Thoughts on the likely seeds for NCAAs?

[Nashville_Hawkeye]

Greetings all,

Can anyone provide their thoughts on the likely NCAA seeds for our 10 men based on B10 results and the latest WIN poll (not that the poll necessarily matters all that much in some cases)? I'm thinking SL (1) RW (2) and Cass (3), but after that I don't know what to think...

Thank you.

 

[Reymundo]

RW #1. Even though Coaches’ Poll will have Alirez #1, RW will win RPI and Quality Wins.

 

[Nashville_Hawkeye]

RW #1. Even though Coaches’ Poll will have Alirez #1, RW will win RPI and Quality Wins.

I hope you're right...he's definitely taking on the top tier guys.

 

[jmadden1998]

I hope you're right...he's definitely taking on the top tier guys.

Real has 7 QW and Alirez has 4, maybe 5 if Darren Miller from Bucknell gets an at large bid. Either way Woods should have more points based on that and get the one. Alirez gets the 2. Most likely Cole Matthews gets the 3 and then 4, 5 and 6 will be a combo of Bartlett, Hardy and Jack from NC State. Bartlett has the highest win % between the 3 but Hardy has the H2H which is 25 points so I would put Hardy at 4, Bartlett at 5 and Jack at 6

 

[Reymundo]

Real has 7 QW and Alirez has 4, maybe 5 if Darren Miller from Bucknell gets an at large bid. Either way Woods should have more points based on that and get the one. Alirez gets the 2. Most likely Cole Matthews gets the 3 and then 4, 5 and 6 will be a combo of Bartlett, Hardy and Jack from NC State. Bartlett has the highest win % between the 3 but Hardy has the H2H which is 25 points so I would put Hardy at 4, Bartlett at 5 and Jack at 6

I have it Woods Alirez Matthews Jack Hardy Bartlett.

 

[jmadden1998]

I have it Woods Alirez Matthews Jack Hardy Bartlett.

You are right. Didn’t realize Jack beat Hardy head to head. That will definitely get him the higher seed along with his higher win % and he is currently ranked higher in coaches and RPI. Good call.

 

[Inthecircle]

Real has 7 QW and Alirez has 4, maybe 5 if Darren Miller from Bucknell gets an at large bid. Either way Woods should have more points based on that and get the one. Alirez gets the 2. Most likely Cole Matthews gets the 3 and then 4, 5 and 6 will be a combo of Bartlett, Hardy and Jack from NC State. Bartlett has the highest win % between the 3 but Hardy has the H2H which is 25 points so I would put Hardy at 4, Bartlett at 5 and Jack at 6

So when they run RPI for NCAA seeding it’s only within the 33 qualifiers, and the wrestler only gets tier points once, against someone they beat multiple times? If this is correct I have Woods with 19.5 QW points and Alirez with 9
Because I am anal I have Woods with 8 quality wins.
You do good work helping us understand the criteria. Thanks for this.

 

[jmadden1998]

So when they run RPI for NCAA seeding it’s only within the 33 qualifiers, and the wrestler only gets tier points once, against someone they beat multiple times? If this is correct I have Woods with 19.5 QW points and Alirez with 9
Because I am anal I have Woods with 8 quality wins.
You do good work helping us understand the criteria. Thanks for this.

QW is a win against anyone who makes the NCAA field. You only get credit for beating a wrestler once when calculating QW. Woods beat Hardy and Tal-Shahar twice each but only gets credit for 2 QW’s. He also beat Swiderski, Zargo, Bartlett, Bergeland, Young, and Filius. I missed Zargo in my original post. Thanks for pointing that out. 😃😃

 

[Inthecircle]

I’d like to see the spreadsheets when they get done with 165. Kennedy may only move up 1 spot to 7 in the coaches rankings or may not move at all. O’Toole, Griffith, Monday and Kennedy all placed 2nd. So all equal.
Prior to conference tournaments
Coaches Rank & Current RPI according to Wrestle Stat in parentheses
1. Carr (1)
2. O’Toole (3)
3. Griffith (9)
4. Monday (5)
5. Amine (15)
6. Hamiti (2)
7. Ramirez (4)
8. Kennedy (6)
16. Olguin Oregon State (7) How far does he jump?
Amine should drop considerably in coaches rank.
Olguin has the worst W/L by percentage
Kennedy and Griffith have identical records. All others beside Amine have better percentage W/L records.
What a s**t show.

