Sean Boyle, a 5 seed???

[CP84 2.0]

There are a few head scratchers in these brackets but I can't get my head around this one. He did pull off a fluke win against Gilman at the National Duals but he has five losses, with a few of those against mediocre opponents. He was dominated by Waters and Dance and also lost to Paul Petrov, Brandon Jeske and Zeke Moisey. Gilman's losses are all to top 10 opponents. One win over Gilman shouldn't override 3 bad losses.

Intermat currently has him ranked 9th. It would have been nice to have that 5 seed looking at Tomasello in the quarters rather than Dance.

 

[buf87]

This helps explain some headscratchers.. Basically quality wins count, but bad losses aren't figured in.

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/251957-Flowrestling-Radio-Live/article/30388-FRL-Ep-18-Jason-Borelli-Explains-NCAA-Seeds#.VQMxPtItGM8

 

[Lsanders20]

Anything the seeding committe can do to get a B1G team our of the throne they will do it. Proven year after year. This year is by far the most bias I have ever seen. I'm not sure why National duals even counts toward records. It's not NCAA sanctioned and not all the top teams are there. Really just another dual tournament.

 

[1stplacehawk]

Originally posted by buf87:
This helps explain some headscratchers.. Basically quality wins count, but bad losses aren't figured in.

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/251957-Flowrestling-Radio-Live/article/30388-FRL-Ep-18-Jason-Borelli-Explains-NCAA-Seeds#.VQMxPtItGM8

That makes absolutely no sense

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by buf87:
This helps explain some headscratchers.. Basically quality wins count, but bad losses aren't figured in.

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/251957-Flowrestling-Radio-Live/article/30388-FRL-Ep-18-Jason-Borelli-Explains-NCAA-Seeds#.VQMxPtItGM8

That seems incredibly stupid. Why not use a RPI matrix like every other sport?

Gilman has beaten #9 Klimara, #4 Tomasello, #3 Garrett and #7 Conaway with no bad losses. Boyle's best wins are #9 Klimara and #5 Gilman with 3 bad losses. Gilman has better quality wins.

The difference between #5 and #6 is actually pretty huge. Gilman would have a tough Conaway in round two and Dance in the Quarters followed by Garrett in the semis. Boyle has two pretty easy matches until he has to wrestle Tomasello.

The only benefit for Gilman is having Waters on the other side but he has a tough road to go to even get to the semis.




This post was edited on 3/13 2:02 PM by CP84 2.0

 

[buf87]

One of the things that Iowa Friend, Willie Saylor suggested was that bad losses need to be a bigger factor and Borelli agree. There is a panel or whatever in April that will discuss changes and that is an area that will be brought up.

Basically a computer spits out a point system based on the criteria and only minor tweaks are done. Sounds like coaches can send emails to the committee and point out reasons why a guy should be ranked where.

Borelli stated that it is hard for him to know details about every wrestler at every weight across the USA.

Saylor also stated that is why pollsters should be involved in selection and seeding. They watch results all the time and have a better understanding of issues.

Many coaches do not want to be on the committee either

 

[1stplacehawk]

Originally posted by buf87:
One of the things that Iowa Friend, Willie Saylor suggested was that bad losses need to be a bigger factor and Borelli agree. There is a panel or whatever in April that will discuss changes and that is an area that will be brought up.

Basically a computer spits out a point system based on the criteria and only minor tweaks are done. Sounds like coaches can send emails to the committee and point out reasons why a guy should be ranked where.

Borelli stated that it is hard for him to know details about every wrestler at every weight across the USA.

Saylor also stated that is why pollsters should be involved in selection and seeding. They watch results all the time and have a better understanding of issues.

Many coaches do not want to be on the committee either

Let Christian Pyles seed the entire thing himself. There would still be debate, but it would be a hell of a lot better than what was just released.

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by buf87:
One of the things that Iowa Friend, Willie Saylor suggested was that bad losses need to be a bigger factor and Borelli agree. There is a panel or whatever in April that will discuss changes and that is an area that will be brought up.

Basically a computer spits out a point system based on the criteria and only minor tweaks are done. Sounds like coaches can send emails to the committee and point out reasons why a guy should be ranked where.

Borelli stated that it is hard for him to know details about every wrestler at every weight across the USA.

Saylor also stated that is why pollsters should be involved in selection and seeding. They watch results all the time and have a better understanding of issues.

Many coaches do not want to be on the committee either

What would the current system have done had Kelly pulled off a win against Ness? This seems like the equivalent of letting Rutgers into the NCAA basketball tournament because they beat Wisconsin. Simply looking at quality wins ignores the other important half of the equation.

 

[buf87]

I agree that losses need to be factored. If I remember right the example used was Carter at #4 and Mayes #3 at 141. I think Mayes lost in qualifier and got 3rd???

It was interesting getting the info from somebody on the committee, instead of speculating why something happen.

Basically guys like Delgado, Brascetta, H Stieber, Brewer did not get enough quality wins to get them a higher seed. Probably same thing happened to Cody Walters (30-1) and getting #9 seed.

 

[01Hawk05]

What was wrong with the old system? Why did they try to reinvent the wheel in the first place?

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by buf87:

I agree that losses need to be factored. If I remember right the example used was Carter at #4 and Mayes #3 at 141. I think Mayes lost in qualifier and got 3rd???

It was interesting getting the info from somebody on the committee, instead of speculating why something happen.

Basically guys like Delgado, Brascetta, H Stieber, Brewer did not get enough quality wins to get them a higher seed. Probably same thing happened to Cody Walters (30-1) and getting #9 seed.

