Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

2/14 Coaches Panel Rankings

cyclonetsunami said:
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).
Click to expand...

We'll find out tomorrow when they release it, I guess. I haven't spent a lot of time trying to figure out allocations this year in large part because we don't have anybody who is borderline, we've got 8 in and 2 out. But also because of frustration with the documentation on it.
 
GrappleCy said:
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!
Click to expand...

The asterisks in the manual appear to be notational, not multiplication signs. This line appears directly below that paragraph:

*Note: Each wrestler who has 17 matches will have an RPI, without the requirement of the wrestler’s opponents to have 17 matches, as well.
 
theshadow said:
The asterisks in the manual appear to be notational, not multiplication signs. This line appears directly below that paragraph:

*Note: Each wrestler who has 17 matches will have an RPI, without the requirement of the wrestler’s opponents to have 17 matches, as well.
Click to expand...

That's a separate thing - it used to be that when RPI was calculated only guys who had 17 matches were included in the opponent/opponent's opponent numbers - so like if you beat a guy who was 10-1 he wouldn't count in your RPI because he didn't have 17 matches. A few years back they changed it so all of your opponents are counted, even if they aren't eligible for an RPI themselves.

lol if you're right though and they used an asterik as a notation in the middle of an equation. Because that certainly wouldn't be confusing at all. That said, later on on that page they do the same "*NOTE" thing about coaches rankings and that doesn't refer to an asterik in the paragraphs above.
 
GrappleCy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Most RPI's that I have been involved with use the same formula: (.25 X W%) + (.50 X OW%) + (.25 X OOW%). I have used this calculation with other sports/leagues.

A wrestler must have 17 matches to be eligible for an RPI. It does not require that each opponent has 17 matches. It only requires that the match was wrestled at the same weight class. They add up all the wins from each D1 opponent wrestled at the same weight and divide by the total D1 matches from each D1 opponent at the same weight.

But I am with you. To find the data of matches wrestled at a certain weight, whether or not they are D1, and factoring in a medical forfeit, forfeit, or injury default, etc. is too daunting. Easier to wait and see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back