 

[Reymundo]

I’d like to see the spreadsheets when they get done with 165. Kennedy may only move up 1 spot to 7 in the coaches rankings or may not move at all. O’Toole, Griffith, Monday and Kennedy all placed 2nd. So all equal.
Prior to conference tournaments
Coaches Rank & Current RPI according to Wrestle Stat in parentheses
1. Carr (1)
2. O’Toole (3)
3. Griffith (9)
4. Monday (5)
5. Amine (15)
6. Hamiti (2)
7. Ramirez (4)
8. Kennedy (6)
16. Olguin Oregon State (7) How far does he jump?
Amine should drop considerably in coaches rank.
Olguin has the worst W/L by percentage
Kennedy and Griffith have identical records. All others beside Amine have better percentage W/L records.
What a s**t show.

I would guess Kennedy moves up to #6 in the Coaches Rankings (ahead of Amine and Griffith who has lost twice to Olguin since the last rankings came out).

 

[Reymundo]

I have Cassioppi at #4 behind Parris, Kerkvliet and Hendrickson with Schultz at #5.

 

[jmadden1998]

I have Cassioppi at #4 behind Parris, Kerkvliet and Hendrickson with Schultz at #5.

Wondering how you got that? H2H is even. Cass has CR. Schultz has higher placement, higher win % and a higher RPI for now. Unless you think Cass passes him in RPI. Common opponents is even.

That gives Schultz 12.5+10+10+10. QW look even as well so 10 each. I have Schultz 52.5 and Cass 47.5.

 

[MSU158]

I have Cassioppi at #4 behind Parris, Kerkvliet and Hendrickson with Schultz at #5.

Interested to hear why Hendrickson over Cass. Cass's only losses are to Kerk(2x) and Parris. All of which were reasonbly close scores. Meanwhile, Hendrickson's loss is 12-5 to Parris. Coaches rankings will still have Cass above him and common opponent scores play a factor. Kerk wasn't in the last RPI but should now be in after B1Gs. With him in , Cass should also jump ahead of Hendrickson in RPI.

So, I just don't see how they put Hendrickson ahead of Cass, with the ONLY thing being a slightly better record due to only wrestling the top 2 guys 1 time instead of 3...

 

[MSU158]

Wondering how you got that? H2H is even. Cass has CR. Schultz has higher placement, higher win % and a higher RPI for now. Unless you think Cass passes him in RPI. Common opponents is even.

That gives Schultz 12.5+10+10+10. QW look even as well so 10 each. I have Schultz 52.5 and Cass 47.5.

Cass's losses are to #1 and #2. Schultz's losses are to #12 and an UNRANKED opponent. That will trump EVERYTHING...Oh, and there is no way Schultz holds higher RPI once Kerkvliet gets added in.

 

[The Vak]

Spencer 1st
Teske mid teens
Woods 1st
Murin 6-8ish?
Siebrecht 10-15ish
Kennedy 6-9
Brands 10-15
Assad 10-15
Warner 7-10
Cassioppi 3-4

 

[Reymundo]

Wondering how you got that? H2H is even. Cass has CR. Schultz has higher placement, higher win % and a higher RPI for now. Unless you think Cass passes him in RPI. Common opponents is even.

That gives Schultz 12.5+10+10+10. QW look even as well so 10 each. I have Schultz 52.5 and Cass 47.5.

I have QW at 5 Cass, 4 Schultz but that is based on Wrestle/Stat’s Top 16 wins. I could see QW flipping to even.

 

[Reymundo]

Either way, 4 or 5 seed means Cass wrestles Schultz in the quarters which I think is a good matchup for Cass.