I don't think Mayes/Carter is quite as egregious as Gilman/Boyle.

Mayes has two mediocre losses (#11 Horan, #10 Mecate) but Carter has a very bad loss (UR Mastriani).

Carter only has one top 10 win (Dardanes) while Mayes has a couple (Dziewa, Martinez).

That's really a tossup and I probably would have gone with Mayes as #3 as the committee did.

 

[buf87]

That might or might not have been the example.

I know Peters was brought up at 125.

I agree that adjustments need to be made.

 

[Lsanders20]

You can't just use quality wins, losses, computers, and all of the other garbage. Sometimes you just have to use your observations and common sense about what you know about a guy. If it's a toss up then go to criteria but Delgado not being seeded is flat out ridiculous and I don't care how many matches he has wrestled. Does he deserve a top 5 seed? No, but when they seed 16 and he is not seeded something is seriously wrong with this system. Just like something is wrong with the fact that the sport is becoming a snoozefest and only the most dedicated wrestling fans can keep from falling a sleep in the first period of most matches.

Thing that worries me is even if they adjust the rules to create more action, how long will it take the college wrestling world to get back to attacking. We might be stuck with this display until all of the current guys graduate. With exception to the guys like IMAR and Stieber who still like to wrestle.

 

[140wildcatv2]

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by buf87:

I agree that losses need to be factored. If I remember right the example used was Carter at #4 and Mayes #3 at 141. I think Mayes lost in qualifier and got 3rd???

It was interesting getting the info from somebody on the committee, instead of speculating why something happen.

Basically guys like Delgado, Brascetta, H Stieber, Brewer did not get enough quality wins to get them a higher seed. Probably same thing happened to Cody Walters (30-1) and getting #9 seed.

I don't think Mayes/Carter is quite as egregious as Gilman/Boyle.

Mayes has two mediocre losses (#11 Horan, #10 Mecate) but Carter has a very bad loss (UR Mastriani).

Carter only has one top 10 win (Dardanes) while Mayes has a couple (Dziewa, Martinez).

That's really a tossup and I probably would have gone with Mayes as #3 as the committee did.

I'd argue its more egregious just based on the fact that it determined who is on Stiebers side of the bracket. The thing is (as was mentioned by Borelli) neither the quality of losses nor when the losses occurred play into the seeding unless there is a need for a tiebreaker among close individuals

Its also a little disingenuous to say that the Mastriani loss is a bad loss for about 3 reasons:
1. it was at 149 (why punish a loss not at the weight; Eblen didn't get docked for losing at 84 or 97)
2. it was his teammate
3. Mastriani got the 7 seed at 49 so its not like he's some chump (although there is an argument that he shouldn't have received that high of a seed either)

Frankly the seeding 3-9 at 41 was pretty bad (Mayes over Carter, Dziewa over Dardanes, Ashnault over Abidin)

That said Boyle at 5 was pretty bad (how did Dylan Peters deserve to get a 9 seed?)

And 74 with the screw up from 4 to 9 with Eblen, Butler, Storley etc is probably the next on the list.

At least Borelli sounded like there was interest in working to fix the system so thats a plus.

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by buf87:
That might or might not have been the example.

I know Peters was brought up at 125.

I agree that adjustments need to be made.

Peters is a victim of the whole 125 bracket being screwy including the Boyle issue I'm referring to.

Somehow #13 Tyler Cox also jumps all the way to the 8th seed passing Peters.

Cox has wins over #15 Lambert, #11 Bresser and #20 Martinez with mediocre losses to Rodriguez and Brancale.

Peters doesn't have any losses to opponents outside the top 10 with exception of two medical forfeits. He also has a win over Bresser.

If you are only looking at quality wins, Cox might have a slight advantage, but factoring in bad losses and I think the scale jumps pretty far to Peters.

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by buf87:

I agree that losses need to be factored. If I remember right the example used was Carter at #4 and Mayes #3 at 141. I think Mayes lost in qualifier and got 3rd???

It was interesting getting the info from somebody on the committee, instead of speculating why something happen.

Basically guys like Delgado, Brascetta, H Stieber, Brewer did not get enough quality wins to get them a higher seed. Probably same thing happened to Cody Walters (30-1) and getting #9 seed.

I don't think Mayes/Carter is quite as egregious as Gilman/Boyle.

Mayes has two mediocre losses (#11 Horan, #10 Mecate) but Carter has a very bad loss (UR Mastriani).

Carter only has one top 10 win (Dardanes) while Mayes has a couple (Dziewa, Martinez).

That's really a tossup and I probably would have gone with Mayes as #3 as the committee did.

I'd argue its more egregious just based on the fact that it determined who is on Stiebers side of the bracket. The thing is (as was mentioned by Borelli) neither the quality of losses nor when the losses occurred play into the seeding unless there is a need for a tiebreaker among close individuals

Its also a little disingenuous to say that the Mastriani loss is a bad loss for about 3 reasons:
1. it was at 149 (why punish a loss not at the weight; Eblen didn't get docked for losing at 84 or 97)
2. it was his teammate
3. Mastriani got the 7 seed at 49 so its not like he's some chump (although there is an argument that he shouldn't have received that high of a seed either)

Frankly the seeding 3-9 at 41 was pretty bad (Mayes over Carter, Dziewa over Dardanes, Ashnault over Abidin)

That said Boyle at 5 was pretty bad (how did Dylan Peters deserve to get a 9 seed?)

