ADVERTISEMENT

NCAA Seeding

Theoretically, that is good news. In practice, it might generate some long tense sessions and accompanying arguments for the seeding committee (and of course fans).
 
Theoretically, that is good news. In practice, it might generate some long tense sessions and accompanying arguments for the seeding committee (and of course fans).
My thinking is it goes smoothly for the committee. They already seed to 16, and the Coaches Ranking is available to them. Fans response...entirely different animal.
 
Theoretically, that is good news. In practice, it might generate some long tense sessions and accompanying arguments for the seeding committee (and of course fans).

The fans and the media are ALWAYS going to complain about seeding. See March Madness. There are always so many upsets that make the brackets a mess at many weights I just don't worry about it. What ever happens happens.
 
Theoretically, it could provide our top bonus guys with easier first round bonus opportunities. Well, all top bonus guys should benefit, to be sure. But we tend to have more of those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: diggerpup
Won't be perfect but I'm happy to see it. Just wish they got rid of the pigtail in the process as well. There is no need for a 33rd wrestler in the bracket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccdiver
That would've been rough on Columbia wrestler Tyrel White, who qualified 4x ... and all four times as a pigtail match.
He should buy a lottery ticket. If my math is correct, and it may not be, that is about a 0.02% chance of happening all 4 years. About 1 in 5,000 chance of occurring.

Of course that is different than being the 33rd wrestler chosen each year.
 
Theoretically, that is good news. In practice, it might generate some long tense sessions and accompanying arguments for the seeding committee (and of course fans).

There isn't much debate anymore as the seeding process has been defined as a point system that can be sorted out by anyone with enough time on their hands. I'd imagine the committee has it automated so that they start with a nearly finished product. That seems to have been one of the driving forces behind this decision. They already had the data, so why not?
 
There isn't much debate anymore as the seeding process has been defined as a point system that can be sorted out by anyone with enough time on their hands. I'd imagine the committee has it automated so that they start with a nearly finished product. That seems to have been one of the driving forces behind this decision. They already had the data, so why not?
You forgot the “Tom Ryan multiplier”. This factor is strategically employed.
 
Theoretically, it could provide our top bonus guys with easier first round bonus opportunities. Well, all top bonus guys should benefit, to be sure. But we tend to have more of those.
Good point. I could see another potential result going the other direction. Many of our top bonus guys will get big bonus no matter who they get in the 1st round. But some of our competitors might benefit more from drawing a lower seed, having a higher chance of bonus than thru the random draw.
 
Good point. I could see another potential result going the other direction. Many of our top bonus guys will get big bonus no matter who they get in the 1st round. But some of our competitors might benefit more from drawing a lower seed, having a higher chance of bonus than thru the random draw.
"competitors"
Good-Fellas-Hilarious.jpg
 
My thinking is it goes smoothly for the committee. They already seed to 16, and the Coaches Ranking is available to them. Fans response...entirely different animal.


Agree Roar, if the coaches already have guys ranked, why is there even a need to have a coaches/seeding meeting?
 
My thinking is it goes smoothly for the committee. They already seed to 16, and the Coaches Ranking is available to them. Fans response...entirely different animal.

Agree Roar, if the coaches already have guys ranked, why is there even a need to have a coaches/seeding meeting?
It's a solid starting place. OkieSpladle also notes a level of sophistication with a point system.

