Updated automatic qualifiers for Big 10

[jmadden1998]

I know this is early but wanted to run the numbers. The next set of coaches rankings and RPI should be out next week.

Disclaimer: I used wrestlestat which does a RPI calculation using the same formula as the NCAA. However he calculates RPI for anyone with 5 matches. I know a wrestler needs 15 to count officially. I’m listing name, school, win %, CR and RPI for each weight. Also, I used the starters listed in wrestlestat so some of these could change. Lastly, every conference gets at least one AQ per weight and the most AQ’s at a weight is 29. Some of these guys that meet 2 of 3 may not get an AQ at the end of the year.

125 (8 qualifiers)

Davis, Penn St, 100%, 11, 5
Barnett, Wisconsin, 90%, 5, 9
Ayala, Iowa, Iowa, 86.67%, 1, 4
Ramos, Purdue, 85.71%, 2, 3
DeAugustino, Michigan, 80%, NR, 8
Peterson, Rutgers, 75%, 16, 29
Smith, Nebraska, 75%, 7, 12
McKee, Minnesota, 69.23%, 18, 22

133 (9 qualifiers)

Ragusin, Michigan, 100%, 3, 3
Schriever, Iowa, 88.89%, NR, 14
Wells, Minnesota, 83.33%, NR, 1
Nagao, Penn St, 80%, 2, 29
Shawver, Rutgers, 76.19%, 7, 17
Van Dee, Nebraska, 75%, 16, 18
Bouzakis, Ohio St, 73.91%, 8, 13
Brown, Maryland, 68.42%, 18, 28
Rivera, Wisconsin, 60%, 32, 27

141 (12 qualifiers)

Woods, Iowa, 100%, 1, 2
Bartlett, Penn St, 100%, 2, 1
Mendez, Ohio St, 94.74%, 3, 4
Fongaro, Indiana, 85%, 21, 13
Moore Rutgers, 84.62%, 11, 15
Miller, Maryland, 78.57%, 14, 9
Hamdan, Michigan St, 76.19%, 32, 24
Lemley, Michigan, 73.33%, 22, 14
Clark Purdue, 72.22%, 30, 30
Hardy, Nebraska, 70.59%, 8, 17
Vombaur, Minnesota, 66.67%, 19, 26
Pucino, Illinois, 53.85%, 23, 22

149 (8 qualifiers)

Lovett, Nebraska, 100%, 1, 6
Webster, Illinois, 91.67%, NR, 2
Kasak, Penn St, 90.91%, NR, 5
Roberts, Minnesota, 77.78%, NR, 14
D’Emilio, Ohio St, 75%, 6, 8
Zargo, Wisconsin, 75%, 12, 20
Rathjen, Iowa, 75%, NR, 21
Rooks, Indiana, 68.42%, 9, 23

157 (7 qualifiers)

Haines, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Franek, Iowa, 92.86%, 1, 2
Blockhus, Minnesota, NR, 9
Saldate, Michigan St, 80.95%, 14, 21
Robb, Nebraska, 77.78%, 2, 15
Blaze, Purdue, 70%, 18, 25
Chumbley, Northwestern, 64.71%, 16, 13

165 (12 qualifiers)

Mesenbrink, Penn St, 100%, 7, 4
Hamiti, Wisconsin, 94.74%, 5, 2
Caliendo, Iowa, 93.33%, 6, 6
Hepner, Ohio St, 81.82%, 16, 20
Taylor, Nebraska, 77.78%, 15, 12
Fish, Michigan St, 75%, 10, 16
Lillard, Indiana, 71.43%, 22, 9
Amine, Michigan, 66.67%, 8, 15
Brenner, Minnesota, 66.67%, 32, 24
Mayfield, Northwestern, 57.89%, 17, 30
Buell, Purdue, 57.89%, 30, 25
Moore, Illinois, 53.85%, 31, 31

174 (9 qualifiers)

Starocci, Penn St, 100%, NR, 13
Washington, Indiana, 86.67%, 8, 6
Ruth, Illinois, 85.71%, 1, 2
Welsh, Ohio St, 85.71%, 23, 9
Griffith, Michigan, 83.33%, 2, 8
Kennedy, Iowa, 83.33%, NR, 5
Turley, Rutgers, 81.82%, 13, 15
Maylor, Wisconsin, 76.92%, 8, 12
Wilson, Nebraska, 63.16%, 26, 33

184 (6 qualifiers)

Salazar, Minnesota, 92.86%, 10, 5
Truax, Penn St, 88.89%, NR, 11
Pinto, Nebraska, 83.33%, 3, 3
Liegel, Wisconsin, 71.43%, 15, 17
Bullock, Michigan, 66.67%, 14, 20
Malczewski, Michigan St, 58.33%, 19, 23

197 (8 qualifiers)

Brooks, Penn St, 100%, NR, 6
Glazier, Iowa, 100%, 12, 8
Poznanski, Rutgers, 92.31%, 8, 7
Allred, Nebraska, 80.95%, 14, 9
Smith, Maryland, 80%, 4, 15
Joles, Minnesota, 68.42%, 23, 20
Geog, Ohio St, 66.67%, 21, 21
Bates, Northwestern, 42.86%, 31, 33