And 74 with the screw up from 4 to 9 with Eblen, Butler, Storley etc is probably the next on the list.

At least Borelli sounded like there was interest in working to fix the system so thats a plus.

You can't say it's more egregious because of who the #1 seed is. You have to factor the resume of both Carter and Mayes. I think you could make a case for either one to be the #3 so it's really a coin flip. Mayes has two mediocre losses to Carter's one but Mayes also has two top 10 wins to Carter's one.

Mastriani getting a 7 seed at 149 is also a joke.

He got dominated by Panteleo, Arthur, Pagdilio, Barber, Miller and Rodriguez. Intermat has him ranked only 15th and Wrestlestats has him ranked clear down at 24th.
This post was edited on 3/13 3:16 PM by CP84 2.0

 

[Herkuleez5]

Eblen being seeded 4th is such BS when Walters is seeded 9th and just beat him in the MAC tournament. Walters has one loss on the season and I think that was to Mahomes who got injured for the year. Mahomes was no slouch, and a freshman, only losing to the likes of Storley and Weatherman I think. Maybe he does not have quality wins like Eblen but he has beat all common opponents they have faced including the head to head match up.

His reward for that......Kokesh in the quarterfinals

 

[Lsanders20]

Originally posted by Herkuleez5:
Eblen being seeded 4th is such BS when Walters is seeded 9th and just beat him in the MAC tournament. Walters has one loss on the season and I think that was to Mahomes who got injured for the year. Mahomes was no slouch, and a freshman, only losing to the likes of Storley and Weatherman I think. Maybe he does not have quality wins like Eblen but he has beat all common opponents they have faced including the head to head match up.

His reward for that......Kokesh in the quarterfinals

That my friend is a sick joke. Eblen the #4 Hahahahahahahahahahah

 

[86_90]

Originally posted by buf87:

I agree that losses need to be factored. If I remember right the example used was Carter at #4 and Mayes #3 at 141. I think Mayes lost in qualifier and got 3rd???

It was interesting getting the info from somebody on the committee, instead of speculating why something happen.

Basically guys like Delgado, Brascetta, H Stieber, Brewer did not get enough quality wins to get them a higher se

ed. Probably same thing happened to Cody Walters (30-1) and getting #9 seed.

Nothing I've seen comes close to Cody Walters getting the #9 versus a guy he beat last week who gets the #4. He also has less losses 1 versus 5 for Eblen (the only loss for Walters coming in November to Davante Mohmes--hardly a bad loss) more wins 30 to 26 than Eblen, and a head to head victory over Eblen last weekend. Eblen has no signature wins over top 5 guys so it's wasn't a case where he has a lot or any significant wins. In fact, Walters win over Eblen was the best win I can find for either.

So tell me again, how is this possible.

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by Lsanders20:

You can't just use quality wins, losses, computers, and all of the other garbage. Sometimes you just have to use your observations and common sense about what you know about a guy. If it's a toss up then go to criteria but Delgado not being seeded is flat out ridiculous and I don't care how many matches he has wrestled. Does he deserve a top 5 seed? No, but when they seed 16 and he is not seeded something is seriously wrong with this system. Just like something is wrong with the fact that the sport is becoming a snoozefest and only the most dedicated wrestling fans can keep from falling a sleep in the first period of most matches.

Thing that worries me is even if they adjust the rules to create more action, how long will it take the college wrestling world to get back to attacking. We might be stuck with this display until all of the current guys graduate. With exception to the guys like IMAR and Stieber who still like to wrestle.

I agree in principle that Delgado deserved to be seeded but the positive outcome is his first opponent (Cox) didn't deserve the 8 seed so I guess you could just consider Delgado #8 and Cox unseeded. Their rankings per Intermat are Delgado #7 and Cox #13 so that's realistic.

 

[86_90]

Originally posted by buf87:

I agree that losses need to be factored. If I remember right the example used was Carter at #4 and Mayes #3 at 141. I think Mayes lost in qualifier and got 3rd???

It was interesting getting the info from somebody on the committee, instead of speculating why something happen.

Basically guys like Delgado, Brascetta, H Stieber, Brewer did not get enough quality wins to get them a higher se

ed. Probably same thing happened to Cody Walters (30-1) and getting #9 seed.

Nothing I've seen comes close to Cody Walters getting the #9 versus a guy he beat last week who gets the #4. He also has less losses 1 versus 5 for Eblen (the only loss for Walters coming in November to Davante Mohmes--hardly a bad loss) more wins 30 to 26 than Eblen, and a head to head victory over Eblen last weekend. Eblen has no signature wins over top 5 guys so it's wasn't a case where he has a lot or any significant wins. In fact, Walters win over Eblen was the best win I can find for either.

So tell me again, how is this possible.

 

[140wildcatv2]

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by buf87:

I agree that losses need to be factored. If I remember right the example used was Carter at #4 and Mayes #3 at 141. I think Mayes lost in qualifier and got 3rd???

It was interesting getting the info from somebody on the committee, instead of speculating why something happen.

Basically guys like Delgado, Brascetta, H Stieber, Brewer did not get enough quality wins to get them a higher seed. Probably same thing happened to Cody Walters (30-1) and getting #9 seed.

I don't think Mayes/Carter is quite as egregious as Gilman/Boyle.

Mayes has two mediocre losses (#11 Horan, #10 Mecate) but Carter has a very bad loss (UR Mastriani).

Carter only has one top 10 win (Dardanes) while Mayes has a couple (Dziewa, Martinez).

