@174 the seeding is nearly criminal.

[86_90]

Apparently the committee decided to put emphasis on some conference tournaments and not others. In the Big 10 a loss means you are likely seeded below the guy who beat you. Not so in the MAC or ACC. See results @174.

The #9 seed beat the #4 seed 6-4 in the MAC finals. The #9 seed is 30-1 on the season. The #4 is 26-5. So head to head last week the #9 is superior and the other all season record is superior as well. Seems pretty clear cut. But the #9 guy is from Ohio and the #4 seed is from.....Mizzou. I get it now!!!

The #8 seed also beat the #5 seed 4-1 in the finals of the ACC (it wasn't even that close.) The #8 is 15-3, and the #5 is 18-4. Why would they do this? My guess they wanted the weaker #5 wrestler to wrestle weaker #4, with a good chance the weaker #4 (Mizzou) gets into the semis.

 

[clhawks00]

I was surprised to see Storely get the #6. Thought at worst he would get #5. Thought Eblen deserved #7 or #8. Either way I think Evans takes care of business.

 

[86_90]

This bracket needs to be redrawn. Someone needs to speak up and demand a committee member to either explain the reasons behind the decisions or redraw the entire weight.

Wrong on many counts. If people put up with this crap, they deserve what they get.

 

[01Hawk05]

Originally posted by 86_90:
Apparently the committee decided to put emphasis on some conference tournaments and not others. In the Big 10 a loss means you are likely seeded below the guy who beat you. Not so in the MAC or ACC. See results @174.

The #9 seed beat the #4 seed 6-4 in the MAC finals. The #9 seed is 30-1 on the season. The #4 is 26-5. So head to head last week the #9 is superior and the other all season record is superior as well. Seems pretty clear cut. But the #9 guy is from Ohio and the #4 seed is from.....Mizzou. I get it now!!!

The #8 seed also beat the #5 seed 4-1 in the finals of the ACC (it wasn't even that close.) The #8 is 15-3, and the #5 is 18-4. Why would they do this? My guess they wanted the weaker #5 wrestler to wrestle weaker #4, with a good chance the weaker #4 (Mizzou) gets into the semis.

At first glance of the brackets, Eblen at #4 was the biggest head scratcher to me. Storley should be the 4 seed and it makes you wonder why he isn't. Now you pointing this out just makes it look even worse.

This post was edited on 3/11 8:25 PM by 01Hawk05

 

[86_90]

Originally posted by clhawks00:
I was surprised to see Storely get the #6. Thought at worst he would get #5. Thought Eblen deserved #7 or #8. Either way I think Evans takes care of business.

If we are talking about the legitimacy of the sport how does Cody Walters get the #9 seed with a 30-1 record (loss came back in November) and a guy he just beat this past weekend 6-4 with a record of 26-5 get the #4? This is unacceptable.

 

[clhawks00]

I agree 86_90. Would have definitely had Walters at #4 or #5.

 

[86_90]

Originally posted by clhawks00:
I agree 86_90. Would have definitely had Walters at #4 or #5.

What about #8Wilps and #5Butler the same situation. Wilps beat Butler convincingly a couple of days ago, they have similar records, and yet Butler is seeded higher? The connection: both misplaced seeds are set to wrestler for a spot in the semis. Total BS. Is it a coincidence it's a Mizzou wrestler that stands to benefit the most from this bizarre situation--home cooking?

 

[moosemonster]

You have gone off the deep end. It is not a vast Missouri conspiracy.

 

[86_90]

Originally posted by moosemonster:
You have gone off the deep end. It is not a vast Missouri conspiracy.

Tell your daddy on the committee to simply justify the seeds. What logic did he use?

Why were some losses on the same date, in different conferences, apparently not significant (ACC and MAC) while others held great importance (Big 10)?

The deep end is for you guys that just seem to take it, and apparently, like it.

 

[moosemonster]

Cody Brewer wrestled only 18 matches and is 1-1 against the only guy he faced all year in the top 12. I have no problem where he is seeded. Is he better than that? No doubt. But there is no proof of that. Look at Jesse Delgado. He is unseeded. You have to actually beat someone this year to move up higher.

The committee was very consistent in that they dock guys who don't wrestle a full slate and don't have wins over ranked wrestlers. I think they whiffed on Logan Storley at 6 instead of 4. But that's really not so big. It just affects us. But you could argue it screws Minnesota even more.

 

[MVPFAN]

Not to mention Eblen spent part of the year at 184. Was not impressed with him vs Evans and no way he should be the #4 seed, none!

 

[01Hawk05]

I can live with the RPI argument and not rewarding guys for wrestling weaker opponents all year, but a head to head matchup as recently as 3 to 4 days ago should throw that out the window.

And while the RPI seemed to hurt guys like Brewer, it should help guys like Storley.
This post was edited on 3/12 6:46 AM by 01Hawk05

This post was edited on 3/12 6:47 AM by 01Hawk05

 

[86_90]

Originally posted by 01Hawk05:
I can live with the RPI argument and not rewarding guys for wrestling weaker opponents all year, but a head to head matchup as recently as 3 to 4 days ago should throw that out the window.

And while the RPI seemed to hurt guys like Brewer, it should help guys like Storley.
This post was edited on 3/12 6:46 AM by 01Hawk05

This post was edited on 3/12 6:47 AM by 01Hawk05

No consistency and no transparency. No logic to follow, which is bad for fans. There is no way to follow this sport unless you are committee member or a coach-- I guess. No wonder most duals in the country have less than 1K.

Why even wrestle during the regular season? Apparently a 30-1 record is only good enough for a #9 seed. So the whole wrestle all the matches is BS. Only certain post-season tournament results count when a wrestler is defeated in the conference final by a similarly credentialed finalist and yet loser is seeded substantially higher; so the whole "do well at the end of the season" is thrown out--of course this is not applied across the board.

A 30-1 record appears strong, but apparently the bulk of his opponents were weak. Does this include the committees #4 Seed at the same weight who was beaten by this 30-1 wrestler a couple of days ago? I guess we can then throw out the head to head results. Likewise a recent loss to same opponent is thrown out. I guess last week was a determining factor for only some conferences.

Do "bad" losses count? Apparently not as the #4 seed @174 had a loss to a back-up. So I guess the old bad loss argument doesn't fly. What about an early season loss not mattering as much; the 30-1 guy last lost in early November of 2014! I guess early losses matter more?

So why did the 26-5 wrestler, with a "bad loss" and a loss to the 30-1 wrestler last week, get seeded FIVE slots above him?

If the committee can't answer that, then they are just setting up brackets based on match-ups and possibly tv. That raises many questions about the legitimacy of the entire NCAA Wrestling Championship.