2/14 Coaches Panel Rankings

[Yellow Snow]

OK....question from a wrestling fan who is just now getting serious... lol

Anyway...

1. There are a finite number of slots in the tourney at each weight. How do these get divvied up between conferences. What happens if there are more wrestlers that earn allocations for their conferences (through the three legs) than there are total slots at a weight? Somebody will be left out... how do they decide who gets left out?

For example... lets say that the wrestlers in the B12 earn X allocations at 133... BIG has X number, ACC has X number, etc. but the X's add up to more than can be allowed in the tourney. How is that hashed out?

 

[GrappleCy]

OK....question from a wrestling fan who is just now getting serious... lol

Anyway...

1. There are a finite number of slots in the tourney at each weight. How do these get divvied up between conferences. What happens if there are more wrestlers that earn allocations for their conferences (through the three legs) than there are total slots at a weight? Somebody will be left out... how do they decide who gets left out?

For example... lets say that the wrestlers in the B12 earn X allocations at 133... BIG has X number, ACC has X number, etc. but the X's add up to more than can be allowed in the tourney. How is that hashed out?

They adjust the numbers to get to 29 spots at each weight. 29/29/0.700 is just where they start. If less than 29 wrestlers meet at least two of those they adjust down and if more they adjust up. So one weight might end up 27/27/0.800 and another might end up 31/31/0.600

 

[buf87]

OK....question from a wrestling fan who is just now getting serious... lol

Anyway...

1. There are a finite number of slots in the tourney at each weight. How do these get divvied up between conferences. What happens if there are more wrestlers that earn allocations for their conferences (through the three legs) than there are total slots at a weight? Somebody will be left out... how do they decide who gets left out?

For example... lets say that the wrestlers in the B12 earn X allocations at 133... BIG has X number, ACC has X number, etc. but the X's add up to more than can be allowed in the tourney. How is that hashed out?

They will only take about 28 guys. They leave 5 spots for guys that get upset.
It is a floating scale depending on how many are eligible. Gold standard 1st (Qualify all 3 legs), then move to Silver standard (Qualify 2 of 3 legs).

I think it is based of percentages of each leg.

Again @GrappleCy, we need your help

 

[Yellow Snow]

They adjust the numbers to get to 29 spots at each weight. 29/29/0.700 is just where they start. If less than 29 wrestlers meet at least two of those they adjust down and if more they adjust up. So one weight might end up 27/27/0.800 and another might end up 31/31/0.600

Ahhh... so the B12 may have 6 allocations or whatever at a weight, but could be "shorted" because other conferences at that weight filled up their allocations "sooner" with higher ranked dudes? Meaning that the guy that filled our #6 allocation at 133 is rated lower on the metrics than the guy that filled a different conferences #6. #7 and #8.

Sorry for so many questions... but I don't understand the difference between a "good dual" team and a "tourney" team. One would think if you kick ass in duals, you would kick ass in tourneys.

I appreciate you guys' time. Very enlightening.

 

[buf87]

8 qualifiers may only score a couple points at NCAA and get you 16 total team points. Another team could have 1 qualifier and if he is a champion, would score 16-20 points.

The 8 qualifiers has a good dual team, but if you don't have high placers at NCAA's, you won't fare well at the NCAA tourney (thus a poorer tourney team)

 

[Yellow Snow]

8 qualifiers may only score a couple points at NCAA and get you 16 total team points. Another team could have 1 qualifier and if he is a champion, would score 16-20 points.

The 8 qualifiers has a good dual team, but if you don't have high placers at NCAA's, you won't fare well at the NCAA tourney (thus a poorer tourney team)

That makes sense. So we need more high placers basically, because we are pretty solid at all weights but no real threat to have multiple guys make a deep run. Certainly possible, but that is the question.

Again... thanks buf87...

