|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Justin Hayes added to this discussion on March 8, 2023
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on March 8, 2023
|
Some head scratchers for seeds in here. And by head scratchers I mean some moronic seeds.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Luke Moore added to this discussion on March 8, 2023
|
These seeds make very little sense! Brooks a 3, Dean a 9, Griffith a 9, Mendez a 14...
And OSU got the raw end of almost every draw!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Justin Hayes added to this discussion on March 8, 2023
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on March 8, 2023
|
|
Quote from Luke Moore's post:
|
|
"These seeds make very little sense! Brooks a 3, Dean a 9, Griffith a 9, Mendez a 14...
And OSU got the raw end of almost every draw!"
|
I am very biased, but I see 0 logic behind Munoz getting #4 at 184. In Vegas, he lost to Pinto (13 seed) and placed behind 1,2,6,7 seeds. Yet somehow he gets #4???
Sasso gets Gomez rd 2?
Looks like tOSU PO’d somebody.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
John Joyce added to this discussion on March 9, 2023
|
|
Quote from Brady Hiatt's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Luke Moore's post:
|
|
"These seeds make very little sense! Brooks a 3, Dean a 9, Griffith a 9, Mendez a 14...
And OSU got the raw end of almost every draw!"
|
I am very biased, but I see 0 logic behind Munoz getting #4 at 184. In Vegas, he lost to Pinto (13 seed) and placed behind 1,2,6,7 seeds. Yet somehow he gets #4???
Sasso gets Gomez rd 2?
Looks like tOSU PO’d somebody."
|
Munoz lost to Pinto then defaulted out at CKLV. He has wins over #5 Coleman, #10 Whittlake, and #18 Soldano with no other losses. He was also a conference champion and has a coaches rank of 6 and RPI of 7 as of mid February. Seed seems appropriate based on their formula.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Sean Koran added to this discussion on March 9, 2023
|
|
Quote from John Joyce's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Brady Hiatt's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Luke Moore's post:
|
|
"These seeds make very little sense! Brooks a 3, Dean a 9, Griffith a 9, Mendez a 14...
And OSU got the raw end of almost every draw!"
|
I am very biased, but I see 0 logic behind Munoz getting #4 at 184. In Vegas, he lost to Pinto (13 seed) and placed behind 1,2,6,7 seeds. Yet somehow he gets #4???
Sasso gets Gomez rd 2?
Looks like tOSU PO’d somebody."
|
Munoz lost to Pinto then defaulted out at CKLV. He has wins over #5 Coleman, #10 Whittlake, and #18 Soldano with no other losses. He was also a conference champion and has a coaches rank of 6 and RPI of 7 as of mid February. Seed seems appropriate based on their formula."
|
STRONG disagree that it was appropriate to seed Munoz over Romero (and as the #4 no less).
As of the 2/19 RPI and Coaches rankings (I can't find anything after that and I'm not actually sure they do new rankings post-conference), Romero is #5 and Munoz is #6 in the Coaches Rank, and Romero is #5 and Munoz is #8 in RPI. So both factor in favor of Romero.
Then you look at actual results. As noted, Munoz has wins over #5 seed Coleman, #10 seed Wittlake, #17 seed Samuelson, and #18 seed Soldano. He lost to #13 seed Pinto.
Romero has wins over #7 seed Bolen x2, #8 seed Finesilver x2, #9 seed Salazar, #11 seed Kane, #13 seed Pinto, #17 seed Samuelson, #18 seed Soldano, and #23 seed Connell. His losses are to #1 seed Keckeisen, #2 seed Hidlay, #3 seed Brooks x2, and #7 seed Bolen.
Strength of record certainly seems to be in Romero's favor to me. Way more quality wins. More losses, but 4 of the 5 to the top 3 guys at the weight, with the 5th still much better than Munoz's loss.
Yes, Munoz won his conference. He did that by winning two matches against opponents who did not qualify for NCAAs. Romero took second at B1G by beating the #9 seed at NCAA, the #13 seed at NCAA (who Munoz lost to), and then losing to the 2x defending national champion.
The worst part is, the committee decided to seed Brooks 3rd for unknown reasons, so now Kaleb gets him the quarters. I think the mis-seed for Kaleb would sting less if he was set to face Hidlay instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Jack Muni added to this discussion on March 9, 2023
|
|
Quote from Brady Hiatt's post:
|
|
"
|
Quote from Luke Moore's post:
|
|
"These seeds make very little sense! Brooks a 3, Dean a 9, Griffith a 9, Mendez a 14...
And OSU got the raw end of almost every draw!"
|
I am very biased, but I see 0 logic behind Munoz getting #4 at 184. In Vegas, he lost to Pinto (13 seed) and placed behind 1,2,6,7 seeds. Yet somehow he gets #4???
