|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Brad Proudfoot added to this discussion on February 24, 2008
|
With Lance pinning Dustin, how do you see the 149 lb. weight class being seeded.
Also, Jaggers getting the big win over Rivera throws another wrench in the seeding for 141.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Dan Ransick added to this discussion on February 24, 2008
|
Ruschell would get the 1 seed at 141. Metcalf would definatetly be the 1 seed at 149 the rest could be tricky and I don't remember all the results off the top of my head.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Cliff Cahill added to this discussion on February 24, 2008
|
I would hope the only matches used are the Big Ten dual season since it is an all Big Ten tournment
Palmer only official loss is Metcalf - the Lang loss was at National Duals which I think all records are sponged. He has won 5.
Schlatter only loss is Palmer. He has won 2.
Lang lost to Metcalf Jenkins Patasil. He has won 2.
Jenkins lost to Metcalf Palmer Churella. He has won 5.
Churella only loss is to Sknowski. He has won 2.
1. Metcalf
2. Palmer - win over Jenkins
3. Churella - win over Jenkins - not solid position since lost to Sknowski and but 2 total season wins none top 5. Could reward Jenkins for only missing one top 5 and that was because Schlatter did not start.
4. Jenkins - won 5 but lost to Palmer and Churella
5. Schlatter - no top 5 wins - 2 total season wins - lost to Palmer
6. Lang - win over Jenkins but lost to Patasil - 2 season wins
I do not see this as big time weight class as some hype gives it as most of these guys did not wrestler the season and thus each other:
Schlatter did not wrestle: Lang Metcalf Jenkins Chruella
Lang did not wrestle: Palmer Schlatter Churella
Palmer did not wrestle: Lang Churella
Churella id not wrestle: Lang Palmer Schlatter Metcalf
Jenkins one top 5 not wrestled: Schlatter
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Dan Ransick added to this discussion on February 24, 2008
|
Palmer did not beat Jenkins in the dual but rather at the National Duals so if you are going by that account Palmer has two losses.
Metcalf - 0 losses
Churella - 0 losses
Schlatter - 1 loss
Palmer - 2 losses
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on February 24, 2008
|
|
Quote from Dan Ransick's post:
|
|
"Ruschell would get the 1 seed at 141. Metcalf would definatetly be the 1 seed at 149 the rest could be tricky and I don't remember all the results off the top of my head."
|
Jags pinned Ruschell in Vegas. He's a returning AA who has recently beaten Strayer (twice), Russell and Rivera. I think he gets #1 seed.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Cliff Cahill added to this discussion on February 24, 2008
|
Churella only wrestled 3 times in Big Ten dual season and lost one of those three to Michigan State starter. So I would not seed him above Lance.
Schlatter only wrestled 3 times in Big Ten dual season and lost one of those three. So I would not seed him above Lance.
Jenkins only missed 2 of 10 duals and only loses Metcalf and Churella. I would not have Churella in the mix because of not wrestling most of season.
So it would be
Metcalf
Jenkins
Palmer
To put Schlatter or Churella in the mix simply makes the dual season even less of importance than already as they both only have 2-1 record.
If you do not go this way then you simply start ducking people and making a farse out of Big Ten schedule and the seeds become a polictical animal with creation of coaches coalitions within Big Ten. Also, if you start seeding those that are hurt (ie only wrestled 3 times) you simply put the opponent of the injured top seed into a seeded path by the back door.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Ethan Moore added to this discussion on February 24, 2008
|
Cliff - Churella majored the MSU starter in their dual today 16-3, and beat Jenkins 9-3 earlier in the year.
He has four losses on the year, to the following:
O'Connor - (#2) 4-3
Metcalf - 4-2
Caldwell - 12-3
Burroughs - 11-7
Not sure how the seeding at 49 goes down, but I think you have to seed Churella and Schlatter. It's a dangerous idea to decide not to seed them, what if (according to your post) Palmer gets seeded 3rd and then draws Churella or Schlatter in the first round? Then Palmer would be worse off then if he were seeded below them.
My opinion:
1. Metcalf
2/3. Schlatter/Churella
4. Palmer
5. Jenkins
I have a very, very hard time thinking DS or Churella have ever ducked anyone their entire career.
What a win for Palmer today. He certainly accomplished what I believed to be impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Gary Sommers added to this discussion on February 25, 2008
|
|
Quote from Cliff Cahill's post:
|
|
"Churella only wrestled 3 times in Big Ten dual season and lost one of those three to Michigan State starter. So I would not seed him above Lance.
Schlatter only wrestled 3 times in Big Ten dual season and lost one of those three. So I would not seed him above Lance.
Jenkins only missed 2 of 10 duals and only loses Metcalf and Churella. I would not have Churella in the mix because of not wrestling most of season.
So it would be
Metcalf
Jenkins
Palmer
To put Schlatter or Churella in the mix simply makes the dual season even less of importance than already as they both only have 2-1 record.
If you do not go this way then you simply start ducking people and making a farse out of Big Ten schedule and the seeds become a polictical animal with creation of coaches coalitions within Big Ten. Also, if you start seeding those that are hurt (ie only wrestled 3 times) you simply put the opponent of the injured top seed into a seeded path by the back door."
|
I could have sworn I watched a UM-MSU dual yesteday on BTN and Churella won handily.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Cliff Cahill added to this discussion on February 25, 2008
|
Yes I stand corrected. Churella has won all three of his Big Ten dual meet matches:Sknowski, Paswell, Jenkins.