285 (9 qualifiers)

Kerkvliet Penn St, 100%, NR, 2
Slavikouski, Rutgers, 93.33%, 5, 10
Feldman, Ohio St, 85.71%, 14, 7
Hill, Iowa, 78.57%, NR, 26
Davison, Michigan, 76.92%, 3, 5
Tabor, Minnesota, 73.68%, 25, 23
Luffman, Illinois, 72.73%, 10, 15
Terrill, Michigan St, 72.73%, 28, 32
Nevills, Maryland, 60%, 23, 30

 

[mcpat]

He posted it on the PSU board first. He likes us more.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

I know this is early but wanted to run the numbers. The next set of coaches rankings and RPI should be out next week.

Disclaimer: I used wrestlestat which does a RPI calculation using the same formula as the NCAA. However he calculates RPI for anyone with 5 matches. I know a wrestler needs 15 to count officially. I’m listing name, school, win %, CR and RPI for each weight. Also, I used the starters listed in wrestlestat so some of these could change. Lastly, every conference gets at least one AQ per weight and the most AQ’s at a weight is 29. Some of these guys that meet 2 of 3 may not get an AQ at the end of the year.

125 (8 qualifiers)

Davis, Penn St, 100%, 11, 5
Barnett, Wisconsin, 90%, 5, 9
Ayala, Iowa, Iowa, 86.67%, 1, 4
Ramos, Purdue, 85.71%, 2, 3
DeAugustino, Michigan, 80%, NR, 8
Peterson, Rutgers, 75%, 16, 29
Smith, Nebraska, 75%, 7, 12
McKee, Minnesota, 69.23%, 18, 22

133 (9 qualifiers)

Ragusin, Michigan, 100%, 3, 3
Schriever, Iowa, 88.89%, NR, 14
Wells, Minnesota, 83.33%, NR, 1
Nagao, Penn St, 80%, 2, 29
Shawver, Rutgers, 76.19%, 7, 17
Van Dee, Nebraska, 75%, 16, 18
Bouzakis, Ohio St, 73.91%, 8, 13
Brown, Maryland, 68.42%, 18, 28
Rivera, Wisconsin, 60%, 32, 27

141 (12 qualifiers)

Woods, Iowa, 100%, 1, 2
Bartlett, Penn St, 100%, 2, 1
Mendez, Ohio St, 94.74%, 3, 4
Fongaro, Indiana, 85%, 21, 13
Moore Rutgers, 84.62%, 11, 15
Miller, Maryland, 78.57%, 14, 9
Hamdan, Michigan St, 76.19%, 32, 24
Lemley, Michigan, 73.33%, 22, 14
Clark Purdue, 72.22%, 30, 30
Hardy, Nebraska, 70.59%, 8, 17
Vombaur, Minnesota, 66.67%, 19, 26
Pucino, Illinois, 53.85%, 23, 22

157 (8 qualifiers)

Lovett, Nebraska, 100%, 1, 6
Webster, Illinois, 91.67%, NR, 2
Kasak, Penn St, 90.91%, NR, 5
Roberts, Minnesota, 77.78%, NR, 14
D’Emilio, Ohio St, 75%, 6, 8
Zargo, Wisconsin, 75%, 12, 20
Rathjen, Iowa, 75%, NR, 21
Rooks, Indiana, 68.42%, 9, 23

157 (7 qualifiers)

Haines, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Franek, Iowa, 92.86%, 1, 2
Blockhus, Minnesota, NR, 9
Saldate, Michigan St, 80.95%, 14, 21
Robb, Nebraska, 77.78%, 2, 15
Blaze, Purdue, 70%, 18, 25
Chumbley, Northwestern, 64.71%, 16, 13

165 (12 qualifiers)

Mesenbrink, Penn St, 100%, 7, 4
Hamiti, Wisconsin, 94.74%, 5, 2
Caliendo, Iowa, 93.33%, 6, 6
Hepner, Ohio St, 81.82%, 16, 20
Taylor, Nebraska, 77.78%, 15, 12
Fish, Michigan St, 75%, 10, 16
Lillard, Indiana, 71.43%, 22, 9
Amine, Michigan, 66.67%, 8, 15
Brenner, Minnesota, 66.67%, 32, 24
Mayfield, Northwestern, 57.89%, 17, 30
Buell, Purdue, 57.89%, 30, 25
Moore, Illinois, 53.85%, 31, 31

174 (9 qualifiers)

Starocci, Penn St, 100%, NR, 13
Washington, Indiana, 86.67%, 8, 6
Ruth, Illinois, 85.71%, 1, 2
Welsh, Ohio St, 85.71%, 23, 9
Griffith, Michigan, 83.33%, 2, 8
Kennedy, Iowa, 83.33%, NR, 5
Turley, Rutgers, 81.82%, 13, 15
Maylor, Wisconsin, 76.92%, 8, 12
Wilson, Nebraska, 63.16%, 26, 33