That's really a tossup and I probably would have gone with Mayes as #3 as the committee did.

I'd argue its more egregious just based on the fact that it determined who is on Stiebers side of the bracket. The thing is (as was mentioned by Borelli) neither the quality of losses nor when the losses occurred play into the seeding unless there is a need for a tiebreaker among close individuals

Its also a little disingenuous to say that the Mastriani loss is a bad loss for about 3 reasons:
1. it was at 149 (why punish a loss not at the weight; Eblen didn't get docked for losing at 84 or 97)
2. it was his teammate
3. Mastriani got the 7 seed at 49 so its not like he's some chump (although there is an argument that he shouldn't have received that high of a seed either)

Frankly the seeding 3-9 at 41 was pretty bad (Mayes over Carter, Dziewa over Dardanes, Ashnault over Abidin)

That said Boyle at 5 was pretty bad (how did Dylan Peters deserve to get a 9 seed?)

And 74 with the screw up from 4 to 9 with Eblen, Butler, Storley etc is probably the next on the list.

At least Borelli sounded like there was interest in working to fix the system so thats a plus.

You can't say it's more egregious because of who the #1 seed is. You have to factor the resume of both Carter and Mayes. I think you could make a case for either one to be the #3 so it's really a coin flip. Mayes has two mediocre losses to Carter's one but Mayes also has two top 10 wins to Carter's one.

Mastriani getting a 7 seed at 149 is also a joke.

He got dominated by Panteleo, Arthur, Pagdilio, Barber, Miller and Rodriguez. Intermat has him ranked only 15th and Wrestlestats has him ranked clear down at 24th.
This post was edited on 3/13 3:16 PM by CP84 2.0

My point is 41 is pretty much a battle for 2nd behind Stieber, Carter at a 3 could possibly have made the finals (he darn near beat Port at Midlands) now he's likely destined to get another beatdown from Stieber in the semis before hitting the back side and likely finishing 3rd--now I know crazy upsets happen all the time yada yada...

One problem I have with it is they need to strictly look at the resume from the weight at which they are qualified for. Why should the Mastriani loss effect Carters seed? It wasn't at 41 (not to mention the fact that Mastriani is seeded higher than either guys that beat Mayes). As I stated Eblens losses at 84 and 97 didn't hurt him in his seeding at 74 even though his loss at 84 to Mikilus is worse than any loss that Storley (or any of the 74s in that seeding group) has/have.

I'd also argue that Carters win over Dardanes is better than either Mayes win over Dziewa or Martinez (who probably both should be seeded lower).

As I said in my previous post I feel they did a really poor job from 3-9 at 41 as it probably should have been something like:
Carter, Dardanes, Mayes, Dziewa, Abidin, Ashnault, Martinez and I'd probably be willing to flip Dardanes/Mayes although at 4/5 its not really a big deal

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by buf87:

I agree that losses need to be factored. If I remember right the example used was Carter at #4 and Mayes #3 at 141. I think Mayes lost in qualifier and got 3rd???

It was interesting getting the info from somebody on the committee, instead of speculating why something happen.

Basically guys like Delgado, Brascetta, H Stieber, Brewer did not get enough quality wins to get them a higher seed. Probably same thing happened to Cody Walters (30-1) and getting #9 seed.

I don't think Mayes/Carter is quite as egregious as Gilman/Boyle.

Mayes has two mediocre losses (#11 Horan, #10 Mecate) but Carter has a very bad loss (UR Mastriani).

Carter only has one top 10 win (Dardanes) while Mayes has a couple (Dziewa, Martinez).

That's really a tossup and I probably would have gone with Mayes as #3 as the committee did.

I'd argue its more egregious just based on the fact that it determined who is on Stiebers side of the bracket. The thing is (as was mentioned by Borelli) neither the quality of losses nor when the losses occurred play into the seeding unless there is a need for a tiebreaker among close individuals

Its also a little disingenuous to say that the Mastriani loss is a bad loss for about 3 reasons:
1. it was at 149 (why punish a loss not at the weight; Eblen didn't get docked for losing at 84 or 97)
2. it was his teammate
3. Mastriani got the 7 seed at 49 so its not like he's some chump (although there is an argument that he shouldn't have received that high of a seed either)

Frankly the seeding 3-9 at 41 was pretty bad (Mayes over Carter, Dziewa over Dardanes, Ashnault over Abidin)

That said Boyle at 5 was pretty bad (how did Dylan Peters deserve to get a 9 seed?)

And 74 with the screw up from 4 to 9 with Eblen, Butler, Storley etc is probably the next on the list.

At least Borelli sounded like there was interest in working to fix the system so thats a plus.

You can't say it's more egregious because of who the #1 seed is. You have to factor the resume of both Carter and Mayes. I think you could make a case for either one to be the #3 so it's really a coin flip. Mayes has two mediocre losses to Carter's one but Mayes also has two top 10 wins to Carter's one.

Mastriani getting a 7 seed at 149 is also a joke.

He got dominated by Panteleo, Arthur, Pagdilio, Barber, Miller and Rodriguez. Intermat has him ranked only 15th and Wrestlestats has him ranked clear down at 24th.


This post was edited on 3/13 3:16 PM by CP84 2.0

My point is 41 is pretty much a battle for 2nd behind Stieber, Carter at a 3 could possibly have made the finals (he darn near beat Port at Midlands) now he's likely destined to get another beatdown from Stieber in the semis before hitting the back side and likely finishing 3rd--now I know crazy upsets happen all the time yada yada...