I am trying to make the point that the seeding of this closed community of Big Ten Tournament should only use records within the close community.
Who knows who ducks who and when. It is a strategy used but never told. Whatever the reason injury or strategy Schlatter, Lang, and Churella never wrestled each other even though in same league. And Schlatter is the only one to wrestle Palmer and he was beat by Palmer.
So seeding those guys above Palmer seems to be an individual sports violation of the letting the competitors determine the outcome.
I do not see how Palmer meets those guys until semi and who knows if then if injury is the reason for the three's short wrestling season.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on February 25, 2008
|
|
Quote from Cliff Cahill's post:
|
|
"Yes I stand corrected. Churella has won all three of his Big Ten dual meet matches:Sknowski, Paswell, Jenkins.
I am trying to make the point that the seeding of this closed community of Big Ten Tournament should only use records within the close community.
Who knows who ducks who and when. It is a strategy used but never told. Whatever the reason injury or strategy Schlatter, Lang, and Churella never wrestled each other even though in same league. And Schlatter is the only one to wrestle Palmer and he was beat by Palmer.
So seeding those guys above Palmer seems to be an individual sports violation of the letting the competitors determine the outcome.
I do not see how Palmer meets those guys until semi and who knows if then if injury is the reason for the three's short wrestling season."
|
It is sad all the games the coaches and wrestlers play today in setting themselves up for seeding advantages. In the past the tough wrestlers, in the majority of cases, did not do this. The B10 should set a rule that all teams wrestle each other in a dual each year and to be seeded for the B10 you must wrestle in a minimum 7 of the 10 matches. If you are injured, that's the breaks and if you don't wrestle it will cost you. With the number of qualifiers given the B10, what does it matter anyway? If you can't qualify top 7 in the B10 you don't deserve to go anyway. The qualifying system, to the NCCA's, is most likely the biggest reason for the decline in wrestling teams. Wrestling should break the qualifying system down as they do in other sports with conference & regional tournaments leading to a national tournament. That would increase the interest and grow the fan base, but that will never happen due to the "greedy biggies". Maybe they will realize their greed before they are the only teams left.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Cliff Cahill added to this discussion on February 25, 2008
|
Should the Big Ten tournament be eliminated? The Big Ten champion would then be the simple dual results both individual and team. It seems the games played is a result of an individual tournament determining conference team championship. It would also open up as you point out Ken more schools represented in the NCAA.
Ken you make a good point. The more bids given to a relative small set like 11 team conference the less the parity in the sport given the concentration and thus less interest and more loss of programs become probable.
Since this is not going to happen soon then make the seeding data limited to only the Big Ten duals season. I would think you could get the majority of the coaches to vote for this seeding rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Cliff Cahill added to this discussion on February 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on February 25, 2008
|
The only strong wrestling conference in the nation is the Big Ten. It's not just that there's good wrestling. It's simply that it's the only conference in the country where every school sponsors wrestling. The MAC, PAC 10, Big 12, ACC, etc...all these conferences have some schools that wrestle while others don't.
There are two obvious solutions:
1) Run four regional qualifers nationwide with an equal number of teams and qualifiers. Disperse Big Ten and Big 12 schools so that the best teams aren't all in one regional. This would make for a more exciting an equitable experience for all D1 wrestlers and fans.
2) Open up the national tournament to all D1 competitors. Add a day to the competition and seed the best guys. At least then all wrestlers would feel as if they had some sort of chance to become an All American. If Fargo can have 80-90 kids per weight class, why not the national tourney?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on February 26, 2008
|
|
Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:
|
|
"The only strong wrestling conference in the nation is the Big Ten. It's not just that there's good wrestling. It's simply that it's the only conference in the country where every school sponsors wrestling. The MAC, PAC 10, Big 12, ACC, etc...all these conferences have some schools that wrestle while others don't.
There are two obvious solutions:
1) Run four regional qualifers nationwide with an equal number of teams and qualifiers. Disperse Big Ten and Big 12 schools so that the best teams aren't all in one regional. This would make for a more exciting an equitable experience for all D1 wrestlers and fans.
2) Open up the national tournament to all D1 competitors. Add a day to the competition and seed the best guys. At least then all wrestlers would feel as if thy had some sort of chance to become an All American. If Fargo can have 80-90 kids per weight class, why not the national tourney?"
|
Hank:
I would prefer the second, it would take the politics out of everything and could you imagine the excitement in the wrestling community. It would give the young Freshman a chance to gain the experience early in the season to make them competitive at tournament time. It also might stop some of the redshirting and return college to a four year degree. I think they should allow 12 qualifiers per team, with no more than two per weight from a school. (Similar to what the NAIA does.) Many years there have been two great wrestlers from a school in the same weight class and one can't compete, allowing twelve would solve that situation. The biggest problem I see is finding facilities large enough to handle the increase in fan interest. The most exciting wrestling events I ever attended were the USA Junior Nationals and this would be very similar to that, but with a much larger spectator base. Let's start a petition!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Big Ten Seeding
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on February 26, 2008
|
Ken: I'm glad you like the idea. I'm sure I read it somewhere else but I'll take credit!
I do think a national tourney which allowed all D1 wrestlers to compete would create excitement throughout the sport. Kids from Nebraska to Millersburg would feel as if they had a shot at redemption at the end of the season. Certainly, we'd see more AA's from non-traditional powers. It would also take a lot of pressure off kids to qualify at the end of the season. I think the upside of a larger, all-inclusive tourney greatly outweighs the negative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