184 (6 qualifiers)

Salazar, Minnesota, 92.86%, 10, 5
Truax, Penn St, 88.89%, NR, 11
Pinto, Nebraska, 83.33%, 3, 3
Liegel, Wisconsin, 71.43%, 15, 17
Bullock, Michigan, 66.67%, 14, 20
Malczewski, Michigan St, 58.33%, 19, 23

197 (8 qualifiers)

Brooks, Penn St, 100%, NR, 6
Glazier, Iowa, 100%, 12, 8
Poznanski, Rutgers, 92.31%, 8, 7
Allred, Nebraska, 80.95%, 14, 9
Smith, Maryland, 80%, 4, 15
Joles, Minnesota, 68.42%, 23, 20
Geog, Ohio St, 66.67%, 21, 21
Bates, Northwestern, 42.86%, 31, 33

285 (9 qualifiers)

Kerkvliet Penn St, 100%, NR, 2
Slavikouski, Rutgers, 93.33%, 5, 10
Feldman, Ohio St, 85.71%, 14, 7
Hill, Iowa, 78.57%, NR, 26
Davison, Michigan, 76.92%, 3, 5
Tabor, Minnesota, 73.68%, 25, 23
Luffman, Illinois, 72.73%, 10, 15
Terrill, Michigan St, 72.73%, 28, 32
Nevills, Maryland, 60%, 23, 30

Thanks! Just FYI, you typed 157 instead of 149 for the 149 qualifiers.

 

[jmadden1998]

Thanks! Just FYI, you typed 157 instead of 149 for the 149 qualifiers.

Thanks! I corrected it.

 

[Kwoodhawk]

He posted it on the PSU board first. He likes us more.

Not exactly. He understands your reading comprehension skills and wanted to give you guys more time 😁

 

[jmadden1998]

Not exactly. He understands your reading comprehension skills and wanted to give you guys more time 😁

 

[jmadden1998]

Important dates

Feb. 11 11:59 p.m. Portal to select starters closes.

Feb. 12 10 a.m. Ranking portal open for Coaches Ranking Panel.

Feb. 14 6 p.m. Ranking portal closes for Coaches Ranking Panel.

Feb. 15 2nd Top 33 Coaches Ranking released and first RPI released (15 match minimum).

Feb. 25 11:59 p.m. Portal to select starters closes.

Feb. 25 Final matches to be included into the final RPI for allocation selection.

Feb. 26 10 a.m. Ranking portal open for Coaches Ranking Panel.

Feb. 27 6 p.m. Ranking portal closes for Coaches Ranking Panel.

Feb. 28 Noon Conference Call for Pre-Allocations

Feb. 29 3rd Top 33 Coaches Ranking released and second RPI released; allocation breakout.

Mar. 5 8 p.m. Portal to select starters opens for postseason.

Mar. 9 10 p.m. Portal to finalize notes for seeding and ranking closes.

Mar. 10 10:30 p.m. Ranking portal open for Coaches Ranking Panel.

Mar. 11 10 p.m. Ranking portal closes for Coaches Ranking Panel.

Mar. 11 - 13 Selections for the 2024 NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships announced.

 

[jmadden1998]

2nd coaches rankings and initial RPI came out today. Here are the updated AQ spots for the Big 10.

The order this time is win%, RPI, and coaches ranking. Was almost done when I realized the rankings were opposite than before so didn’t want to go back and change.


125 (8 qualifiers)

Davis, Penn St, 93.75%, NR, 6
Barnett, Wisconsin, 86.96%, 5, 3
Ayala, Iowa, Iowa, 82.35%, 1, 4
Ramos, Purdue, 87.50%, 2, 1
DeAugustino, Michigan, 75%, NR, 13
Smith, Nebraska, 77.27%, 8, 10
McKee, Minnesota, 68.75%, 13, 12
McCrone, Ohio St, 65.22%, 18, 19

133 (7 qualifiers)

Ragusin, Michigan, 94.44%, 1, 4
Schriever, Iowa, 72.73%, NR, 26
Wells, Minnesota, 73.33%, NR, 21
Shawver, Rutgers, 78.26%, 5, 8
Van Dee, Nebraska, 72.73%, 12, 15
Bouzakis, Ohio St, 73.08%, 6, 9
Brown, Maryland, 71.43%, 19, 19

141 (12 qualifiers)

Woods, Iowa, 85.71%, NR, 3
Bartlett, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Mendez, Ohio St, 90.91%, 1, 2
Fongaro, Indiana, 81.82%, 10, 23
Moore Rutgers, 78.57%, NR, 19
Miller, Maryland, 68.75%, 16, 21
Hamdan, Michigan St, 70.83%, 18, 27
Lemley, Michigan, 70.59%, 5, 10
Clark Purdue, 72.22%, 17, 32
Hardy, Nebraska, 73.68%, 12, 6
Vombaur, Minnesota, 68.42%, 27, 25
Pucino, Illinois, 58.82%, 14, 26

