That did not take long

[lookleft goright]

Does everyone remember when the NCAA was going to put together a formula to eliminate all human bias and make the NCAA seeding fair? Well it did not take long for them to throw common sense out the window and come up with some pretty stupid rankings. But, they are fair and unbiased and they are derived from a formula. YIPPEE!!!

Sometimes a machine or a formula just isn't capable of making a good decision. 174 and 133 being prime examples. I still find it almost impossible that Delgado got no seed whatsoever.

(As a side note, remember this when the gov't wants to make something fair also. Like net neutrality etc..)

 

[LutherAce]

i'm surprised at the B1G vs B1G in first rounds...can't they some finagling to avoid that?

125 - 0 matchups
133 - 1 matchup
141 - 2 matchup
149 - 1 matchup
157 - 1 matchup (and another in Rd2)
165 - 2 matchups
174 - 2 matchups
184 - 0 matchup
197 - 1 matchup
285 - 3 matchups

 

[HawkTitan]

Originally posted by LutherAce:
i'm surprised at the B1G vs B1G in first rounds...can't they some finagling to avoid that?

125 - 0 matchups
133 - 1 matchup
141 - 2 matchup
149 - 1 matchup
157 - 1 matchup (and another in Rd2)
165 - 2 matchups
174 - 2 matchups
184 - 0 matchup
197 - 1 matchup
285 - 3 matchups

Pretty sure they've specifically said they wouldn't do that and would leave it up to the seeding process.

 

[grappler6]

With 16 seeds and 14 big ten teams it's going to happen unfortunately.

 

[FineMaterial]

. I still find it almost impossible that Delgado got no seed whatsoever.

Only 11 matches all year, and only 7 in the regular season. He probably wasn't eligible for a seeding by rule.

 

[lookleft goright]

That is my point with Delgado. A fair and unbiased formula would not seed him, but who in their right mind would not seed him?

 

[squibs]

Originally posted by lookleft goright:
That is my point with Delgado. A fair and unbiased formula would not seed him, but who in their right mind would not seed him?

So we're looking for an unfair and biased seeding formula?

 

[lookleft goright]

No it is not a fair and unbiased formula, but that is how they sold it to us. Based on the results of this tourney, it is a silly formula and some very good people are not going to place or they will place lower than they should have because they are going to be wrestling in the first round or 2 round.

This new system was supposed to make seeding an impartial affair and then we would have true NCAA champions because no one could slant the seeds to benefit them.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Do share your solution.

 

[lookleft goright]

My solution is to go back to the way it was. It all boils down to having honest people. Without that nothing works. I think the way they used to do it was pretty fair. Lets keep the human element in the sport.

 

[dicemen99]

Originally posted by squibs:

Originally posted by lookleft goright:
That is my point with Delgado. A fair and unbiased formula would not seed him, but who in their right mind would not seed him?

So we're looking for an unfair and biased seeding formula?

To be fair and unbiased, one would place SOME weight on previous year's finishes. Really, what is the rationale of giving weight to a match in early December of this season, while giving NO weight to any matches at NCAAs last year.

It's really not that hard to come up with a formula that weights this season's accomplishments, along with acknowledging previous season's performances. If high schools can come up with seeding and prestige points for their postseasons, not sure why the NCAA can't.

 

[bravehawks1]

No seeding system will ever be perfect. It seems that Hawk fans always thought the seedings were biased against us, so be careful what you wish for.

This is no different then the NCAA BB brackets. Nobody wants the bracket with Stieber or Dean for example, but to be the best you have to beat the best and often times it is a matchup issue. Sometimes it just seems like the path is a little easier for some than others, but every guy has to win 5 times in a row to be the national champion at his weight. Seems reasonable and fair to me.

 

[lookleft goright]

It is not so unfair for the champion as it is for the guys taking 3rd thru 8. When the top 2-3 are in the same quarter of a bracket or a couple possible top 5 guys meet in the first round, it makes it unfair to them and to others.

You are correct, nothing is perfect, but I dislike it when someone puts pout a formula and then things get all screwed up, they say, "well we went by the formula" It takes accountability away from people and problems that have simple solutions, succenly become unsolvable.

Sorry, just my little rant.