While the debates (some arguments) have diminished over the years once the criteria for earning a spot changed (for the better), and seeding is based on more and more info, there's still outliers. Those guys that missed part/most of a season, those highly ranked guys that flopped in their qualifier tournaments, etc. It's a final check and balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tikk10
FLO discussed this in their Thursday segment. I believe it was Nomad who argued that he thought it was a bad idea to seed everyone. I strongly disagree. The NCAA tournament is an Individual AND team tournament and should be fully seeded. If one team has two wrestlers seeded 4 and 9 and another team has two ranked 13 and 15 you would expect the 4 seed to get # 29 in the first round and #9 to get in the mid 20's. The 13 and 15 guys should have opponents very close to them in seeding. In last years' system after seed 16 it is purely the "Luck" of the draw. The difference between a 17 seed and a 32 seed is usually quite significant. If team A has their two draw 17 or 18 seeds.....they may not lose but they most likely won't get the bonus points as if they were wrestling guys at the very bottom. And if Team B draws two guys in the 30's......bonus points are much more likely. So if team A gets two decisions...that is 2 pts. Team B gets a pin and a major.....that is 5 pts. So one team gets a 3pt advantage due to "Lucky draw". If you simply surmise that they should have been wrestling each other's opponents.....that is a 6pt swing in the very first round. You might argue that it statistically should even out over the course of time......but why rely on chance when you have all the data you need to avoid luck and chance. Fair is fair You have all the data....use it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NittanyLion84
FLO discussed this in their Thursday segment. I believe it was Nomad who argued that he thought it was a bad idea to seed everyone. I strongly disagree. The NCAA tournament is an Individual AND team tournament and should be fully seeded. If one team has two wrestlers seeded 4 and 9 and another team has two ranked 13 and 15 you would expect the 4 seed to get # 29 in the first round and #9 to get in the mid 20's. The 13 ad 15 guys should have opponents very close to them in seeding. In last years' system after seed 16 it is purely the "Luck" of the draw. The difference between a 17 seed and a 32 seed is usually quite significant. If team A has their two draw 17 or 18 seeds.....they may not lose but they most likely won't get the bonus points as if they were wrestling guys at the very bottom. And if Team B draws two guys in the 30's......bonus points are much more likely. So if team A gets two decisions...that is 2 pts. Team B gets a pin and a major.....that is 5 pts. So one team gets a 3pt advantage due to "Lucky draw". If you simply surmise that they should have been wrestling each other's opponents.....that is a 6pt swing in the very first round. You might argue that it statistically should even out over the course of time......but why rely on chance when you have all the data you need to avoid luck and chance. Fair is fair You have all the data....use it.

I agree with you. Not sure where Nomad was going other than padding regular season for a better ncaa seed. Have a hard time believing that will happen in order to get a 24th seed vs a 27th...
 
I agree with you. Not sure where Nomad was going other than padding regular season for a better ncaa seed. Have a hard time believing that will happen in order to get a 24th seed vs a 27th...

fair and balanced not always intelligent and thought provoking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbldoofus
fair and balanced not always intelligent and thought provoking.
Not sure if you meant to tag your reply on my response, regardless, fair and balance is by far a definitive measure and not interpretable! :rolleyes: (sarcasm emoji?)
 
Count me among those that do not see a benefit, one way or another. Seeds will be earned through body of work, and by the end of the season factors like nagging but minor injuries, a touch of burnout, and other factors will play a part. Sure, on paper a 32 seed should be better than a 17 seed, but in practice it's not always the case. Just look at the number of upsets at the NCAA Tournament, and one can see there's other aspects at play. Doesn't hurt, and I understand the fairness angle, I just don't believe in the end it's that big a deal.
 
FLO discussed this in their Thursday segment. I believe it was Nomad who argued that he thought it was a bad idea to seed everyone. I strongly disagree. The NCAA tournament is an Individual AND team tournament and should be fully seeded. If one team has two wrestlers seeded 4 and 9 and another team has two ranked 13 and 15 you would expect the 4 seed to get # 29 in the first round and #9 to get in the mid 20's. The 13 and 15 guys should have opponents very close to them in seeding. In last years' system after seed 16 it is purely the "Luck" of the draw. The difference between a 17 seed and a 32 seed is usually quite significant. If team A has their two draw 17 or 18 seeds.....they may not lose but they most likely won't get the bonus points as if they were wrestling guys at the very bottom. And if Team B draws two guys in the 30's......bonus points are much more likely. So if team A gets two decisions...that is 2 pts. Team B gets a pin and a major.....that is 5 pts. So one team gets a 3pt advantage due to "Lucky draw". If you simply surmise that they should have been wrestling each other's opponents.....that is a 6pt swing in the very first round. You might argue that it statistically should even out over the course of time......but why rely on chance when you have all the data you need to avoid luck and chance. Fair is fair You have all the data....use it.
Nomad is free to try to convince me that Ryan Solomon was the 32nd or 33rd best HWT in the country last year. Because his first round random draw vs. Kyle Snyder says he was.

Other examples available -- Garett Hammond random drawing #1 seed Hayden Hidlay. Etc.
 
ADVERTISEMENT