149 (9 qualifiers)

Lovett, Nebraska, 100%, 3, 1
Kasak, Penn St, 85.71%, NR, 7
Roberts, Minnesota, 77.27%, 24, 18
D’Emilio, Ohio St, 70.37%, 4, 10
Zargo, Wisconsin, 78.95%, 15, 14
Rathjen, Iowa, 76.92%, NR, 8
Rooks, Indiana, 66.67%, 8, 15
Miller, Maryland, 72.22%, 17, 13
Cetta, Rutgers, 63.16%, 25, 28

157 (7 qualifiers)

Haines, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Franek, Iowa, 81.25%, 1, 5
Blockhus, Minnesota, 93.33%, 8, 3
Saldate, Michigan St, 83.33%, 15, 18
Robb, Nebraska, 80%, 7, 8
Blaze, Purdue, 68.18%, 24, 17
Chumbley, Northwestern, 60%, 14, 20


165 (10 qualifiers)

Mesenbrink, Penn St, 100%, 2, 6
Hamiti, Wisconsin, 95.45%, 1, 4
Caliendo, Iowa, 88.24%, 5, 7
Hepner, Ohio St, 78.57%, NR, 15
Taylor, Nebraska, 80%, 9, 11
Fish, Michigan St, 77.78%, 15, 9
Lillard, Indiana, 71.43%, 7, 23
Brenner, Minnesota, 68%, 24, 30
Mayfield, Northwestern, 55%, 18, 19
Buell, Purdue, 59.09%, 20, 27


174 (8 qualifiers)

Starocci, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Washington, Indiana, 81.25%, 6, 15
Ruth, Illinois, 88.89%, 3, 7
Welsh, Ohio St, 82.35%, 8, 11
Griffith, Michigan, 85.71%, NR, 3
Kennedy, Iowa, 71.43%, NR, 8
Maylor, Wisconsin, 75%, NR, 12
Wilson, Nebraska, 57.14%, 14, 30

184 (8 qualifiers)

Salazar, Minnesota, 94.44%, 7, 5
Truax, Penn St, 83.33%, NR, 10
Pinto, Nebraska, 85%, 2, 3
Liegel, Wisconsin, 75%, 16, 16
Bullock, Michigan, 63.16%, 12, 15
Malczewski, Michigan St, 66.67%, 20, 18
Ry. Rogotzke, Ohio St, 66.67%, 13, 28
Soldano, Rutgers, 61.11%, 25, 20

197 (7 qualifiers)

Brooks, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Glazier, Iowa, 93.33%, 5, 11
Poznanski, Rutgers, 85.71%, NR, 18
Allred, Nebraska, 82.61%, 8, 13
Smith, Maryland, 81.25%, 10, 5
Joles, Minnesota, 73.91%, 19, 20
Geog, Ohio St, 66.67%, 15, 23


285 (7 qualifiers)

Kerkvliet Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Slavikouski, Rutgers, 82.35%, 8, 10
Feldman, Ohio St, 83.33%, 6, 7
Hill, Iowa, 73.33%, 23, NR
Davison, Michigan, 80%, 4, 5
Tabor, Minnesota, 78.26%, 25, 29
Nevills, Maryland, 62.5%, 21, 27

 

[GracefromAbove]

I should know based on prior years, but I do not remember. What happens to the AQ spot if the person satisfying the AQ spot does not actually wrestle at the conference tournament because another person on his team is the team's entrant? In example, if BK wrestles for Iowa instead of Hill at the conference tournament, does the Big 10 conference go from 7 AQ slots to 6 AQ slots?

For Iowa 133, 184, and 285 are most interesting to me for this question. Keeping the Big Ten's AQ allocation as high as possible at 184 is vital for Riggins to be able to steal an AQ into Nationals.

 

[jmadden1998]

I should know based on prior years, but I do not remember. What happens to the AQ spot if the person satisfying the AQ spot does not actually wrestle at the conference tournament because another person on his team is the team's entrant? In example, if BK wrestles for Iowa instead of Hill at the conference tournament, does the Big 10 conference go from 7 AQ slots to 6 AQ slots?

For Iowa 133, 184, and 285 are most interesting to me for this question. Keeping the Big Ten's AQ allocation as high as possible at 184 is vital for Riggins to be able to steal an AQ into Nationals.

They only keep the slot if the replacement also would qualify. Kueter would not. So if Kueter goes and there are 6 slots, he would have to finish 6th or better to qualify automatically.

 

[Inthecircle]

2nd coaches rankings and initial RPI came out today. Here are the updated AQ spots for the Big 10.

The order this time is win%, RPI, and coaches ranking. Was almost done when I realized the rankings were opposite than before so didn’t want to go back and change.