 

[jmadden1998]

Interested to hear why Hendrickson over Cass. Cass's only losses are to Kerk(2x) and Parris. All of which were reasonbly close scores. Meanwhile, Hendrickson's loss is 12-5 to Parris. Coaches rankings will still have Cass above him and common opponent scores play a factor. Kerk wasn't in the last RPI but should now be in after B1Gs. With him in , Cass should also jump ahead of Hendrickson in RPI.

So, I just don't see how they put Hendrickson ahead of Cass, with the ONLY thing being a slightly better record due to only wrestling the top 2 guys 1 time instead of 3...

It’s all based on the formula. They can move a wrestler up or down 2 seeds but not sure how often that happens. Hendrickson has win % and higher finish at conf tourney. Last RPI Hendrickson was 7 and Cass was 9. If Cass does pass him in RPI then Cass could be seeded ahead of him.

 

[Reymundo]

WrestleStat has updated RPI’s also at 7 and 9.

 

[MSU158]

It’s all based on the formula. They can move a wrestler up or down 2 seeds but not sure how often that happens. Hendrickson has win % and higher finish at conf tourney. Last RPI Hendrickson was 7 and Cass was 9. If Cass does pass him in RPI then Cass could be seeded ahead of him.

WrestleStat has updated RPI’s also at 7 and 9.

Any RPI system that doesn't account for your ONLY losses being to the #1 and #2 guys in BOTH RPI and Coaches Rankings is a rather flawed formula. On top of that Cass's wins over Davison, Hillger and Orndorff shoul easily trump any win Schultz or Hendrickson have.

Even moreso after that, the best win could be argued to be Schuyler for both Schultz and Hendrickson. Using that as the key common opponent. Cass beat him 9-2, while Schultz won 3-2 and Hendrickson 8-2.

Like I said at the beginning, I don't think Alirez deserves to be ahead of Woods, but both are undefeated with Alirez having considerably more wins and will most likely still have Coaches Rankings. Without Coaches Rankings I wouldn't even consider it. In the case of Cass, Coaches Rankings should sway everything because I just don't see how you ignore comparing the losses...

 

[sstark46]

Any RPI system that doesn't account for your ONLY losses being to the #1 and #2 guys in BOTH RPI and Coaches Rankings is a rather flawed formula

I'm not sure you understand what RPI is

 

[lookleft goright]

There is no flawless way to determine seeds. We get all worked up, but after the first 4 or 5 seeds, it is really hard to determine what to do and the first 4 or 5 sort themselves out also. It is the craziness of upsets that makes it so much fun anyway.

 

[Inthecircle]

I found this little tidbit in the Division 1 2022-2023 Wrestling Pre Championships
Manual.
SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA
The committee may also consider the following subjective measures to supplement established selection and seeding criteria:
● Bad Losses
● Outside the top 30 CR and/or 30 RPI
● Conference Champion
● Performance in last five matches
● Number of Injury default or medical forfeits wins/losses
● Best quality win
● Wrestler availability (injured or medically unable to compete)

 

[sdvike]

Cass will have to be on his game in the quarters, he will get a good challenge. But after that, without a significant injury or upset, he will need to beat both Kerk and Parris no matter where they put him. So if they drop him in seedings, not much difference.

 

[MSU158]

I'm not sure you understand what RPI is

Ratings POWER/PERCENTAGE Index

Key word being POWER/PERCENTAGE. Any index that determines the power/percentage of an individual's, or a team's overall performance, SHOULD HEAVILY consider the value of losses just as much as wins and winning percentage.

In NO WAY, should someone who lost to A.J. Nevills and Dayton Pitzer have a RPI that puts him over someone that only has losses to Kerkvliet and Parris as long as the wins and winning percentage are at least similar...

 

[sstark46]

Ratings POWER Index

Key word being POWER. Any index that determines the power of an individual's, or a team's overall performance, SHOULD HEAVILY consider the value of losses just as much as wins and winning percentage.

In NO WAY, should someone who lost to A.J. Nevills and Dayton Pitzer have a RPI that puts him over someone that only has losses to Kerkvliet and Parris as long as the wins and winning percentage are at least similar...

Rating percentage index. It is just a number that indicates strength of schedule based purely on wins and losses. It doesn't take into account quality of wins. RPI is just a simple mathematical formula, there is no subjectivity on "quality" of wins

 

[MSU158]

Rating percentage index. It is just a number that indicates strength of schedule based purely on wins and losses. It doesn't take into account quality of wins. RPI is just a simple mathematical formula, there is no subjectivity on "quality" of wins

Power and Percentage definitely was a snafu in my head. I corrected it when I read it before you even put your repiy in,

Yes I get what they are. My point is what they SHOULD be. The formula should value the quality of wins and losses simply by adding a calculation value for records against others in the RPI. It would be easy to add a factor that gives a percentage value to opponents rankings in the actual RPI. Being 21-3 when your losses are to the top 2 should be easily calculable to compare to 20-2 when your losses are to 1 not even in the top 33 and the other 12th.

Edit: To be clear, I read and brush up on all the criteria every year around Conferences. One key component that sticks with me is it is used as a "measurement to rank sports teams/individuals based on their wins AND losses and strength of schedule". Again, HOW does a formula put a 20-2 over a 21-3 when comparing who they lost to listed above?

 

[sstark46]

Yes I get what they are. My point is what they SHOULD be. The formula should value the quality of wins and losses simply by adding a calculation value for records against others in the RPI. It would be easy to add a factor that gives a percentage value to opponents rankings in the actual RPI. Being 21-3 when your losses are to the top 2 should be easily calculable to compare to 20-2 when your losses are to 1 not even in the top 33 and the other 12th.

I don't think it's as easy as you seem to think it is to add a "percentage factor" in to rank opponents into RPI. With RPI, it's a simple (and yes, flawed) calculation. What you're proposing is something more similar to what WrestlingByPirate does for his Dual Impact Index, where you go through generations of calculations, each based on the previous generation of results, until they stabilize.

 

[MSU158]

I don't think it's as easy as you seem to think it is to add a "percentage factor" in to rank opponents into RPI. With RPI, it's a simple (and yes, flawed) calculation. What you're proposing is something more similar to what WrestlingByPirate does for his Dual Impact Index, where you go through generations of calculations, each based on the previous generation of results, until they stabilize.

Obviously, the Dual Impact Index is much more complex. What I am asking for is to add a component that gives proper value solely to losses.

The current one gives 25% to winning percentage, 50% to opponents winning percentage and 25% to opponents opponents winning percentage. I would simply like to adjust those percentages to allow a 4th value for losses.

I get that it would take some time to figure out what the proper percentages for each should be. I also get that we would have to play with it to see how 1 loss would effect the score vs. 5 vs. 10, etc.

Simply put, I don't like RPI being such a significant factor when it doesn't properly give value to the losses, which are often so much more telling than wins...

 

[sstark46]

Obviously, the Dual Impact Index is much more complex. What I am asking for is to add a component that gives proper value solely to losses.

The current one gives 25% to winning percentage, 50% to opponents winning percentage and 25% to opponents opponents winning percentage. I would simply like to adjust those percentages to allow a 4th value for losses.

I get that it would take some time to figure out what the proper percentages for each should be. I also get that we would have to play with it to see how 1 loss would effect the score vs. 5 vs. 10, etc.

Simply put, I don't like RPI being such a significant factor when it doesn't properly give value to the losses, which are often so much more telling than wins...

But how do you quantify the value of the losses to know if it was quality or not? You can't quantify it on RPI itself, because in that scenario, you can't calculate RPI for anyone if it requires RPI to already have been calculated for everyone else. That's why something like that would need to be done generationally. If you are quantifying it on something else (say, the coaches ranking) then it is no longer a standalone value/metric; it would be dependent on and tied to the other factor, and it would start to become superfluous if the other factor is already being considered.

 

[jmadden1998]

Obviously, the Dual Impact Index is much more complex. What I am asking for is to add a component that gives proper value solely to losses.

The current one gives 25% to winning percentage, 50% to opponents winning percentage and 25% to opponents opponents winning percentage. I would simply like to adjust those percentages to allow a 4th value for losses.

I get that it would take some time to figure out what the proper percentages for each should be. I also get that we would have to play with it to see how 1 loss would effect the score vs. 5 vs. 10, etc.

Simply put, I don't like RPI being such a significant factor when it doesn't properly give value to the losses, which are often so much more telling than wins...

The coaches rankings actually are more important as they are weighted higher. 15 points to 10 for RPI. Seems that would be easier to manipulate than a computer program. Not saying anyone does it but look at our own program. We didn’t know the rules and didn’t even submit Teske to be ranked for an allocation. Seems the whole system might need reviewed.

 

[MSU158]

But how do you quantify the value of the losses to know if it was quality or not? You can't quantify it on RPI itself, because in that scenario, you can't calculate RPI for anyone if it requires RPI to already have been calculated for everyone else. That's why something like that would need to be done generationally. If you are quantifying it on something else (say, the coaches ranking) then it is no longer a standalone value/metric; it would be dependent on and tied to the other factor, and it would start to become superfluous if the other factor is already being considered.

I get what you are saying. What I am saying is maybe you make it a hybrid of RPI, something like L-RPI. You calculate RPI and then multiply it by a loss ratio against those in the RPI and set a worse value for a loss to someone below the top 33.

It would definitely take some playing around with the numbers to set a fair value, but I do think it can be done to make it more properly represent a ratings system to value the ENTIRE body of work.

 

[Inspiteofourselves]

let’s assume 3-6 is Cass, Hendrickson, Schultz, and Davison. Who would you like to see in the quarters first to last? For me it’s probably Hendrickson, Schultz, then Davison. I guess I’m ok with the 4/5 seed as long as Davison is 6.

 

[The Vak]

Cass will have to be on his game in the quarters, he will get a good challenge. But after that, without a significant injury or upset, he will need to beat both Kerk and Parris no matter where they put him. So if they drop him in seedings, not much difference.

There's a not insignificant chance of Kerk being the 4 and Cass being 5. Cass could also be the 6.

 

[Inspiteofourselves]

There's a not insignificant chance of Kerk being the 4 and Cass being 5. Cass could also be the 6.

0% chance Parris is 1 Kerk is 4 and Cass 5. Kerk is the 2 or I suppose some crazy chance of a 3 but highly unlikely.

 

[The Vak]

0% chance Parris is 1 Kerk is 4 and Cass 5. Kerk is the 2 or I suppose some crazy chance of a 3 but highly unlikely.

Nomad has been tweeting out the matrix numbers and Kerk loses out to both Schultz and Hendrickson. I hope the committee intervenes, truly.

 

[12tdsaw]

was told there would be no math

 

[AFHawk86]

Nomad has been tweeting out the matrix numbers and Kerk loses out to both Schultz and Hendrickson. I hope the committee intervenes, truly.

I’m ok with this as long as Cass is #6.

 

[MSU158]

Nomad has been tweeting out the matrix numbers and Kerk loses out to both Schultz and Hendrickson. I hope the committee intervenes, truly.

At some point, you hope common sense prevails. Coaches ranking should trump some of the other criteria when there are no head to heads and losses are much worse than others.

Look at O'Toole and Ramirez. Ramirez beats him "by the numbers", but O'Toole's only losses are to Carr, while Ramirez lost to Hamiti, Carr and Hall. One would think that would be easier for them to move with the loss to Hall by fall. But, still, any formula that puts a 21-3 Ramirez over 15-2 O'Toole is fundamentally flawed...

 

[MSU158]

I’m ok with this as long as Cass is #6.

Sad thing is, there is ZERO chance of that. After the top 5 it drops off DRAMATICALLY. Schuyler is the next closest and Cass has a dominant head to head win over him.