Sasso gets Gomez rd 2?
Looks like tOSU PO’d somebody."
|
Agree. Like Gomez couldn't wind up on Yanni's side of the bracket with his seed? Come on... It looks like the Bucs are headed for a train wreck in round 2 on Thurs. night. They better be ready.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on March 9, 2023
|
|
Quote from Sean Koran's post:
|
|
"STRONG disagree that it was appropriate to seed Munoz over Romero (and as the #4 no less).
As of the 2/19 RPI and Coaches rankings (I can't find anything after that and I'm not actually sure they do new rankings post-conference), Romero is #5 and Munoz is #6 in the Coaches Rank, and Romero is #5 and Munoz is #8 in RPI. So both factor in favor of Romero.
Then you look at actual results. As noted, Munoz has wins over #5 seed Coleman, #10 seed Wittlake, #17 seed Samuelson, and #18 seed Soldano. He lost to #13 seed Pinto.
Romero has wins over #7 seed Bolen x2, #8 seed Finesilver x2, #9 seed Salazar, #11 seed Kane, #13 seed Pinto, #17 seed Samuelson, #18 seed Soldano, and #23 seed Connell. His losses are to #1 seed Keckeisen, #2 seed Hidlay, #3 seed Brooks x2, and #7 seed Bolen.
Strength of record certainly seems to be in Romero's favor to me. Way more quality wins. More losses, but 4 of the 5 to the top 3 guys at the weight, with the 5th still much better than Munoz's loss.
Yes, Munoz won his conference. He did that by winning two matches against opponents who did not qualify for NCAAs. Romero took second at B1G by beating the #9 seed at NCAA, the #13 seed at NCAA (who Munoz lost to), and then losing to the 2x defending national champion.
The worst part is, the committee decided to seed Brooks 3rd for unknown reasons, so now Kaleb gets him the quarters. I think the mis-seed for Kaleb would sting less if he was set to face Hidlay instead."
|
Weak(er) schedules were rewarded. A thumbs down for me -- and a reason many teams will or should cease to go to any tournaments -- or MFF out as soon as you lose 1 match.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
John Joyce added to this discussion on March 9, 2023
|
|
Quote from Sean Koran's post:
|
|
"
STRONG disagree that it was appropriate to seed Munoz over Romero (and as the #4 no less).
As of the 2/19 RPI and Coaches rankings (I can't find anything after that and I'm not actually sure they do new rankings post-conference), Romero is #5 and Munoz is #6 in the Coaches Rank, and Romero is #5 and Munoz is #8 in RPI. So both factor in favor of Romero.
Then you look at actual results. As noted, Munoz has wins over #5 seed Coleman, #10 seed Wittlake, #17 seed Samuelson, and #18 seed Soldano. He lost to #13 seed Pinto.
Romero has wins over #7 seed Bolen x2, #8 seed Finesilver x2, #9 seed Salazar, #11 seed Kane, #13 seed Pinto, #17 seed Samuelson, #18 seed Soldano, and #23 seed Connell. His losses are to #1 seed Keckeisen, #2 seed Hidlay, #3 seed Brooks x2, and #7 seed Bolen.
Strength of record certainly seems to be in Romero's favor to me. Way more quality wins. More losses, but 4 of the 5 to the top 3 guys at the weight, with the 5th still much better than Munoz's loss.
Yes, Munoz won his conference. He did that by winning two matches against opponents who did not qualify for NCAAs. Romero took second at B1G by beating the #9 seed at NCAA, the #13 seed at NCAA (who Munoz lost to), and then losing to the 2x defending national champion.
The worst part is, the committee decided to seed Brooks 3rd for unknown reasons, so now Kaleb gets him the quarters. I think the mis-seed for Kaleb would sting less if he was set to face Hidlay instead."
|
Here is the seeding matrix they use:
Head-to-head competition — 25 percent
Quality wins — 20 percent
Coaches Ranking — 15 percent
Results against common opponents — 10 percent
RPI — 10 percent
Qualifying event placement — 10 percent
Win % — 10 percent
This criteria is applied against all wrestlers in the field to determine points.
A wrestler can only be argued up or down if he is within three points of the other wrestler. This allows some level of subjectivity and might catch things the formula could miss.
There is a final coaches and RPI but I havent seen it published anywhere.
I'm not arguing that Munoz deserves the 4, I said it seems appropriate based on the criteria they use to determine such things. Giving up the head to head to guys i nthe field, conference tournament placement, and win % is what makes the difference in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on March 9, 2023
|
Yep == The win % is a bonus for weaker schedules. Conf placement is a bonus for weaker conferences.
I wonder what they consider "quality" and what they mean by common opponents. Does winning 2-1 count the same as winning 17-3?