125 (8 qualifiers)

Davis, Penn St, 93.75%, NR, 6
Barnett, Wisconsin, 86.96%, 5, 3
Ayala, Iowa, Iowa, 82.35%, 1, 4
Ramos, Purdue, 87.50%, 2, 1
DeAugustino, Michigan, 75%, NR, 13
Smith, Nebraska, 77.27%, 8, 10
McKee, Minnesota, 68.75%, 13, 12
McCrone, Ohio St, 65.22%, 18, 19

133 (7 qualifiers)

Ragusin, Michigan, 94.44%, 1, 4
Schriever, Iowa, 72.73%, NR, 26
Wells, Minnesota, 73.33%, NR, 21
Shawver, Rutgers, 78.26%, 5, 8
Van Dee, Nebraska, 72.73%, 12, 15
Bouzakis, Ohio St, 73.08%, 6, 9
Brown, Maryland, 71.43%, 19, 19

141 (12 qualifiers)

Woods, Iowa, 85.71%, NR, 3
Bartlett, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Mendez, Ohio St, 90.91%, 1, 2
Fongaro, Indiana, 81.82%, 10, 23
Moore Rutgers, 78.57%, NR, 19
Miller, Maryland, 68.75%, 16, 21
Hamdan, Michigan St, 70.83%, 18, 27
Lemley, Michigan, 70.59%, 5, 10
Clark Purdue, 72.22%, 17, 32
Hardy, Nebraska, 73.68%, 12, 6
Vombaur, Minnesota, 68.42%, 27, 25
Pucino, Illinois, 58.82%, 14, 26

149 (9 qualifiers)

Lovett, Nebraska, 100%, 3, 1
Kasak, Penn St, 85.71%, NR, 7
Roberts, Minnesota, 77.27%, 24, 18
D’Emilio, Ohio St, 70.37%, 4, 10
Zargo, Wisconsin, 78.95%, 15, 14
Rathjen, Iowa, 76.92%, NR, 8
Rooks, Indiana, 66.67%, 8, 15
Miller, Maryland, 72.22%, 17, 13
Cetta, Rutgers, 63.16%, 25, 28

157 (8 qualifiers)

Haines, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Franek, Iowa, 81.25%, 1, 5
Blockhus, Minnesota, 93.33%, 8, 3
Saldate, Michigan St, 83.33%, 15, 18
Robb, Nebraska, 80%, 7, 8
Blaze, Purdue, 68.18%, 24, 17
Chumbley, Northwestern, 60%, 14, 20
North, Maryland, 54.17%, 27, 31

165 (10 qualifiers)

Mesenbrink, Penn St, 100%, 2, 6
Hamiti, Wisconsin, 95.45%, 1, 4
Caliendo, Iowa, 88.24%, 5, 7
Hepner, Ohio St, 78.57%, NR, 15
Taylor, Nebraska, 80%, 9, 11
Fish, Michigan St, 77.78%, 15, 9
Lillard, Indiana, 71.43%, 7, 23
Brenner, Minnesota, 68%, 24, 30
Mayfield, Northwestern, 55%, 18, 19
Buell, Purdue, 59.09%, 20, 27


174 (8 qualifiers)

Starocci, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Washington, Indiana, 81.25%, 6, 15
Ruth, Illinois, 88.89%, 3, 7
Welsh, Ohio St, 82.35%, 8, 11
Griffith, Michigan, 85.71%, NR, 3
Kennedy, Iowa, 71.43%, NR, 8
Maylor, Wisconsin, 75%, NR, 12
Wilson, Nebraska, 57.14%, 14, 30

184 (8 qualifiers)

Salazar, Minnesota, 94.44%, 7, 5
Truax, Penn St, 83.33%, NR, 10
Pinto, Nebraska, 85%, 2, 3
Liegel, Wisconsin, 75%, 16, 16
Bullock, Michigan, 63.16%, 12, 15
Malczewski, Michigan St, 66.67%, 20, 18
Ry. Rogotzke, Ohio St, 66.67%, 13, 28
Soldano, Rutgers, 61.11%, 25, 20

197 (9 qualifiers)

Brooks, Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Glazier, Iowa, 93.33%, 5, 11
Poznanski, Rutgers, 85.71%, NR, 18
Allred, Nebraska, 82.61%, 8, 13
Smith, Maryland, 81.25%, 10, 5
Joles, Minnesota, 73.91%, 19, 20
Geog, Ohio St, 66.67%, 15, 23
Bates, Northwestern, 47.06%, 29, 33
Wisler, Michigan St, 64.71%, 33, 32

285 (7 qualifiers)

Kerkvliet Penn St, 100%, NR, 1
Slavikouski, Rutgers, 82.35%, 8, 10
Feldman, Ohio St, 83.33%, 6, 7
Hill, Iowa, 73.33%, 23, NR
Davison, Michigan, 80%, 4, 5
Tabor, Minnesota, 78.26%, 25, 29
Nevills, Maryland, 62.5%, 21, 27

Thanks for putting this together. I believe
Nagao would be included at 133? Would this bring AQ’s to 8 @ 133?
I find it interesting that 9 out of 10 Nitty Kitties don’t have an RPI. It’s one of Carl’s
favorite strategies

 

[jmadden1998]

Thanks for putting this together. I believe
Nagao would be included at 133? Would this bring AQ’s to 8 @ 133?
I find it interesting that 9 out of 10 Nitty Kitties don’t have an RPI. It’s one of Carl’s
favorite strategies

He doesn’t have enough matches for RPI and his win% is 69.23%. So he only meets the coaches ranking criteria right now. He will get to 15 if he wrestles the next 2 and then would get an RPI and will qualify a spot.

