Rankings

[Junglekitty]

Let me preface this by saying I know rankings aren’t the be all end all. They’re a person/group’s opinion. But a lot of people put a lot of effort into not only ranking the wrestlers but ridiculing how wrestlers should be ranked ( see the rby not being ranked saga ). AND NO THIS IS NOT A DUCKING THREAD!!!

With that being said. Would it be fair to start holding inactivity against some of these wrestlers? I know if a wrestler redshirts, or has a season ending injury they come out of the rankings.

Using flo as an example, rby isn’t ranked due to lack of ranked wins. I understand their logic. Gross is still number 1, and hasn’t wrestled, I get he’s the reigning national champ. Stoll is still number 1 and has wrestled once, and I get that he is the highest placer from last year at nationals. I get the way they were ranked pre season. It makes logical sense.

However, should guys lose let’s say a spot a week for inactivity? Not only are they ( not just speaking of Gross and Stoll, but they’re the two most recognized this year ) not beating other ranked wrestlers, they’re not wrestling at all to prove they’re the number one guy in the country.

Once again, I would love for this to not be turned into a “ducking” thread. Just using this as reading/discussion material since we were off this week and recruiting news seems to be slow at the moment.

 

[nitlion6]

Rankings are not an end to anything. Yes, they are a single guy's (group's) opinion, and yes that guy (group) gets to set the parameters for when someone is qualified or not qualified.

They exist to generate clicks, conversation and ad revenue.
I use them just to see what knowledgeable wrestling people think about lesser known wrestlers.

They do not exist to impact anything official and therefore need not to be regulated

 

[Junglekitty]

I wasn’t implying any rankings need regulations. Just a simple question asked to see what other opinions are on this particular matter.

I’m just like you, I look at the 10-20 rankings almost more than the top ten. Just to see who has had a noteable win and moved into the conversation of top 20 in the country ( which is something to be proud of ).

 

[Callthestall]

I think rankings should be a combination of current status of a wrestler and prior history including his high school performance if he is a true freshman.
I think how the PIAA and Districts seed wrestlers would be an example of how you can combine current status and prior history.
The example of RBY is unigue but somewhere he has probably wrestled someone that you could use a common opponent scenario and compared results plus I would think he has beat some kids in high school tournaments that are competing in college.

 

[RoarLions1]

Fans will find fault regardless of how the rankings are done. I agree with nitlion, they're there for discussion (and clicks), nothing more.

Two things I look for that are inexcusable are;
-- inaccuracy (don't put a guy in the wrong weight class), and
-- inconsistency in your process (keeping ALL redshirts out of pre-season rankings is a "policy" thing that's ok, but apply it consistently for all weight classes)

 

[jack66]

Letting inactivity and/or DQs influence ranking can result in Nolf vs Kemerer in the quarters.

Overall though the committee did a pretty good job. 29 of 40 top-4 seeds reached the semi-finals ... only 3 were higher than 8 seed.

As for weekly rankings, fodder for discussion. As such, I see nothing wrong with fans critiquing the various services ... I have my personal peeves too.

 

[RoarLions1]

Letting inactivity and/or DQs influence ranking can result in Nolf vs Kemerer in the quarters.

Overall though the committee did a pretty good job. 29 of 40 top-4 seeds reached the semi-finals ... only 3 were higher than 8 seed.

As for weekly rankings, fodder for discussion. As such, I see nothing wrong with fans critiquing the various services ... I have my personal peeves too.

Agree, the seeding committee does a better job than ever, just listen to Cael.

One change might be to recuse members that by their sheer presence cause the perception of impropriety.

That said, data drives the decisions, which is a bit more defensible, and explainable. I believe the committee uses criteria similar to Bronze Standard determination when seeding wrestlers, which is;
●● Head-to-head competition — 25 percent
●● Quality wins — 20 percent
●● Coaches ranking — 15 percent
●● Results against common opponents — 10 percent
●● RPI — 10 percent
●● Qualifying event placement — 10 percent
●● Win percentage — 10 percent

Even at that, there were 7 All-Americans not seeded in Cleveland, a 15-seed that made the finals, and dozens of upsets (seeding-wise) along the way.

 

[ItalianLion]

Even at that, there were 7 All-Americans not seeded in Cleveland, a 15-seed that made the finals, and dozens of upsets (seeding-wise) along the way

This is the radomness factor that I think adds to the drama of each year’s event e.g. James English & Kyle Conel.

 

[Cowbell Man]

Agree, the seeding committee does a better job than ever, just listen to Cael.

One change might be to recuse members that by their sheer presence cause the perception of impropriety.

That said, data drives the decisions, which is a bit more defensible, and explainable. I believe the committee uses criteria similar to Bronze Standard determination when seeding wrestlers, which is;
●● Head-to-head competition — 25 percent
●● Quality wins — 20 percent
●● Coaches ranking — 15 percent
●● Results against common opponents — 10 percent
●● RPI — 10 percent
●● Qualifying event placement — 10 percent
●● Win percentage — 10 percent

Even at that, there were 7 All-Americans not seeded in Cleveland, a 15-seed that made the finals, and dozens of upsets (seeding-wise) along the way.

Man....NCAA’s would totally suck if only the seeded wrestlers became AA. Competition is the place where dreams are made and hopes dashed.

Seeding is absolutely vital and fair to all wrestlers when done correctly. It’s what a wrestler has earned to hopefully have the appropriate path to the top. But when the first whistle blows, it is time to beat whoever is standing on the other stripe.

Rankings? The only ones that matter are the ones like the coaches that help qualification. Not Flo or InterMat. If they get it wrong...meh...who cares really? It may be a stupid assessment but so what? It will mostly sort out later. That RBY isn’t ranked matters exactly zero.