Re: Brady Berge's seeding and Coach Sanderson's very specific comments...

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
Here are some of Coach Sanderson's exact quotes on the matter:

“It was consistently inconsistent like it has been in the past years. It is what it is at this point. It's something that should probably be addressed. We have a flawed system that obviously lacks judgment, wisdom, and consistency.”

“It’s not consistent. It doesn’t have a setup to where you’re using the judgement and wisdom of people who follow the sport on a consistent daily basis.”

“Everybody wants people to be treated right. It’s all about the student-athlete. Take care and do right by the student-athlete whatever team you’re on. You should get what you earn kind of thing, and that’s what the system needs to be.”

Sanderson On Brady Berge's Seed:

“I think probably anybody would have figured he would have been seeded higher. All the other top-three place winners in the Big Ten I think were top-ten. That just comes back to the system. It is what it is at this point. Brady has wrestled better and better every match. He’s looked great, and he’s ready to roll."

In the first quote above from Coach Sanderson on the topic, he plainly states that the system is broken and needs to "be addressed". I agree wholeheartedly with him. One correction that should be addressed. One modification that should be instituted is that the seeding of a wrestler cannot be out of order to the respective wrestler's Conference Tournament's Championship & Consi Bracket Results (i.e., top 4 placers in Conference Tournament must be seeded in the same order they finished - i.e., Conference Champion highest seed from that Conference, Conference Runner-Up second highest seed from that Conference, Consi-Bracket winner must be 3rd highest seed from that conference and Consi-Bracket Runner-Up must be 4th highest seed.).

This would also address the rewarding of MFFs when the wrestler was physically able to go such as what was done at 141 - which is another topic that needs to be addressed.
 
Last edited:

CSauertiegPSU

Well-Known Member
Staff
Oct 9, 2013
4,536
6,487
1
Here are some of Coach Sanderson's exact quotes on the matter:

“It was consistently inconsistent like it has been in the past years. It is what it is at this point. It's something that should probably be addressed. We have a flawed system that obviously lacks judgment, wisdom, and consistency.”

“It’s not consistent. It doesn’t have a setup to where you’re using the judgement and wisdom of people who follow the sport on a consistent daily basis.”

“Everybody wants people to be treated right. It’s all about the student-athlete. Take care and do right by the student-athlete whatever team you’re on. You should get what you earn kind of thing, and that’s what the system needs to be.”

Sanderson On Brady Berge's Seed:

“I think probably anybody would have figured he would have been seeded higher. All the other top-three place winners in the Big Ten I think were top-ten. That just comes back to the system. It is what it is at this point. Brady has wrestled better and better every match. He’s looked great, and he’s ready to roll.”
https://www.flowrestling.org/events/7498887-2022-ncaa-championships-watch-party
In the first quote above from Coach Sanderson on the topic, he plainly states that the system is broken and needs to "be addressed". I agree wholeheartedly with him. One correction that should be addressed. One modification that should be instituted is that the seeding of a wrestler cannot be out of order to the respective wrestler's Conference Tournament's Championship & Consi Bracket Results (i.e., top 4 placers in Conference Tournament must be seeded in the same order they finished - i.e., Conference Champion highest seed from that Conference, Conference Runner-Up second highest seed from that Conference, Consi-Bracket winner must be 3rd highest seed from that conference and Consi-Bracket Runner-Up must be 4th highest seed.

This would also address the rewarding of MFFs when the wrestler was physically able to go such as what was done at 141 - which is another topic that needs to be addressed.
I understand the thought behind this but not sure I love it. It devalues the regular season even more and encourages guys to do nothing until the conference tournament.
 

WPB_lion

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2001
1,468
874
1
I understand the thought behind this but not sure I love it. It devalues the regular season even more and encourages guys to do nothing until the conference tournament.
I like the OP's ideas. The regular season would still be important to get a better seed at the conference championships which will be more important. That is the way it should be IMO. The increased importance of all post season tournaments works out well at the high school level.
 

johnstownsteel

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
6,318
13,838
1
Johnstown Pa
I’d probably dismiss everyone on the committee and fill it with folks with knowledge and not intent on giving the clear favorite bad seeds to even things up a bit. Yeah… I said it.

Some of those seeds are so dumb that no one could have made them unless it was intentional. Yeah…. I said that too.
 

