Intermat's Top 50 list

smalls103

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2006
1,593
3,368
1
It was a surprise. IMO, the probability of all 4 winning was less than 10%. Here's my SWAG: Brooks @ 70% x RBY @ 45% x Lee @ 50% x Carter @ 40% = 6%. YMMV.
i think you even gave the PSU guys more of a chance than most people.

going in to the bouts, i wouldn't say Daton-RBY was 55-45 or Lee 50/50 or Carter 60/40.

which, of course, makes your overall point even more valid imo.
 

billrag

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2011
524
899
1
I think most college wrestling fans were shocked at what Carter did to Kemmerer. Maybe not PSU fans, but most fans. I think most people would have put his chances at about 10% before that match.
 

82bordeaux

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2019
3,870
12,081
1
58
eriespecialty.com
I think most college wrestling fans were shocked at what Carter did to Kemmerer. Maybe not PSU fans, but most fans. I think most people would have put his chances at about 10% before that match.

giphy.gif
 

7brwnpsu

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2017
1,377
3,294
1
Butler County
Pish69, you have me hoping that Willie keeps adding to the list. Each day add a wrestler but keep it titled as the Top 50. Just like say the Big 10.
 

a_mshaffer

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2014
2,936
1,945
1
what # will the following have:
Cstar
Aaron
RBY
Beard/
NLee
JLee
Bartlett
KirkV

assume rookies won't be ranked...
 

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,053
7,233
1
Suriano and Carr. Carr an admittedly bias choice, but he’s been damn good in his 2 years.
I thought Carr might have been one of those. I like him and believe a case could be made for younger guys who have the “it factor”, but one would then need to be consistent in that application. I would have trouble with Carr and Brooks being so far apart. I’d probably have them separated by no more than 1 or 2 slots.

Going on more objective criteria (e.g., career accomplishments), I could see the case for Suriano, but only when he actually appears on a roster. Right now, he is not a NCAA wrestler.
 

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
552
870
1
O'Connor ahead of Brooks?
Mekhi and Griffith. Could easily convince me Brooks should be up as high as 4th though. I think he’s the best of the group outside the top 3 in terms of potential and skill. Just has not had the tough NCAA competition for me to put him higher yet.
 

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
552
870
1
I thought Carr might have been one of those. I like him and believe a case could be made for younger guys who have the “it factor”, but one would then need to be consistent in that application. I would have trouble with Carr and Brooks being so far apart. I’d probably have them separated by no more than 1 or 2 slots.

Going on more objective criteria (e.g., career accomplishments), I could see the case for Suriano, but only when he actually appears on a roster. Right now, he is not a NCAA wrestler.
I think it makes sense, but basically in 4-12 you’re trying to separate 1x champs. Brooks, not by his fault, probably had the weakest competition out of all of them.
 

slushhead

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2014
3,053
7,233
1
I think it makes sense, but basically in 4-12 you’re trying to separate 1x champs. Brooks, not by his fault, probably had the weakest competition out of all of them.
Fair point, and I agree on the dilemma of separating 1x champs. That’s what makes me lean toward career resume being the first criterion for separation. Quality of competition would be my second criterion, followed by “eye test”.

Hopefully that would get it done, and “heart” or “character” wouldn’t be needed as additional tiebreaking criteria. 😉
 

ss7

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2018
678
2,033
1
Mekhi and Griffith. Could easily convince me Brooks should be up as high as 4th though. I think he’s the best of the group outside the top 3 in terms of potential and skill. Just has not had the tough NCAA competition for me to put him higher yet.
Maybe this is my blue-and-white bias at work, but the only way Griffith is ranked ahead of Brooks is by getting extra credit for "saving" Stanford wrestling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and zzs006

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
552
870
1
Maybe this is my blue-and-white bias at work, but the only way Griffith is ranked ahead of Brooks is by getting extra credit for "saving" Stanford wrestling.
My argument would be Griffith won a much better weight. Although, I’d agree Brooks is the better wrestler, just hasn’t had the chance to prove it yet.
 

ss7

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2018
678
2,033
1
My argument would be Griffith won a much better weight. Although, I’d agree Brooks is the better wrestler, just hasn’t had the chance to prove it yet.
Did he though? Brooks and Griffith each beat 1 prior AA in their run to the title.