 

[mdk2isu]

Ahhh... so the B12 may have 6 allocations or whatever at a weight, but could be "shorted" because other conferences at that weight filled up their allocations "sooner" with higher ranked dudes? Meaning that the guy that filled our #6 allocation at 133 is rated lower on the metrics than the guy that filled a different conferences #6. #7 and #8.

Sorry for so many questions... but I don't understand the difference between a "good dual" team and a "tourney" team. One would think if you kick ass in duals, you would kick ass in tourneys.

I appreciate you guys' time. Very enlightening.

There are only 29 spots per weight allocated out as “bids” total across all conferences. If a guy places, say 4th, at the conference tournament and there were 4 spots allocated to the conference at that weight, he’s qualified. Now if he places 5th instead, he would need an at large bid. Make sense?

 

[GrappleCy]

Have some thoughts on what this new coaches panel and RPI mean for Iowa State

 

[GrappleCy]

OK....question from a wrestling fan who is just now getting serious... lol

Anyway...

1. There are a finite number of slots in the tourney at each weight. How do these get divvied up between conferences. What happens if there are more wrestlers that earn allocations for their conferences (through the three legs) than there are total slots at a weight? Somebody will be left out... how do they decide who gets left out?

For example... lets say that the wrestlers in the B12 earn X allocations at 133... BIG has X number, ACC has X number, etc. but the X's add up to more than can be allowed in the tourney. How is that hashed out?

The "X" numbers will all add up to 29 because only that many total allocations are given. If more than 29 wrestlers meet the 29/29/0.700 standard they'll just adjust the number needed until they get to 29 wresters. You always know before the first match what place you need to earn a trip to NCAAs.

 

[Htowncyfan]

I think you guys have it objectively right by predicting eight qualifiers. In past year, our predictions have been on the high side (appropriately optimistic) but I think we have it right this year. We also need to remember that our new culture is such that It is very unlikely that any of them will under perform at Big 12s. They will all show up, be ready to go, and if anything, some will over perform. It’s still hard to predict who will finish where, but I am leaving room for a fun day for us on Saturday at Nationals.

 

[GrappleCy]

Sorry for so many questions... but I don't understand the difference between a "good dual" team and a "tourney" team. One would think if you kick ass in duals, you would kick ass in tourneys.

A good dual team has a bunch of above average wrestlers and no "holes" where you've got a guy that losses every match and often gives up bonus points. A good tournament team has one or two hammers that are going to make deep All American runs and it doesn't really matter what happens at the other weights.

We're a good dual team because of guys like Mackall, Degen, Coleman, Colbray, and Gremmell. None of those guys are likely to score us many points in Pittsburgh but they all are above average wrestlers that are winning most of their dual meet matches. But when it comes to being a good tournament team it's all about Gomez, Parker, and Miklus. Our NCAA finish is 90% dependent on those three having AA performances with the other 10% being hope that Degen or Colbray can outperform and wrestle above their seed.

 

[GrappleCy]

Oregon State is a good example of a good tournament team. They have two hammers - Bresser at 125 and Dhesi at HWT. But outside of that they've got some mediocre wrestlers and some bad wrestlers. We handily won that dual even though we gave up two upsets but come March there's a really good chance that Oregon State finishes above us at NCAAs.

 

[buf87]

A guess on which Big 12 guys are earning allocations for the conference
125 - Coaches Ranking 1st, then RPI
Piccininni (OSU) 4,3
Fleetwood (NDSU) 9,11
Montoya (UNC) 16,No RPI, 9-5 against D1, wouldn't earn an allocation without 3 more matches for RPI
Verner (Wy) 18,15
Mackall (ISU) 24,18
Schwarm (UNI) 26,26 He is borderline, probably out, because I know win %age is not good
Flores (Air F) 27,24

133
Fix (OSU) 2,4
Gomez (ISU) 7,5
Bridges (Wy) 12,13
Sykora (NDSU) 15,11
Schmitt (WV) 15,16
Twomey (AF) NR, 25 Outside looking in
Madigral (OU) NR, 29

