PSU - Rider Dual Thread

[SonnyAbeFan]

Okay. How many spots are they taking at 157 from the Big ten tournament ? I’m sure he can finish top 2 or 3.

Still TBD. I think 6-7 is projected.

 

[SRATH]

The Nomad Knows.........but

I'll take Cael.

I suspect our guys had a very difficult week of practice and some guys went into Rider damn near exhausted. There is a whole month until things matter. CE has probably been going through hell. Maybe he will put a little English on his tournament performance..........

 

[psupower]

Still TBD. I think 6-7 is projected.

Okay. Thanks Sonny.

 

[El_Jefe]

First of all, thanks to all for the input and clarification.

Can I take a shot at interpretation?
1. Win B1Gs and you’re AQ regardless.
2. If he gets 6 matches at B1Gs AND finishes 2nd-7th (assuming 7 AQ spots), then he’s in?
3. If he doesn’t get 6 matches (must go 2-2) AND doesn’t win B1Gs, he’ll have to hope for at large bid, which means … well, we’ll have to hope.

If I’m still wrong and this requires a restatement of above, don’t worry, I’m happy to just root for him and see where the chips fall!!!

Mostly.

The confusion by many is applying multiple definitions to "auto-qualifier" when there is only one definition: the conference tournament champ.

(I'm guilty of this misnomer myself -- I often use "auto-qualifier" when the correct term is "pre-allocation" for # slots allocated to conferences.)

Those who fill those spots are not auto-qualifiers or pre-allocations. They're qualifiers.

Within that: 1 and 2 are correct in spirit -- however many spots B10 gets, finish that high and you're a qualifier.

3 is a mashup that combined is incorrect. If he places high enough, he's in, period. In which case, # matches does not matter.

If he does not finish that high, then at-large eligibility is the next question. # matches matters toward some but not all at-large eligibility criteria. Eligibility requires only 2 of 7 criteria, so he potentially can be eligible without # matches.

If he needs an at-large and is eligible for one, then we get into selection criteria, which are different from eligibility criteria.

 

[El_Jefe]

Still TBD. I think 6-7 is projected.

That's the most likely scenario. Nothing is official until this week's upcoming RPI and Coaches' Poll (that account for this weekend's matches), but we can make some reasonable guesses:

Earned allocations (5): Deakin, Saldate, Lewan, Young, Coleman. All have Win % > .700, and high enough in RPI and/or Coaches' Poll that they won't fall out.

Likely (1): Robb. Win % N, RPI TBD, Rank Y. He just today became eligible for an RPI; guessing he achieves it. He's faced a tough schedule, though I'm too lazy to look up opponents' schedules.

On the bubble (1): Model. Win % N, RPI Y, Rank TBD. RPI is safe but he's at risk of losing his coaches' ranking after today's loss.

Long shots (1): Kanniard. Win % N, RPI TBD, Rank N. He was RPI 33 on 2/6; if he both holds RPI and gets ranked ... hence long shot.

No allocation (6):
- Berge: too few matches to be eligible for any of the 3 criteria.
- Gilcher: N, N, N (1 match short of RPI eligibility)
- Hubbard: N, N, N
- Roberts, Stapleton, Cordio: all sub-.500 (Roberts does have RPI).

 

[SonnyAbeFan]

That's the most likely scenario. Nothing is official until this week's upcoming RPI and Coaches' Poll (that account for this weekend's matches), but we can make some reasonable guesses:

Earned allocations (5): Deakin, Saldate, Lewan, Young, Coleman. All have Win % > .700, and high enough in RPI and/or Coaches' Poll that they won't fall out.

Likely (1): Robb. Win % N, RPI TBD, Rank Y. He just today became eligible for an RPI; guessing he achieves it. He's faced a tough schedule, though I'm too lazy to look up opponents' schedules.

On the bubble (1): Model. Win % N, RPI Y, Rank TBD. RPI is safe but he's at risk of losing his coaches' ranking after today's loss.

Long shots (1): Kanniard. Win % N, RPI TBD, Rank N. He was RPI 33 on 2/6; if he both holds RPI and gets ranked ... hence long shot.

No allocation (6):
- Berge: too few matches to be eligible for any of the 3 criteria.
- Gilcher: N, N, N (1 match short of RPI eligibility)
- Hubbard: N, N, N
- Roberts, Stapleton, Cordio: all sub-.500 (Roberts does have RPI).

Thank you. Great information.

 

[watoos]

Edsell looked like a guy who dropped weight classes. He was gassed and barely hung on. Give him credit for hanging on, but he needs some Wheaties before next match!

Being put in that headlock could have taken the starch out of him.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

 

[watoos]

That's the most likely scenario. Nothing is official until this week's upcoming RPI and Coaches' Poll (that account for this weekend's matches), but we can make some reasonable guesses:

Earned allocations (5): Deakin, Saldate, Lewan, Young, Coleman. All have Win % > .700, and high enough in RPI and/or Coaches' Poll that they won't fall out.

Likely (1): Robb. Win % N, RPI TBD, Rank Y. He just today became eligible for an RPI; guessing he achieves it. He's faced a tough schedule, though I'm too lazy to look up opponents' schedules.

On the bubble (1): Model. Win % N, RPI Y, Rank TBD. RPI is safe but he's at risk of losing his coaches' ranking after today's loss.

Long shots (1): Kanniard. Win % N, RPI TBD, Rank N. He was RPI 33 on 2/6; if he both holds RPI and gets ranked ... hence long shot.

No allocation (6):
- Berge: too few matches to be eligible for any of the 3 criteria.
- Gilcher: N, N, N (1 match short of RPI eligibility)
- Hubbard: N, N, N
- Roberts, Stapleton, Cordio: all sub-.500 (Roberts does have RPI).

According to Cael's post match interview, he said that Berge has to steal someone's spot, that means if we have 6 allocated he needs to finish 6th or better. Cael then said he only needs 5 matches to get a seed at nationals, other than 32 - 33. That was from Cael's lips. He will get 3 more matches at B1Gs. Cael even said if Rider hadn't agreed to the extra match he would have found another match for Berge.

 

[DavidM]

So what happened with Berge's extra match? I haven't seen anybody comment on it, other than that it happened. I assume he dominated?

 

[SonnyAbeFan]

So what happened with Berge's extra match? I haven't seen anybody comment on it, other than that it happened. I assume he dominated?

Correct. Something like 15-5 against the same opponent.

 

[DavidM]

Mercy buckets, as the French say...

 

[Tom McAndrew]

So what happened with Berge's extra match? I haven't seen anybody comment on it, other than that it happened. I assume he dominated?

 

[Tom McAndrew]

 

[Superdave63]

SIAP, any idea why Brooks didn't wrestle this weekend?

 

[SonnyAbeFan]

SIAP, any idea why Brooks didn't wrestle this weekend?

Skin issue. No big deal, they say

 

[GregPickel]

SIAP, any idea why Brooks didn't wrestle this weekend?

Was just coming to post about him. He's available next Monday as part of a media call with reporters ahead of Penn State's trip to Big Ten's, which signals to me that whatever was going on almost certainly was minimal and won't keep him out of action in the postseason.

 

[pabison]

Was just coming to post about him. He's available next Monday as part of a media call with reporters ahead of Penn State's trip to Big Ten's, which signals to me that whatever was going on almost certainly was minimal and won't keep him out of action in the postseason.

There were comments made that he didn’t pass the skin check.

 

[GregPickel]

There were comments made that he didn’t pass the skin check.

Got it, well then that would certainly add up with him being back and good to go. Good deal.

 

[El_Jefe]

He's probably due for a booster shot from last year's Brands match.