Also, Davis and Bartlett each had their 15th RPI qualifying match on Monday against Rutgers but they only included matches through Sunday. They each actually have 16 matches but they each wrestled a teammate which doesn’t count towards RPI.

 

[Inthecircle]

He doesn’t have enough matches for RPI and his win% is 69.23%. So he only meets the coaches ranking criteria right now. He will get to 15 if he wrestles the next 2 and then would get an RPI and will qualify a spot.

Man you are on it!

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

It’s one of Carl’s favorite strategies

I may or may not get what you're implying.

I'd say Cael's strategy is that he will achieve better outcomes for his stud wrestlers when they've been rested via fewer matches during an Olympic qualifying year.

Tom Ryan did something like this with Kyle Snyder (not sure whether he is the originator).

In contrast to let's say Aaron Brooks last year and this, PSU did send Tyler Kasak to an open to get enough matches rather than compete in a dual. His early year matches were at 141 (not his present 149 weight).

So the strategy seems dependent on wrestler skill and their parallel goals regarding freestyle competitions.

It more so seems a sound strategy for match management and peaking. I don't think it really has anything to do with artificially lowering a tournament seed to either: 1) gain an extra 1 or 2 bonus points by eliminating a first round bye; or 2) being in a better position to bounce an erstwhile 2nd Placer from making the finals to reduce their team points.

Admittedly, these are two possible side effects. If the NCAA doesn't like the possibilities, it should probably tweak its seeding criteria. In other words, "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."

 

[Inthecircle]

I may or may not get what you're implying.

I'd say Cael's strategy is that he will achieve better outcomes for his stud wrestlers when they've been rested via fewer matches during an Olympic qualifying year.

Tom Ryan did something like this with Kyle Snyder (not sure whether he is the originator).

In contrast to let' say Aaron Brooks last year and this, PSU did send Tyler Kasak to an open to get enough matches rather than compete in a dual. His early year matches were at 141 (not his present 149 weight).

So the strategy seems dependent on wrestler skill and their parallel goals regarding freestyle competitions.

It more so seems a sound strategy for match management and peaking. I don't think it really has anything to do with artificially lowering a tournament seed to either: 1) gain an extra 1 or 2 bonus points by eliminating a first round bye; or 2) being in a better position to bounce an erstwhile 2nd Placer from making the finals to reduce their team points.

Admitted these are two possible side effects. If the NCAA doesn't like the possibilities, it should probably tweak its seeding criteria. In other words, "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."

I don’t hate the player, I am not exactly fond of them however.

I was hoping someone might respond, it’s a strategy which has worked. There are more injuries in wrestling than there used to be

 

[jmadden1998]

Noticed an error in my allocations. I was using top 33 coaches and RPI but it’s actually top 30. That reduces AQ for 157 to 7. Removed Michael North because coaches rank is 31. Reduces 197 to 7 as well. Removed Wisler, both rankings below 30 and Bates, coaches ranking below 30.

 

[Inthecircle]

Noticed an error in my allocations. I was using top 33 coaches and RPI but it’s actually top 30. That reduces AQ for 157 to 7. Removed Michael North because coaches rank is 31. Reduces 197 to 7 as well. Removed Wisler, both rankings below 30 and Bates, coaches ranking below 30.

Is the AQ criteria coaches rank above 30, RPI above 70, and winning percentage above 70? Then, is it two of the three, or all three?

 

[west2east]

Noticed an error in my allocations. I was using top 33 coaches and RPI but it’s actually top 30. That reduces AQ for 157 to 7. Removed Michael North because coaches rank is 31. Reduces 197 to 7 as well. Removed Wisler, both rankings below 30 and Bates, coaches ranking below 30.

Correct also the .700 WP is a sliding scale I have seen it go to .730 in the past

 

[west2east]

Is the AQ criteria coaches rank above 30, RPI above 70, and winning percentage above 70? Then, is it two of the three, or all three?

Top 30 CR
Top 30 RPI
.700 WP ( but if too many guys it's goes .710, .720 and so on)

You need 2 of the 3 for an allocation

 

[jrod65]

Good stuff, @jmadden1998

Appreciate you putting this together and the weekly updates.

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

Is the AQ criteria coaches rank above 30, RPI above 70, and winning percentage above 70? Then, is it two of the three, or all three?

The minimum values (700 Win %, top 30 RPI and top 30 CR) are but a start.

"Threshold levels may slide up or down in concert (i.e., slide up to .800 Win %, top 20 RPI and top 20 CR or slide down to .700 Win %, top 30 RPI and top 30 CR) to achieve a total number of qualifiers in the desired range. The maximum number of pre-allocations per weight class shall be 29."