One problem I have with it is they need to strictly look at the resume from the weight at which they are qualified for. Why should the Mastriani loss effect Carters seed? It wasn't at 41 (not to mention the fact that Mastriani is seeded higher than either guys that beat Mayes). As I stated Eblens losses at 84 and 97 didn't hurt him in his seeding at 74 even though his loss at 84 to Mikilus is worse than any loss that Storley (or any of the 74s in that seeding group) has/have.

I'd also argue that Carters win over Dardanes is better than either Mayes win over Dziewa or Martinez (who probably both should be seeded lower).

As I said in my previous post I feel they did a really poor job from 3-9 at 41 as it probably should have been something like:
Carter, Dardanes, Mayes, Dziewa, Abidin, Ashnault, Martinez and I'd probably be willing to flip Dardanes/Mayes although at 4/5 its not really a big deal

Martinez should be seeded lower? He's ranked 7th on Intermat and seeded 8th. How much lower do you think he should be? I would have no problem had Carter been the 3rd seed over Mayes but the argument about who is the #1 is moot. Sure it will have an impact on final placement but the bottom line when seeding is looking at the individual resumes and not simply saying it's more egregious to rank a 4 over a 3 because Stieber is in the bracket.

My point is that it's more egregious for #8 ranked Boyle with a far lesser resume to leap clear over Gilman into the 5 seed.

PS: Dardanes arguably is a better win than Dziewa/Martinez but that becomes a little more murky when Dziewa just got done clobbering Dardanes last week.




This post was edited on 3/13 4:00 PM by CP84 2.0

 

[140wildcatv2]

Originally posted by 86_90:

Originally posted by buf87:

I agree that losses need to be factored. If I remember right the example used was Carter at #4 and Mayes #3 at 141. I think Mayes lost in qualifier and got 3rd???

It was interesting getting the info from somebody on the committee, instead of speculating why something happen.

Basically guys like Delgado, Brascetta, H Stieber, Brewer did not get enough quality wins to get them a higher se

ed. Probably same thing happened to Cody Walters (30-1) and getting #9 seed.

Nothing I've seen comes close to Cody Walters getting the #9 versus a guy he beat last week who gets the #4. He also has less losses 1 versus 5 for Eblen (the only loss for Walters coming in November to Davante Mohmes--hardly a bad loss) more wins 30 to 26 than Eblen, and a head to head victory over Eblen last weekend. Eblen has no signature wins over top 5 guys so it's wasn't a case where he has a lot or any significant wins. In fact, Walters win over Eblen was the best win I can find for either.

So tell me again, how is this possible.

Walters biggest problem was outside of Eblen he only beat 4 other qualifiers and only 1 of them was seeded (#14 McCulley)
Eblen on the other hand beat Wilps, Brunson, Weatherman, Crutchmer, McCulley and Martinez--all guys seeded as well as 2 other qualifiers.
I won't disagree that Eblen shouldn't be 4th but not sure that Walters has the wins to put him above Eblen or much higher than #9

 

[Kwoodhawk]

Can anybody explain Cody Brewer from OU at 133 getting the #13 ???

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by Kwoodhawk:

Can anybody explain Cody Brewer from OU at 133 getting the #13 ???

Makes no sense. 17-1, 2 time AA who avenged his only loss. I feel kind of bad for Dijulius. Kind of....

This just illustrates the stupidity of only looking at quality wins. Brewer doesn't have a great SOS but he split with the #6 seed and won everything else and has a proven track record.

This system is clearly broken.

 

[140wildcatv2]

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:
Martinez should be seeded lower? He's ranked 7th on Intermat and seeded 8th. How much lower do you think he should be? I would have no problem had Carter been the 3rd seed over Mayes but the argument about who is the #1 is moot. Sure it will have an impact on final placement but the bottom line when seeding is looking at the individual resumes and not simply saying it's more egregious to rank a 4 over a 3 because Strieber is in the bracket.

My point is that it's more egregious for #8 ranked Boyle with a far lesser resume to clear over Gilman into the 5 seed.

PS: Dardanes arguably is a better win than Dziewa/Martinez but that becomes a little more murky when Dziewa just got done clobbering Dardanes last week.

I'd put Martinez at 9th (I realize only one spot lower than he is but I'd also only drop Dziewa one spot as well).

I guess we will just have to disagree--although Carter/Mayes seeding may possibly have big implications on the team score. frankly at 25 I'm more upset at Peters seed than Gilmans. In some ways I'm glad Gilmans on the opposite side of Waters although I don't like having the Conaway match up again.

 

[buf87]

Brewer is the problem of not having enough matches and not many quality wins. I would not be happy if I was DiJulius having the #4 seed and getting Brewer the 2nd round.

 

[Scryed]

Out of the 5, waters and dance both beat gilman and zeke is a quality kid. I'm not sure I'd give the 5 seed to him, but gilman has shown he's vulnerable. there are a lot worse seeds that have been awarded but let's not make this out like gilman got screwed. His hand fighting is top notch but he will be lucky to break top 4.

 

[Kwoodhawk]

Originally posted by buf87:
Brewer is the problem of not having enough matches and not many quality wins. I would not be happy if I was DiJulius having the #4 seed and getting Brewer the 2nd round.

We, however are extremely pleased.......

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:



Martinez should be seeded lower? He's ranked 7th on Intermat and seeded 8th. How much lower do you think he should be? I would have no problem had Carter been the 3rd seed over Mayes but the argument about who is the #1 is moot. Sure it will have an impact on final placement but the bottom line when seeding is looking at the individual resumes and not simply saying it's more egregious to rank a 4 over a 3 because Strieber is in the bracket.

