Seed vs Rank

[Wrestleknownothing]

Who were the big winners and losers in the seeding process?

One way to answer the question is to look at the expected points based on the final Flo rankings vs the expected points based on the seeds.

The Big Winners

• Penn was the clear winner with Cross Wasilewski seeded #3 while ranked #10 at 149, and Jude Swisher seeded #6 while ranked #10 at 157.
• NIU's Markel Baker picks up almost 7 expected points by being seeded #8 while ranked #29 at 133.

The Big Losers

• Stanford qualified 8 wrestlers and 6 of them are seeded below their rank.
• Iowa State suffers a similar fate with 7 of 10 wrestlers seeded below their rank. And the other 3 are seeded at their rank. No one is seeded above their rank.
• Iowa has 6 of 9 wrestlers seeded at or above their rank, but the damage is done with Angelo Ferrari seed #7 while ranked #2 at 184.

 

[Crablegs1]

Who were the big winners and losers in the seeding process?

One way to answer the question is to look at the expected points based on the final Flo rankings vs the expected points based on the seeds.

The Big Winners

• Penn was the clear winner with Cross Wasilewski seeded #3 while ranked #10 at 149, and Jude Swisher seeded #6 while ranked #10 at 157.
• NIU's Markel Baker picks up almost 7 expected points by being seeded #8 while ranked #29 at 133.

The Big Losers

• Stanford qualified 8 wrestlers and 6 of them are seeded below their rank.
• Iowa State suffers a similar fate with 7 of 10 wrestlers seeded below their rank. And the other 3 are seeded at their rank. No one is seeded above their rank.
• Iowa has 6 of 9 wrestlers seeded at or above their rank, but the damage is done with Angelo Ferrari seed #7 while ranked #2 at 184.

Small schools and conferences get rewarded again. This is a great breakdown and NCAA needs to adjust their criteria. Winning the Ivy should not give weight over 4th at Big 10 or 2nd at Big 12.

 

[lisa morales]

Matt Valenti, Penn's head coach is on the seeding committee. What a joke.

 

[cwobrien11]

Small schools and conferences get rewarded again. This is a great breakdown and NCAA needs to adjust their criteria. Winning the Ivy should not give weight over 4th at Big 10 or 2nd at Big 12.

Going through the seeding matrix stuff earlier this week was pretty eye opening. Guys from conferences that were less deep ended up having higher winning percentages (duh).

That tends to inadvertently skew a couple different components of the seeding matrix. Wrestler winning % is 25% of the NCAA's RPI formula and opponent winning % is another 50% of it. It doesn't sound like a lot, but the difference between a wrestler with an 80% winning percentage and a 90% winning percentage favors the 90% wrestler (independent of competition level) by 0.02 points in the RPI. It doesn't sound like a lot, but the difference between 8th and 13th in the RPI was less than 0.02 points.

Additionally, while they tend to face fewer opponents that will make the NCAA's, the wins they do get tend to be Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 and can really allow them to pick up some points in the quality wins portion of the matrix. The way that the tiered system works means that a win over Gunner Filipowicz (#22) or Mac Church (#27) is considered to be a higher quality win than a win over someone like LJ Araujo (#7), Braeden Scoles (#10), or Andrew Barbosa (#12) and is worth considerably more points for the wrestler comparison.

It tends to work itself out on the mat, but it does occasionally lead to some guys getting under or overseeded. It can lead to some weird upsets by seed in round 2 or in the quarter finals.