For full details, see Section 2-4 of:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/wrestling/d1/men/2023-24D1MWR_PreChampsManual.pdf

 

[west2east]

It's fairly complicated but you can do it yourself. Getting into the seed matrix is fun as well. I have been messing with it for years.

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

It's fairly complicated but you can do it yourself. Getting into the seed matrix is fun as well. I have been messing with it for years.

Is it too complicated that a coach mightn't submit the right wrestler's name for his coach's ranking to meet the criteria?

Or would that be a favorite strategy to eliminate a conference AQ spot when one believes their wrestler will earn the placement?

 

[west2east]

Is it too complicated that a coach mightn't submit the right wrestler's name for his coach's ranking to meet the criteria?

Or would that be a favorite strategy to eliminate a conference AQ spot when one believes their wrestler will earn the placement?

The ranking before conferences is the one that matters. Not sure what you're a referring to? Do you an example

 

[12tdsaw]

tom last year, i think 98lb punk has hurt feelings again

 

[jmadden1998]

Ran all 7 conferences and had to use the sliding scale for multiple weights since more than 29 qualified. Big 10 lost one allocation at 174, Bubba Wilson was 30 in coaches but had to slide to 29 and he was eliminated. Estimated allocations per conference.

125 total: 29
ACC: 3
Big 12: 9
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 4
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

133 total: 29
ACC: 3
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 6
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 3

141 total: 29
ACC: 5
Big 12: 4
Big 10: 12
EIWA: 4
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

149 total: 29
ACC: 2
Big 12: 5
Big 10: 9
EIWA: 5
MAC: 3
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 2

157 total: 29
ACC: 3
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 3
MAC: 5
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

165 total: 28
ACC: 2
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 10
EIWA: 6
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

174 total: 29
ACC: 3
Big 12: 8
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 6
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

184 total: 29
ACC: 2
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 7
MAC: 3
Pac 12: 1
SoCon: 1

197 total: 28
ACC: 4
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 5
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

285 total: 28
ACC: 2
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 8
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 1
SoCon: 1

Totals
Big 10: 82
Big 12: 65
EIWA: 54
ACC: 29
MAC: 22
Pac 12: 22
SoCon: 13

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

tom last year, i think 98lb punk has hurt feelings again

Yeah, that's it... Tom's favorite strategy 😉

 

[Rotisserie Scrotz]

I find it interesting that 9 out of 10 Nitty Kitties don’t have an RPI. It’s one of Carl’s
favorite strategies

Winning as a favorite strategy.
Jfc, I wish TnT would make that their favorite.

 

[Inthecircle]

Winning as a favorite strategy.
Jfc, I wish TnT would make that their favorite.

I posted it hoping someone would reply and someone respectfully did.

 

[jmadden1998]

Updated after last weekend’s matches.

125 total: 29 (No change)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 9
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 4
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

133 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 6
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 3

141 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 5
Big 12: 4
Big 10: 12
EIWA: 4
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

149 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 5
Big 10: 9
EIWA: 5
MAC: 3
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 2

157 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 3
MAC: 5
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

165 total: 28 (EIWA loses 1, SoCon adds 1)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 10
EIWA: 5
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 2

174 total: 27 (Big 12 and EIWA lose 1 each)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 5
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

184 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 7
MAC: 3
Pac 12: 1
SoCon: 1

197 total: 29 (Big 12 adds one)
ACC: 4
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 5
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

285 total: 25 (Big 12 loses 2, EIWA 1)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 5
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 7
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 1
SoCon: 1

Totals
Big 10: 82
Big 12: 63
EIWA: 51
ACC: 29
MAC: 22
Pac 12: 22
SoCon: 14

 

[Inthecircle]

Updated after last weekend’s matches.

125 total: 29 (No change)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 9
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 4
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

133 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 6
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 3

141 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 5
Big 12: 4
Big 10: 12
EIWA: 4
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

149 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 5
Big 10: 9
EIWA: 5
MAC: 3
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 2

157 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 3
MAC: 5
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

165 total: 28 (EIWA loses 1, SoCon adds 1)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 10
EIWA: 5
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 2

174 total: 27 (Big 12 and EIWA lose 1 each)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 5
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

184 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 7
MAC: 3
Pac 12: 1
SoCon: 1

197 total: 29 (Big 12 adds one)
ACC: 4
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 5
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

285 total: 25 (Big 12 loses 2, EIWA 1)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 5
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 7
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 1
SoCon: 1

Totals
Big 10: 82
Big 12: 63
EIWA: 51
ACC: 29
MAC: 22
Pac 12: 22
SoCon: 14

If Nagao doesn’t wrestle today, or lost, would the BT lose an allocation at 133?

 

[jmadden1998]

If Nagao doesn’t wrestle today, or lost, would the BT lose an allocation at 133?