My point is that it's more egregious for #8 ranked Boyle with a far lesser resume to clear over Gilman into the 5 seed.

PS: Dardanes arguably is a better win than Dziewa/Martinez but that becomes a little more murky when Dziewa just got done clobbering Dardanes last week.

I'd put Martinez at 9th (I realize only one spot lower than he is but I'd also only drop Dziewa one spot as well).

I guess we will just have to disagree--although Carter/Mayes seeding may possibly have big implications on the team score. frankly at 25 I'm more upset at Peters seed than Gilmans. In some ways I'm glad Gilmans on the opposite side of Waters although I don't like having the Conaway match up again.

I'm not incredibly upset about Gilman getting the 6 vs the 5. I'm just upset regarding who it is that jumped him. Outside of the head to head win, Boyle has done little to justify getting the 5 seed. The argument should be between Boyle and Peters rather Boyle and Gilman.

I have to disagree with you about Martinez. You could make the case that Dardanes could be higher than Dziewa, dropping him one but the consensus seems to be that Martinez should be no lower than 8.

Intermat has him #7, Wrestlestats #6 and the seeding committee dropped him to #8. There's a better argument that he should be higher than #7. The only site that I can find to rank him below his seed is FLO but their rankings are garbage as they have Mayes #7 behind Dziewa.



This post was edited on 3/13 4:31 PM by CP84 2.0

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by buf87:
Brewer is the problem of not having enough matches and not many quality wins. I would not be happy if I was DiJulius having the #4 seed and getting Brewer the 2nd round.

But that's even worse than Delgado. The wrestlers can only face who comes in front of them and he does have a win over a top 6 guy and no other losses.

The sad reality is that Midlands appears to have a better system for seeding wrestlers and that's an early season tournament.

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by Scryed:
Out of the 5, waters and dance both beat gilman and zeke is a quality kid. I'm not sure I'd give the 5 seed to him, but gilman has shown he's vulnerable. there are a lot worse seeds that have been awarded but let's not make this out like gilman got screwed. His hand fighting is top notch but he will be lucky to break top 4.

Zeke has 13 losses including several to guys outside the top 20. Zeke is quality in the same regard as Mike Kelly, meaning not a great loss for a supposed top 5 guy. You also seem to overlook his loss to 14-11 Brandon Jeske and 16 seed Paul Petrov pretty much destroying any credibility you might offer. Gilman's worst loss by contrast is to Boyle, who is their 5 seed. So yes, there are worse examples of guys getting screwed but it would be inaccurate to overlook Boyle getting overrated.


This post was edited on 3/13 4:48 PM by CP84 2.0

 

[140wildcatv2]

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:



Martinez should be seeded lower? He's ranked 7th on Intermat and seeded 8th. How much lower do you think he should be? I would have no problem had Carter been the 3rd seed over Mayes but the argument about who is the #1 is moot. Sure it will have an impact on final placement but the bottom line when seeding is looking at the individual resumes and not simply saying it's more egregious to rank a 4 over a 3 because Strieber is in the bracket.

My point is that it's more egregious for #8 ranked Boyle with a far lesser resume to clear over Gilman into the 5 seed.

PS: Dardanes arguably is a better win than Dziewa/Martinez but that becomes a little more murky when Dziewa just got done clobbering Dardanes last week.

I'd put Martinez at 9th (I realize only one spot lower than he is but I'd also only drop Dziewa one spot as well).

I guess we will just have to disagree--although Carter/Mayes seeding may possibly have big implications on the team score. frankly at 25 I'm more upset at Peters seed than Gilmans. In some ways I'm glad Gilmans on the opposite side of Waters although I don't like having the Conaway match up again.

I'm not incredibly upset about Gilman getting the 6 vs the 5. I'm just upset regarding who it is that jumped him. Outside of the head to head win, Boyle has done little to justify getting the 5 seed. The argument should be between Boyle and Peters rather Boyle and Gilman.

I have to disagree with you about Martinez. You could make the case that Dardanes could be higher than Dziewa, dropping him one but the consensus seems to be that Martinez should be no lower than 8.

Intermat has him #7, Wrestlestats #6 and the seeding committee dropped him to #8. There's a better argument that he should be higher than #7. The only site that I can find to rank him below his seed is FLO but their rankings are garbage as they have Mayes #7 behind Dziewa.



This post was edited on 3/13 4:31 PM by CP84 2.0

After listening to Borrelli talk on Flo about the seeding matrix I can understand why Boyle is ahead of Gilman. The big thing that most people are stuck on is the quality of losses which currently isn't in the criteria (but something Borelli said will likely be brought up at their meeting after the season).
The criteria is supposedly (listed in order of importance):
Head to Head
quality wins
common opponents
RPI
qualifying placement
coaches ranking
win %
number of matches

Just doing a quick scan of their results as far as I can tell Boyle had the Head to head, quality wins*, qualifying placement, and number of matches, while Gilman had RPI, ranking, and win% and they had the same results against common opponents

*Quality wins was said to be wins over Gold or Silver wrestlers who qualified (ie wrestlers who qualified spots and then cashed them in) Boyle had 5--Herrmann, Wileford, Cox, Mines, and Gilman. While Gilman had 4 Tomasello, Conaway, Youtsey, and Garrett.--Now they talked about how they weighted quality wins based off of the opponent so I don't know how that would effect it as Gilmans quality wins are better than Boyles.