141
Alber (UNI) 7,1
Findlay (UV) 11,NR Assume win %age is good
Parker (ISU) 12,20
Brock (OSU) 13,10
Demas (OU) 14,6
Turner (Wy) 18,14

149
Gfeller (OSU) 4,8
Thomsen (UNI) 10,7
Degen (ISU) 13,6
Olivas (FSU) 17,18
Monserrat (WV) 18,17
Pohlmeyer (SDSU) 20,20
Jefferies (OU) 24,28 (Outside allocation, I would guess)
VanMaanen (NDSU) NR,30
Jensen (Wy) NR, 33

157 - Looks like 1 allocation, which is mandatory at every qualifier
Sheets (OSU) 22, NR (Looks like about 7-6 against D1 guys)
Mossing (AF) 28,
Wright (FSU) 29, 25 (looks like 19-8 vs D1, which would be right at 70%)
Thomas (OU) NR,24
Straw (ISU) NR, 29
Weber (NDSU) 33,

 

[buf87]

165 - Sets up probably better for Schumacher than Straw. Probably 6 spots at 165
Ashworth (Wy) 9,11
Rogers (OSU) 10, NR (Is 11-3 vs D1, so over 70% win & needs 3 matches for RPI)
Romero (UV) 11,9
Steiert (UNI) 12,7
Fogarty (NDSU) 18, NR (12-3 vs D1, so win %age is good & needs 2 matches for RPI)
Kiussis (WV) 22, 20 (17-7 vs D1, so win %age is good)

174
Smith (OSU) 6, 5
Lujan (UNI) 8,6
Bastian (UV) 12,12
Coleman (ISU) 21, 17
Hastings (Wy) 24, 19 (17-10 vs D1, just under 70% wins)
Mantanona (OU) 31, 18 (win %age is under .500, so probably out)
Meneweather (AF) NR, 31

184
Foster (UNI) 8,1
Ja Smith (OSU) 9, NR (Win %age is probably good)
Colbray (ISU) 15,6
Samuelson (Wy) 19,7
Hemauer (FSU) 20,22
Sumner (UV) 27, 15 (might be borderline depending on win %age)
Carlson (SDSU) 32,23 (Probably outside allocation)
MacCallum (OU) NR, 25

197 - Not sure where the cut off is here, Need win %age to figure
Miklus (ISU) 5, NR (Will have an RPI once he wrestles UNI & Mizz, but Win %age is good)
Hokit (FSU) 13, 8
Orndorff (UV) 14, 20
Geer (OSU) 15, NR (sounds like Geer is definitely going down & Weigel coming back)
Davidson (Wy) 19, 22
Seely (UNC) 23, NR
Adams (WV) 24, 14
Woodley (OU) 27, 19
McLaughlin (AF) 32
Eaton (NDSU) NR, 29

285
White (OSU) 2, 2
Orndorff (UV) 17, 15 (17-6 vs D1, so win %age is good)
Nevills (FSU) 23, 14 (16-6 vs D1, so win %age is good)
Andrews (Wy) 24, 11 (24-7 vs D1, so win %age is over 70%)
Gremmel (ISU) 25, 19 (Gannon is probably the cut off)
Ngati (WV) 30, 29 (500 record)
Metz (NDSU) 31, 20
Also have Isley of UNI coming off injury

 

[buf87]

Looks like both Smiths are headed down a weight class for tourney time. Weight sheet for today's dual vs Mizz

 

[GrappleCy]

Updates win percentages after last night. Though I'll caveat that it's done by hand so I might have missed a match, but I used the ISU release and just subtracted out non D-1 opponents so hopefully that's accurate.



The official line they start with is 0.700, which nobody will cross regardless of how Sunday goes. But they could always slip it to 0.650 if they don't have 29 people at 30/30/0.700 so win/losses could end up mattering there for Mackall, Straw, and Gremmel.

 

[buf87]

With Mackall and Gremmel on the borderline and Schwarm and Isley probably on the outside.