The current allocations are without Nagao because he doesn’t qualify right now. If he wins, Big 10 gains an allocation. However finals results from all the matches this weekend could change allocations as well. I will run all the numbers again tomorrow and update.

 

[west2east]

The current allocations are without Nagao because he doesn’t qualify right now. If he wins, Big 10 gains an allocation. However finals results from all the matches this weekend could change allocations as well. I will run all the numbers again tomorrow and update.

He could gain the extra allocation depending on the cut line for 133. You would need to do everyone at 133 to determine the cut line if its 70,71,72 or 73 %. A win today puts Nagao at 71.4%

 

[jmadden1998]

He could gain the extra allocation depending on the cut line for 133. You would need to do everyone at 133 to determine the cut line if its 70,71,72 or 73 %. A win today puts Nagao at 71.4%

Right. That’s why I said other results could change the allocations. I should have said if Nagao wins the Big 10 “could” add an allocation.

Edit: Also it won’t be possible to predict the allocations as the updated coaches rankings and RPI will be released this Thursday along with the AQ’s for each conference.

 

[dtripp26]

Thanks for putting this together. I believe
Nagao would be included at 133? Would this bring AQ’s to 8 @ 133?
I find it interesting that 9 out of 10 Nitty Kitties don’t have an RPI. It’s one of Carl’s
favorite strategies

So is winning darned near everything.

I'm not sure what RPI has to do with anything in that regard.

 

[Inthecircle]

So is winning darned near everything.

I'm not sure what RPI has to do with anything in that regard.

It really doesn’t. He just limits his wrestlers matches

 

[jmadden1998]

Updated after last weekend’s matches.

125 total: 26 (Big 12 lost 2, Big 10 lost 1)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 4
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

133 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 6
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 3

141 total: 29 (Big 12 gained 1, Big 10 lost 1)
ACC: 5
Big 12: 5
Big 10: 11
EIWA: 4
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

149 total: 29 (Big 12 gained 2, Big 10 and EIWA lost 1 each)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 4
MAC: 3
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 2

157 total: 29 (ACC and Big 12 lost 1 each, Big 10 gained 2)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 9
EIWA: 3
MAC: 5
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

165 total: 28 (No changes)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 10
EIWA: 5
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 2

174 total: 29 (ACC, Big 10 and EIWA gain 1, Big 12 loses 1)
ACC: 4
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 6
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

184 total: 28 (ACC, EIWA and PAC 12 gain 1 each, Big 12 and MAC lose 1 each)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 6
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

197 total: 28 (Big 12 loses 1)
ACC: 4
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 5
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

285 total: 29 (Pac 12 gains 2, ACC and EIWA gain 1 each)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 5
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 8
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

Totals
Big 10: 82
Big 12: 60
EIWA: 51
ACC: 31
Pac 12: 25
MAC: 21
SoCon: 14

 

[jmadden1998]

This is my best educated guess without knowing who will be the postseason starters for everyone and not knowing the last set of rankings. I did use wrestlestat for RPI as he calculates RPI using the NCAA formula after each day of matches. RPI should be fairly accurate. Guys at the bottom of the coaches rankings could drop out and lose an allocation and others could jump in so that would definitely change the mix. Official rankings and allocations are scheduled to be released on Thursday.

 

[Inthecircle]

Updated after last weekend’s matches.

125 total: 26 (Big 12 lost 2, Big 10 lost 1)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 4
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

133 total: 29 (No changes)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 6
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 3

141 total: 29 (Big 12 gained 1, Big 10 lost 1)
ACC: 5
Big 12: 5
Big 10: 11
EIWA: 4
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

149 total: 29 (Big 12 gained 2, Big 10 and EIWA lost 1 each)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 4
MAC: 3
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 2

157 total: 29 (ACC and Big 12 lost 1 each, Big 10 gained 2)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 7
Big 10: 9
EIWA: 3
MAC: 5
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

165 total: 28 (No changes)
ACC: 2
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 10
EIWA: 5
MAC: 1
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 2

174 total: 29 (ACC, Big 10 and EIWA gain 1, Big 12 loses 1)
ACC: 4
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 6
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

184 total: 28 (ACC, EIWA and PAC 12 gain 1 each, Big 12 and MAC lose 1 each)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 8
EIWA: 6
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 2
SoCon: 1

197 total: 28 (Big 12 loses 1)
ACC: 4
Big 12: 6
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 5
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

285 total: 29 (Pac 12 gains 2, ACC and EIWA gain 1 each)
ACC: 3
Big 12: 5
Big 10: 7
EIWA: 8
MAC: 2
Pac 12: 3
SoCon: 1

Totals
Big 10: 82
Big 12: 60
EIWA: 51
ACC: 31
Pac 12: 25
MAC: 21
SoCon: 14

Excellent work here! I appreciate your efforts sir!

 

[jmadden1998]

NCAA tweeted out the coaches rankings at each weight but stopped at 197. Still waiting for 285 and then RPI and the AQ’s per weight for each conference. As expected, Teske is going at 133 and is ranked 25th by the coaches.