0 against the field in pair-wise comparisons, to wrestler B's 12-1 record in pair-wise comparisons, but still be the #2 seed.

And since the total difference between the two is 20 points, it would not be reviewable.

It would be like award the championship to the wrestler who scored the most points, rather than the one who won the most matches.

On the plus side, it that would lead to more scoring than the 3 point TD did.
Click to expand...
The inside of your head must be terrifying lmfao.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: WexfordWarrior and Tryingtodoitright
T

tullfan68

All-Conference
Jun 20, 2021
787
1,025
93
Rmg975 said:
But you are thinking that part of wrestlestats rankings went into this formula, they did not. Wrestle stat was given the formula from the B10 to use and they simply input the data and this is what came out. Not wrestlestats fault at all as nothing they did influenced the seeds that the B10's formula spit out
Click to expand...
sorry no AI no computers humans can do it best and fix it fast!
 
C

CowbellMan

Senior
Feb 1, 2024
276
692
93
Wrestleknownothing said:
Thanks.

So I thought about the idea of using a binary measure in a non-binary way some more and here is another thing that bugs me.

It is possible to have someone win all 13 individual comparisons (binary) and not have the highest total number (non-binary).

Say someone, wrestler A, wins all individual comparisons 55-45. Wrestler A's total would be 715. Now say wrestler B, who lost 45-55 to wrestler A, beats the other 12 wrestlers 57.5-42.5. Wrestler B's total would be 735.

In this scenario wrestler B would be the #1 seed in spite of losing the pair-wise comparison to wrestler A.

Wrestler A would be 13-0 against the field in pair-wise comparisons, to wrestler B's 12-1 record in pair-wise comparisons, but still be the #2 seed.

And since the total difference between the two is 20 points, it would not be reviewable.

It would be like award the championship to the wrestler who scored the most points, rather than the one who won the most matches.

On the plus side, it that would lead to more scoring than the 3 point TD did.
Click to expand...
No better way in any sport to make a regular season meaningless than ignore H2H competition.

computer, eye test….call it whatever you want. People simply don’t learn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DWKeller, Pilot, railbirrd and 2 others
C

CowbellMan

Senior
Feb 1, 2024
276
692
93
Joejitsu said:
The two I am probably most excited about is
133... How will blaze do vs Byrd? This entire weight class at NCAAs will be a gauntlet and this will give us an idea of what to expect
HVY: Curious if Cole continues this upward trajectory. He has shown real improvement this year and this is a perfect landscape to see how far he really can go this year.


Bonus...
157... PJ will avenge his only loss
184... Man Angelo got robbed but my guess is, he will duck Rocco with a MFF
Click to expand...
Cole is going to surprise…either this tourney or next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom