Parris, Kerk, and Cass on the same side of the bracket. That makes so much sense…let’s make Davison the #8 and ensure there isn’t an all B1G final with the best opponents in the finals.
Thoughts on the likely seeds for NCAAs?
- Thread starter Nashville_Hawkeye
- Start date
I couldn't agree with you more. To me, it was a no brainer putting Parris, Kerk and Cass 1,2,3. However, now I am nervous that they will just punch in the formula and move along. I hope there are enough people in the room with actual knowledge to realize rewarding 2 guys for wrestling VERY weak conference schedules, while the top 4 were all in the same conference, is ridiculous. Cass's 2 wins over Davison are light years ahead of any Schultz or Hendrickson have...
That is where I disagree. Having to wrestle Schultz in the quarterfinals is RIDICULOUS. Let's not act like that is a guaranteed win. Cass has been top 3 the ENTIRE year. His 3 losses have done NOTHING to change that. Putting him 4 or 5 would truly show just how flawed a system is that punishes someone for wrestling in the toughest conference, beating the #4 twice while ONLY losing 2x's to the #2 and 1x to the #1. Meanwhile, Schultz losses are to an unranked and the #12....
I have said for years now that guys wrestling weak competition in weak conferences should not be rewarded for having great records while punishing B10 wrestlers for losses when they wrestle top 10 guys week in and out in the B10. We will see what they do, but they need to figure strength of schedule into their rankings with a heavier reward/penalty for it imo.
Last edited:
I think Hendrickson will be ahead of Cassioppi based on the criteria. I believe the only criteria that Cassioppi will have over him is coaches rank. Hendrickson will have Win %, Qualifying Event Placement, and Quality Wins.
Agreed. If seeding went by the formula only, it would go Parris, Hendrickson, Schultz, Kerk, and Cass. Hoping they use discretion and move Kerk to either 2 or 3 based on the eye test.
Correct. Not sure why it’s later this year. Every other year it was around 5pm central. They also used to release the top 2 seeds at each weight every 15 minutes on Twitter leading up to the bracket reveal.
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)
Does this subjective criteria help help support your statement? The last three perhaps? Kerk’s best win is over Cass twice.
Yes. Hendrickson’s best win is over Sam Schuyler from Iowa St. Schultz’s best win is either Schuyler or Zach Elam. Kerk’s win over Tony is better than both of those.
Anyone know if there is a TV broadcast for the release? I see something about a "selection show" at 8pm ET on the NCAA website, but I can't find anything on TV.
The selection show has been done through the NCAA website for quite a few years now. Shane Sparks has been heavily involved the last few.
The seeding committee could really screw up 141 by putting Alirez in the top of the bracket with Jack and Bartlett and the bottom with Woods, Matthews’s and Hardy. This would be a travesty.
Very true. The winner of the SoCon gets the same weight as the winner of the Big 10. Or Pac 12 and ACC who only have 6 teams each.
They need to take a page out of NCAA basketball where SOS matters. It shouldn't be that difficult.
This is why the big ten schools need to get out and wrestle in some more tourneys with the weaker schools. All this fear of getting hurt etc has made them tourney shy and this is what happens. Why are guys only getting 15 -20 matches a year going into the NCAA tourney and years ago they had 35-40?
Why would the Big Ten do that when guys can just duck them and get rewarded like Schultz last year? The correct answer is utilizing strength of schedule as a major criteria in seeding. It's a bad system when wrestlers can get a better seed by avoiding matches against highly ranked guys. It's also a bad system when the criteria penalizes you for losing to top ranked guys.
I believe Raugsin weighed in to wrestle Teske. If you weigh in, then you wrestle.
I’d like to see a rule where two opponents are scheduled to wrestle a second time and if one guy forfeits or skips it counts against you. There are legitimate injuries, however, it would come to light real quickly how bad the injuries are.
I’d like to see a rule where two opponents are scheduled to wrestle a second time and if one guy forfeits or skips it counts against you. There are legitimate injuries, however, it would come to light real quickly how bad the injuries are.
I think a rule where tournament MFFs count as losses would be the best compromise - rationale being that it is known exactly who is supposed to be wrestling the match, and if one doesn't show up, that's on them and they lost the match. Would help with conference tourney placings/results right before nationals too, where guys would actually get punished for MFF
For duals though, how do you track it? Does Spencer get knocked for 5+ losses earlier this year when he was hurt? Do you ding a guy because you thought he was the supposed best guy and he ducked, but turns out he lost a wrestle off that week and legitimately was the backup for the match? Do you ding a guy even though hes legit injured - and how do you tell if a guy is legit injured? Too many unknowns to have a true objective system about it for duals, which unfortunately leads to the gaming of the system we see currently. I would hope the coaches take stuff like that stronger into consideration when they're making their rankings