These matches are going to be big come Big 12 time.

Also Mantanano of OU looks to be a guy that could steal a berth at 174 and along with that is what Ok State does with their lineup and if one of the Smiths will be eligible for an allocation.

 

[buf87]

Gremmel has wins over #17 Orndorff, #21 Elam, #23 Nevills, #30 Ngati, and #31 Metz.
D1 Losses to Cassioppi, #10 Stoll, Stribal, #28 Maley, #26 Miller, #3 Cassar, Cloud, #2 White, McKiernan

 

[Greg Brown]

165 - Sets up probably better for Schumacher than Straw. Probably 6 spots at 165
Ashworth (Wy) 9,11
Rogers (OSU) 10, NR (Is 11-3 vs D1, so over 70% win & needs 3 matches for RPI)
Romero (UV) 11,9
Steiert (UNI) 12,7
Fogarty (NDSU) 18, NR (12-3 vs D1, so win %age is good & needs 2 matches for RPI)
Kiussis (WV) 22, 20 (17-7 vs D1, so win %age is good)

174
Smith (OSU) 6, 5
Lujan (UNI) 8,6
Bastian (UV) 12,12
Coleman (ISU) 21, 17
Hastings (Wy) 24, 19 (17-10 vs D1, just under 70% wins)
Mantanona (OU) 31, 18 (win %age is under .500, so probably out)
Meneweather (AF) NR, 31

184
Foster (UNI) 8,1
Ja Smith (OSU) 9, NR (Win %age is probably good)
Colbray (ISU) 15,6
Samuelson (Wy) 19,7
Hemauer (FSU) 20,22
Sumner (UV) 27, 15 (might be borderline depending on win %age)
Carlson (SDSU) 32,23 (Probably outside allocation)
MacCallum (OU) NR, 25

197 - Not sure where the cut off is here, Need win %age to figure
Miklus (ISU) 5, NR (Will have an RPI once he wrestles UNI & Mizz, but Win %age is good)
Hokit (FSU) 13, 8
Orndorff (UV) 14, 20
Geer (OSU) 15, NR (sounds like Geer is definitely going down & Weigel coming back)
Davidson (Wy) 19, 22
Seely (UNC) 23, NR
Adams (WV) 24, 14
Woodley (OU) 27, 19
McLaughlin (AF) 32
Eaton (NDSU) NR, 29

285
White (OSU) 2, 2
Orndorff (UV) 17, 15 (17-6 vs D1, so win %age is good)
Nevills (FSU) 23, 14 (16-6 vs D1, so win %age is good)
Andrews (Wy) 24, 11 (24-7 vs D1, so win %age is over 70%)
Gremmel (ISU) 25, 19 (Gannon is probably the cut off)
Ngati (WV) 30, 29 (500 record)
Metz (NDSU) 31, 20
Also have Isley of UNI coming off injury

Would Mulder have criteria over WVU and have shot at top 6?

165: Logan Peterson South Dakota State over Nick Kiussis West Virginia MD15-6

165: Nick Kiussis West Virginia over Logan Schumacher 3-2 Iowa State Dec 3-2

165: Zane Mulder Iowa State WBF 1:55 over Logan Peterson South Dakota State

 

[buf87]

Would Mulder have criteria over WVU and have shot at top 6?

165: Logan Peterson South Dakota State over Nick Kiussis West Virginia MD15-6

165: Nick Kiussis West Virginia over Logan Schumacher 3-2 Iowa State Dec 3-2

165: Zane Mulder Iowa State WBF 1:55 over Logan Peterson South Dakota State

He would still have to steal an allocation from somebody. Zane is 7-2 against D1 guys at 165, so is not eligible for an RPI and won't get in the coaches poll.

Another problem for our guy at 165, is who Ok State ends up wrestling at 165. If it is Joe Smith, the Big 12 will not get an allocation for him. If they put Rogers in and wrestles Rogers, we get an extra allocation. Makes stealing a spot that much harder.