Like I said I don't agree with it but based off of the criteria can see how it happened.

As for Martinez its the group of three he's in with Abidin and Ashnault. Not sure how it was seeded Ashnault, Martinez, Abidin when Abidin has beaten Ashnault twice and split with Martinez and Ashnault beat Martinez. Even if you look at the best wins past that Martinez next best win was against Horan who Abidin also beat while Ashnault had a win over Dziewa.

 

[CP84 2.0]

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:



Martinez should be seeded lower? He's ranked 7th on Intermat and seeded 8th. How much lower do you think he should be? I would have no problem had Carter been the 3rd seed over Mayes but the argument about who is the #1 is moot. Sure it will have an impact on final placement but the bottom line when seeding is looking at the individual resumes and not simply saying it's more egregious to rank a 4 over a 3 because Strieber is in the bracket.

My point is that it's more egregious for #8 ranked Boyle with a far lesser resume to clear over Gilman into the 5 seed.

PS: Dardanes arguably is a better win than Dziewa/Martinez but that becomes a little more murky when Dziewa just got done clobbering Dardanes last week.

I'd put Martinez at 9th (I realize only one spot lower than he is but I'd also only drop Dziewa one spot as well).

I guess we will just have to disagree--although Carter/Mayes seeding may possibly have big implications on the team score. frankly at 25 I'm more upset at Peters seed than Gilmans. In some ways I'm glad Gilmans on the opposite side of Waters although I don't like having the Conaway match up again.

I'm not incredibly upset about Gilman getting the 6 vs the 5. I'm just upset regarding who it is that jumped him. Outside of the head to head win, Boyle has done little to justify getting the 5 seed. The argument should be between Boyle and Peters rather Boyle and Gilman.

I have to disagree with you about Martinez. You could make the case that Dardanes could be higher than Dziewa, dropping him one but the consensus seems to be that Martinez should be no lower than 8.

Intermat has him #7, Wrestlestats #6 and the seeding committee dropped him to #8. There's a better argument that he should be higher than #7. The only site that I can find to rank him below his seed is FLO but their rankings are garbage as they have Mayes #7 behind Dziewa.



This post was edited on 3/13 4:31 PM by CP84 2.0

After listening to Borrelli talk on Flo about the seeding matrix I can understand why Boyle is ahead of Gilman. The big thing that most people are stuck on is the quality of losses which currently isn't in the criteria (but something Borelli said will likely be brought up at their meeting after the season).
The criteria is supposedly (listed in order of importance):
Head to Head
quality wins
common opponents
RPI
qualifying placement
coaches ranking
win %
number of matches

Just doing a quick scan of their results as far as I can tell Boyle had the Head to head, quality wins*, qualifying placement, and number of matches, while Gilman had RPI, ranking, and win% and they had the same results against common opponents

*Quality wins was said to be wins over Gold or Silver wrestlers who qualified (ie wrestlers who qualified spots and then cashed them in) Boyle had 5--Herrmann, Wileford, Cox, Mines, and Gilman. While Gilman had 4 Tomasello, Conaway, Youtsey, and Garrett.--Now they talked about how they weighted quality wins based off of the opponent so I don't know how that would effect it as Gilmans quality wins are better than Boyles.

Like I said I don't agree with it but based off of the criteria can see how it happened.

As for Martinez its the group of three he's in with Abidin and Ashnault. Not sure how it was seeded Ashnault, Martinez, Abidin when Abidin has beaten Ashnault twice and split with Martinez and Ashnault beat Martinez. Even if you look at the best wins past that Martinez next best win was against Horan who Abidin also beat while Ashnault had a win over Dziewa.

This still makes no sense. We'll ignore the fatal flaw with this system not assessing bad losses since that's been beaten to death.

You claim (and they do) that Boyle won the quality wins category. I don't see it.

Gilman beat #4 Tomasello, #3 Garrett, #9 Klimara, #10 Conaway and #14 Youtsey.

Boyle beat #5 Gilman, #17 Mines, #13 Cox, #18 Willeford , #9 Klimara, (unranked) Hermann.

Any sane methodology for weighting these "quality" wins shows they are apples and oranges.

 

[CP84 2.0]

Even if you compare common opponents other than the head to head, the final win-loss results might be similar but the matches really weren't.

Gilman-Klimara W 15-5
Boyle-Klimara W 11-9

G-Dance L 3-1 SV
B-Dance L Fall

G-Rogaliner W 18-6 and 23-10
B-Rogaliner W 10-8

G-Waters L TB-1 5-4
B-Waters L TF

G-Larson W 6-1
B-Larson W 6-2





This post was edited on 3/13 5:46 PM by CP84 2.0

 

[140wildcatv2]

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:

Originally posted by 140wildcatv2:

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:



Martinez should be seeded lower? He's ranked 7th on Intermat and seeded 8th. How much lower do you think he should be? I would have no problem had Carter been the 3rd seed over Mayes but the argument about who is the #1 is moot. Sure it will have an impact on final placement but the bottom line when seeding is looking at the individual resumes and not simply saying it's more egregious to rank a 4 over a 3 because Strieber is in the bracket.

My point is that it's more egregious for #8 ranked Boyle with a far lesser resume to clear over Gilman into the 5 seed.

PS: Dardanes arguably is a better win than Dziewa/Martinez but that becomes a little more murky when Dziewa just got done clobbering Dardanes last week.

I'd put Martinez at 9th (I realize only one spot lower than he is but I'd also only drop Dziewa one spot as well).

