Appreciate the feedback. Them Pokes always messing things up! lol. I have a good feeling our guys are going to peak at the right time!
2/14 Coaches Panel Rankings
- Thread starter stuclone
- Start date
Appreciate the feedback. Them Pokes always messing things up! lol. I have a good feeling our guys are going to peak at the right time!
@GrappleCy
I was looking at who potentially gets allocations at 157.
Nomad of Flo has the breakdown like this
Willits would be the other for the Pac 12, I have him just out with 30 Coaches poll, 19 RPI, and just below 70 Win %age
I was looking at who potentially gets allocations at 157.
Nomad of Flo has the breakdown like this
- 157 Pounds
Weight Conference Allocation
157 Big Ten 9 (Nolf, Berger, Deakin, Young, Hayes, Bleise, Barone, Parriott, Van Brill)
157 Big 12 1 (Wright of Fresno State)
157 EIWA 2 (Hartman, Humphreys)
157 ACC 4 (Hidley, Rahmani, LaPrade, borderline on Keating)
157 MAC 4 (Early, Jacques, Carlson, borderline on Parks)
157 Pac-12 3 (Pagdilao, Fox, ???)
157 EWL 1 (Auto berth)
157 SoCon 1 (auto berth)
- 157 Pounds
- What is your thoughts on Pantaleo of Michigan. Since he wrestled at 149 for awhile, looks short on RPI and Win %age or am I missing something. If this is accurate, it puts him at bronze level.
Willits would be the other for the Pac 12, I have him just out with 30 Coaches poll, 19 RPI, and just below 70 Win %age
Last edited:
I would put our over/under at 7.5 qualifiers and predict that we will do (relatively) better at nationals than we do at Big 12s.
I think the allocation will have Iowa State providing 8 to the tourney. Straw is borderline, depending how coaches ranking and RPI changes
Lets hope so! Someone might overlook him as a true freshman and he upsets someone! I think these true freshman have nothing to lose and have came out pushing as hard as they can. Look forward to Big 12's and all the cyclones!
John Smith thinks that they're gonna get an allocation at 157 now that Sheets has 17 matches for an RPI and I'm not one to question John Smith. So I'm assuming we get Wright and Sheets. But Mossing of Air Force and a couple others are right on the wrong side of the line so I'm keeping my fingers crossed one or two of them sneak across for the last allocation or two. Or that there's a big tie and extra at larges since Straw would be competitive for an at large if he finishes one short if there are extras to go around.
I think that Sheets is over ranked in the coaches poll. 2 losses to Straw & beat Mossing of Air Force.
I think Thomas of Oklahoma is #1 seed, Wright is #2, Straw is #3 and Sheets is #4.
Don't understand how Sheets is highest ranked Big 12 wrestler.
Wins over #13 Rahmani and #17 Humphreys. Losses are similar to the other guys but he's got a couple nicer wins.
Does Big 12 seeding look at overall results or records against the Big 12 competitors?
Flo has 165 allocations as follows
165 Pounds
Weight Conference Allocation
165 Big Ten 8
165 Big 12 5 (I think they are Ashworth, Romero, Steiert, Fogarty and Kiussis) I think Ok State put Smith as there Big 12 tourney entry, which eliminates Rogers, who would have an allocation also) Don't understand why you don't put Rogers in and give it back to at large pool later)
165 EIWA 4
165 ACC 4
165 MAC 2
165 Pac-12 1
165 EWL 3
165 SoCon 1
I believe the first look is record against who's competing in the tournament. Head-to-head normally carries a lot of weight in seeding meetings.
I'm gonna put a caveat here that the Big 12 coaches can seed however they want and this might just be a default thing from Track. But this is what Track shows for Big 12 seeding.
-Win percentage first
-# of wins 2nd
-Head to head can be used to move guys up or down if they are close otherwise.
I have like zero faith at this point in any online official documentation about seeding, qualifications, etc. Yesterday somebody who helps provide info for the committee told me on Twitter that it was one match within 30 days for the Oklahoma State guys and the weight didn't matter. They didn't reply to my screenshot from the NCAA website saying otherwise. If people who work for the NWCA don't have a clear understanding of how it works then there's no point in the rest of us trying to figure it out. Just gotta see what comes out on Thursday.
Strange that this event would even be listed in Track, given that Flo is doing the video and has done the live scoring in previous years.
The last time Big 12s were done in Track was 2015.
I'm not confident that anyone in the Big 12 office -- certainly not the sport administrator -- knows jack about wrestling. Just get out of the way and let ISU/OSU get together and run the tournament. It takes people with some knowledge/experience, and those two schools have plenty of folks who know what's going on.
The last time Big 12s were done in Track was 2015.
I'm not confident that anyone in the Big 12 office -- certainly not the sport administrator -- knows jack about wrestling. Just get out of the way and let ISU/OSU get together and run the tournament. It takes people with some knowledge/experience, and those two schools have plenty of folks who know what's going on.
Last edited:
I assume you’re talking about Nomad on Flo. He has Big 12 with 5 at 165, but clear to see 6 are gold or silver. But I think Nomad was told Joe Smith is going to be listed at 165 for Ok State. So that would eliminate Rogers as a 165 allocation. At least that is how I rationalize it
I don’t think it’s the documentation you should lack faith in, it appears to be the committee. They can really do whatever they want.
If this is true then Jacobe should get an allocation since he is 8-0 in DI matches at 174. I think the Big 12 would get 5 spots for sure and very likely 6 spots (Smith, Lujan, Bastian, Coleman, Hastings, and De La Riva).
I think the committee faithfully follows its process. I just think the process is poorly and incompletely documented. Here's another example. RPI.
In the pre championship manual HERE It says this about RPI.
But on the same NCAA website, there's a "qualifier allocation criteria" sheet HERE
But those are two different equations!
If A = You win percentage, B = Your opponents win percentage, and C = your opponent's opponent's win percentage. Then the equation in the Manual is A*B*C. But the equation in the criteria sheet is (A*B)*(B*C). You'd get different numbers depending on which one you use! Which one is the committee using? Who knows!
And it shouldn't be this hard. It would take less than a page to clearly define exactly how every possible match outcome impacts win percentage. And there'd be room left on the same page to unambiguously define how RPI is calculated. There'd probably even be room left over to clear up any possible confusion about whether a guy is eligible for a coaches panel ranking at a given weight. Similar ambiguities exist in the seeding criteria. It isn't that they don't have a process, its just that it isn't properly written down.