For me, Brooks ahead of Griffith has a lot more to do with 2 B1G titles vs 1 PAC12 title.
 

El-Jefe

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2012
25,845
54,116
1
Did he though? Brooks and Griffith each beat 1 prior AA in their run to the title.

For me, Brooks ahead of Griffith has a lot more to do with 2 B1G titles vs 1 PAC12 title.
And that's about branding not actual competition. Other than Brooks, B10 was not nearly the best conference at 184 in either 2020 or 2021.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crablegs1

ss7

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2018
678
2,033
1
And that's about branding not actual competition. Other than Brooks, B10 was not nearly the best conference at 184 in either 2020 or 2021.
Sure, but I wouldn't say PAC12 165 was exactly a Murderer's Row the past 2 seasons, either.
 

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
552
870
1
Sure, but I wouldn't say PAC12 165 was exactly a Murderer's Row the past 2 seasons, either.
The PAC 12 is bad everywhere, but Brooks doesn’t get extra credit for winning a bad Big 10 weight either.

Griffifth’s NCAA weight was tougher, and if you want to go back to 2020, Griffith was an undefeated Hodge finalist.
 

ss7

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2018
678
2,033
1
The PAC 12 is bad everywhere, but Brooks doesn’t get extra credit for winning a bad Big 10 weight either.

Griffifth’s NCAA weight was tougher, and if you want to go back to 2020, Griffith was an undefeated Hodge finalist.
Brooks doesn't need extra credit, just regular credit. Each has 1 NCAA title. Brooks has 2 conference titles and Griffith has 1 conference title.

As far as whose weight was tougher at NCAAs, when I look at the wins each had, they look pretty similar. Each one beat 1 guy that had previously AA'd on his way to the title. Maybe this is unfair, but it's hard for me to dismiss the fact that the two top seeds on Griffith's side of the bracket (Marinelli and Lewis) were unable to finish the tournament due to injury. For me, that really diminishes the "Griffith won a harder bracket" argument.

I am not trying to say Shane Griffith is anything less than a great wrestler. I'm just saying I'm not going to rank him ahead of Brooks, a guy who still hasn't lost a postseason match.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogwelder

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
552
870
1
Brooks doesn't need extra credit, just regular credit. Each has 1 NCAA title. Brooks has 2 conference titles and Griffith has 1 conference title.

As far as whose weight was tougher at NCAAs, when I look at the wins each had, they look pretty similar. Each one beat 1 guy that had previously AA'd on his way to the title. Maybe this is unfair, but it's hard for me to dismiss the fact that the two top seeds on Griffith's side of the bracket (Marinelli and Lewis) were unable to finish the tournament due to injury. For me, that really diminishes the "Griffith won a harder bracket" argument.

I am not trying to say Shane Griffith is anything less than a great wrestler. I'm just saying I'm not going to rank him ahead of Brooks, a guy who still hasn't lost a postseason match.
Sounds good. This is complete fantasy so there is no right or wrong answer. Both guys have similar credentials 1 loss careers and 1 NCAA championship. I happen to value the Marinelli win pretty highly as he’s the best guy that either has wrestled IMO.

Either way, I have Griffith one spot higher than Brooks, and if someone has it the other way it’s certainly not crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cali_Nittany

KidDagger

Well-Known Member
Nov 7, 2014
243
107
1
You could be right..but Nick hasn’t wrestled in 2 yrs. Nick is 1 for 2 in his two tournaments. Carter and Aaron are 1 for 1 (same with Ferrari and Carr). So what gets weighted higher..being 100% or 50%? Like you said, so many possibilities based on subjectivity. Love this stuff
That’s a interesting way to view it… 100% or 50%… lol… usually the wrestler with more credentials get ranked higher? By your logic David Taylor (2 titles out of 4 finals) is a mere 50% compared to Carter/Aaron’s 100% lol