I guess we will just have to disagree--although Carter/Mayes seeding may possibly have big implications on the team score. frankly at 25 I'm more upset at Peters seed than Gilmans. In some ways I'm glad Gilmans on the opposite side of Waters although I don't like having the Conaway match up again.

I'm not incredibly upset about Gilman getting the 6 vs the 5. I'm just upset regarding who it is that jumped him. Outside of the head to head win, Boyle has done little to justify getting the 5 seed. The argument should be between Boyle and Peters rather Boyle and Gilman.

I have to disagree with you about Martinez. You could make the case that Dardanes could be higher than Dziewa, dropping him one but the consensus seems to be that Martinez should be no lower than 8.

Intermat has him #7, Wrestlestats #6 and the seeding committee dropped him to #8. There's a better argument that he should be higher than #7. The only site that I can find to rank him below his seed is FLO but their rankings are garbage as they have Mayes #7 behind Dziewa.



This post was edited on 3/13 4:31 PM by CP84 2.0

After listening to Borrelli talk on Flo about the seeding matrix I can understand why Boyle is ahead of Gilman. The big thing that most people are stuck on is the quality of losses which currently isn't in the criteria (but something Borelli said will likely be brought up at their meeting after the season).
The criteria is supposedly (listed in order of importance):
Head to Head
quality wins
common opponents
RPI
qualifying placement
coaches ranking
win %
number of matches

Just doing a quick scan of their results as far as I can tell Boyle had the Head to head, quality wins*, qualifying placement, and number of matches, while Gilman had RPI, ranking, and win% and they had the same results against common opponents

*Quality wins was said to be wins over Gold or Silver wrestlers who qualified (ie wrestlers who qualified spots and then cashed them in) Boyle had 5--Herrmann, Wileford, Cox, Mines, and Gilman. While Gilman had 4 Tomasello, Conaway, Youtsey, and Garrett.--Now they talked about how they weighted quality wins based off of the opponent so I don't know how that would effect it as Gilmans quality wins are better than Boyles.

Like I said I don't agree with it but based off of the criteria can see how it happened.

As for Martinez its the group of three he's in with Abidin and Ashnault. Not sure how it was seeded Ashnault, Martinez, Abidin when Abidin has beaten Ashnault twice and split with Martinez and Ashnault beat Martinez. Even if you look at the best wins past that Martinez next best win was against Horan who Abidin also beat while Ashnault had a win over Dziewa.

This still makes no sense. We'll ignore the fatal flaw with this system not assessing bad losses since that's been beaten to death.

You claim (and they do) that Boyle won the quality wins category. I don't see it.

Gilman beat #4 Tomasello, #3 Garrett, #9 Klimara, #10 Conaway and #14 Youtsey.

Boyle beat #5 Gilman, #17 Mines, #13 Cox, #18 Willeford , #9 Klimara, (unranked) Hermann.

Any sane methodology for weighting these "quality" wins shows they are apples and oranges.

I'm only claiming it based off of the number 5 vs 4 (Klimara doesn't count due to the Big 12 not being a qualifying tourney). They made mention of a tier for quality of wins like Garrett, Tomasello would be top tier quality wins where as Mines would be a lower tier (I don't know how many tiers there are I'd guess 2 but Borelli didn't say-I don't think anyway) that being said the quality wins category isn't an all or nothing: you get all the points or you don't, both had quality wins so they both would have gotten points in that criteria, in fact I'd bet Gilman got more as he had higher quality wins but because he lost the head to head (which has the most weight of the criteria) and Boyle had two other criteria he scored better than Gilman (while Gilman had 3 better than Boyle). Thats as best as I can figure how the criteria would seed them.

 

[CP84 2.0]

Items like total number of matches or winning percentage should really be irrelevant. Really it should just come down to RPI, quality of wins and quality of losses. Mentioning Mines and Hermann in the same breath as Garrett and Tomasello is laughable unless there is a substantial weight difference and in that case quality of wins is clearly in Gilman's favor. Head to head doesn't mean much unless to serve the purpose of a tie breaker. In this case it shouldn't be that close based on the important criteria.

Remember, this same standard that ranked Boyle 5 found Delgado and Brewer unseeded and #13. Bottom line is it's a trainwreck. Had Clark lost to Dijulius and got the 4 seed with Brewer in round 2, this board would have exploded.


This post was edited on 3/13 6:12 PM by CP84 2.0

 

[sloehawk]

Originally posted by CP84 2.0:
Items like total number of matches or winning percentage should really be irrelevant. Really it should just come down to RPI, quality of wins and quality of losses. Mentioning Mines and Hermann in the same breath as Garrett and Tomasello is laughable unless there is a substantial weight difference and in that case quality of wins is clearly in Gilman's favor. Head to head doesn't mean much unless to serve the purpose of a tie breaker. In this case it shouldn't be that close based on the important criteria.

Remember, this same standard that ranked Boyle 5 found Delgado and Brewer unseeded and #13. Bottom line is it's a trainwreck. Had Clark lost to Dijulius and got the 4 seed with Brewer in round 2, this board would have exploded.


This post was edited on 3/13 6:12 PM by CP84 2.0

Not to mention Gilmans losses came against the 1,3 & 4 seeds (and #5 Boyle), 3 of those in overtime, and the other a 1 point loss.

Compare that, then compare the common opponents, and it is very clear that Gilmans one "bad" day against Boyle esseintially raped him in the seeding. Head to head certainly has to be a factor, but body of work should sure as hell warrant more over an entire season I would think.