When a matrix used puts Yianni and Glory at 2 as the EIWA's did; or Brooks at 3, Munoz 4, Hendrickson at 2, and Gomez at 15, the matrix has some flaws in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
John Joyce added to this discussion on March 10, 2023
|
Brady I tagged you on a Twitter post about quality wins, didn’t think I could post pictures here.
https://twitter.com/wrestlingnomad/status/1633295502199386121?s=46&t=tFMlbnSnXsl5XX7RbyDOnA
Margin of victory doesn’t factor in. And yes, some of the criteria favor those in lesser conferences but if they aren’t in the streets getting it done, the heavier weighted criteria of quality wins and head to head will not be in their favor. Remember the matrix is applied to every wrestler against every wrestler in a head to head fashion to see where they score out of the 33 man field. So a wrestler could lose the matrix comparison to a lower seeded wrestler but have more head to head matrix comparisons in the field that the other wrestler to end up seeded higher.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on March 10, 2023
|
Here is the seeding matrix they use:
Head-to-head competition — 25 percent
Quality wins — 20 percent
Coaches Ranking — 15 percent
Results against common opponents — 10 percent
RPI — 10 percent
Qualifying event placement — 10 percent
Win % — 10 percent
Hmmmm, my head is spinning-- i guess im not geting it, to make it clearer can one of our more savvy posters, maybe Brady Hiatt or John Joyce, actually fill out this Matrix for Romero and Munoz, let's see an example of how the points are derived.
i don't know this NCAA system however i have been Seeding Director for two elite, large high school events involving dozens of states teams (Ironman and Reno T of C). So i understand the "seeding concept", to be Fair & Accurate. We too used a "point system".
the Seeders are not only comparing Munoz to Romero, but each of those two to other NCAA div 1 wrestlers in their wt---- let's say about 800 hundred total, 80 in each of 10 wts, to get a total of 330 NCAA wrestlers, 33 in each wt....
my head is spinning. If head to head is 25% how does that compute to a number of points for each of 800 wrestlers? i can probably learn something, help me.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
John Joyce added to this discussion on March 10, 2023
|
|
Quote from Bob Preusse's post:
|
|
"
Hmmmm, my head is spinning-- i guess im not geting it, to make it clearer can one of our more savvy posters, maybe Brady Hiatt or John Joyce, actually fill out this Matrix for Romero and Munoz, let's see an example of how the points are derived.
i don't know this NCAA system however i have been Seeding Director for two elite, large high school events involving dozens of states teams (Ironman and Reno T of C). So i understand the "seeding concept", to be Fair & Accurate. We too used a "point system".
the Seeders are not only comparing Munoz to Romero, but each of those two to other NCAA div 1 wrestlers in their wt---- let's say about 800 hundred total, 80 in each of 10 wts, to get a total of 330 NCAA wrestlers, 33 in each wt....
my head is spinning. If head to head is 25% how does that compute to a number of points for each of 800 wrestlers? i can probably learn something, help me."
|
I’m not savvy enough/don’t have the time and energy to apply it for how Munoz and Romero compare. But I can try to explain is some more. So just like you said about seeding vs everybody not just head to head between the two, that is accurate. This matrix is applied in a head to head fashion for each wrestler against each individual in the field. The total number of head to head matrix “wins” determines seeds. So if Munoz beats 29 of 33 wrestlers head to head in the matrix and Romero only beats 27 of 33 in the matrix, Munoz is seeded higher even if Romero is one of the wrestlers Munoz didn’t beat in the matrix head to head.
It’s complex and we can all argue that certain criteria should be included/not included/weighted more or less. But this is the system they use and it creates a standardized way of doing it removing most human bias. It creates inherent non-human bias (weaker conferences are rewarded by conference placement), but I’d argue that while unfortunate, it is a necessary flaw to try and make a fair system across the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: NCAA Division I Brackets
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on March 10, 2023
|
John, u report this is seeding criteria
"This matrix is applied in a head to head fashion for each wrestler against each individual in the field. The total number of head to head matrix “wins” determines seeds. So if Munoz beats 29 of 33 wrestlers head to head in the matrix and Romero only beats 27 of 33 in the matrix, Munoz is seeded higher even if Romero is one of the wrestlers Munoz didn’t beat in the matrix head to head."
So WHO u beat doesnt matter?? im calling bullsheet on this criteria
also i interpret this phrase differently from u, i think head to head means just that, did Munoz & Romero meet head to head this season? these 2 hombres.
No, then no points to either guy. At Ironman the H to H criteria works this way. First there a pre-seed. If it is later revealed that #4 in the pre-seed beat #3 more recently then the Seeding Committee can bump #4 pre-seed Up and #3 Down. "Can" if other factors close. makes sense.
regardless, theres plenty off "bias" anyway u go, any system u use.. Example why is each factor a certain % ? why head to head 25% and won-loss 10% ? why not 20 & 15 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