Callthestall

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2016
1,205
1,447
1
I understand the thought behind this but not sure I love it. It devalues the regular season even more and encourages guys to do nothing until the conference tournament.
I think NCAA seeds should reflect more on the recent performance (30 days??) than earlier in- season results. The tournament is an "at the moment event". The seeds should reflect the current moment, more than results from Dec./Jan. By emphasizing the current status and results would touch on current health and weight change for the wrestler. Just makes sense. A season long formula does not give enough credence to the recent results.
 

psudotedu

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2018
108
230
1
I’d probably dismiss everyone on the committee and fill it with folks with knowledge and not intent on giving the clear favorite bad seeds to even things up a bit. Yeah… I said it.

Some of those seeds are so dumb that no one could have made them unless it was intentional. Yeah…. I said that too.
I felt that way about Berge and Hildebrandt's seeds. They could be placed anywhere in the bracket -- it seems beyond coincidence that they're both a 16 seed & face the 1 seed in round 2.
 

SWPA

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2017
1,019
2,015
1
I’d probably dismiss everyone on the committee and fill it with folks with knowledge and not intent on giving the clear favorite bad seeds to even things up a bit. Yeah… I said it.

Some of those seeds are so dumb that no one could have made them unless it was intentional. Yeah…. I said that too.
So you would be the voice of reason?
8c5d67d1ee3c1a6c7187efc4da707191.gif
 

aalion

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2001
2,384
2,447
1
Hypothetical….

Gable Steveson tweaks an ankle in Rd 1 of BIGs. Forfeits down to 8th. So he should be seeded 8th at NCAAs? So then the guy who busted his ass all year to be #2 gets bumped up to 1, and his reward is Gable Steveson in the quarters.

No formula works if you consider the impact on the other wrestlers. Sure you “penalize” the guy who forfeits out. But 90% of those guys don’t care where they are seeded! Artificially moving top guys down doesn’t hurt the top guys, it hurts the other guys in the bracket.
 

82bordeaux

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2019
3,878
12,105
1
58
eriespecialty.com
I understand the thought behind this but not sure I love it. It devalues the regular season even more and encourages guys to do nothing until the conference tournament.
You know Clay, I think for other reasons mentioned in regard to seeding, etc.., @CJFisJoePaII idea would do more good than harm. You couldn't hang your hat solely on the conference tournament. You'd have to consider the seeding at the conference level too.
My biggest worry is that I'm finding myself in agreement with @CJFisJoePaII !
giphy.gif
 

Lyons212

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2017
2,415
3,443
1
I felt that way about Berge and Hildebrandt's seeds. They could be placed anywhere in the bracket -- it seems beyond coincidence that they're both a 16 seed & face the 1 seed in round 2.
I you look at Hildebrandt, Berge and Kemerer, they all only wrestled 1 semester and thus have limited matches. I can see Hildebrandt getting a crappy seed, he finished 10th at B1G’s. Berge and Kemerer are both 9-2, wrestled similar opponents, quality wins are about the same. Berge was 3rd at B1G’s and Kemerer was 6th. Yet one is the 16th seed and the other is the 5th seed. Makes no sense.
 

CSauertiegPSU

Well-Known Member
Staff
Oct 9, 2013
4,536
6,487
1
I am open to the possibility that I was wrong here haha. I still don’t know if I love it though.
 

82bordeaux

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2019
3,878
12,105
1
58
eriespecialty.com
Hypothetical….

Gable Steveson tweaks an ankle in Rd 1 of BIGs. Forfeits down to 8th. So he should be seeded 8th at NCAAs? So then the guy who busted his ass all year to be #2 gets bumped up to 1, and his reward is Gable Steveson in the quarters.

No formula works if you consider the impact on the other wrestlers. Sure you “penalize” the guy who forfeits out. But 90% of those guys don’t care where they are seeded! Artificially moving top guys down doesn’t hurt the top guys, it hurts the other guys in the bracket.
If Berge can upset Carr, you will have some people in Ames agreeing with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psudotedu

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
I understand the thought behind this but not sure I love it. It devalues the regular season even more and encourages guys to do nothing until the conference tournament.

Don't really agree. First off, I'm only saying the Finalists of the Championship and Consi Brackets are protected. Secondly, I really fail to see how somebody doing nothing during the regular season is going to earn them a high ranking or seeding in their conference tournament for that matter - actually a system like this does the exact opposite imho. It avoids people ducking and doing very little for their ranking and conference tournament seeding during the regular season, then MFF'ing after the first couple rounds (i.e., ducking the highest ranked conference opponents at Conference Tourney) AND BEING REWARDED FOR THIS BULLSHIT in their NCAA seeding as SeaBass was @141. Insane that SeaBass was given the #3 National Seed after MFF'ing out of B1Gs after the first two rounds. He should have been forced to protect his #3 NCAA seed by wrestling to at least 3rd place (Consi Bracket Championship) at the B1G Tourney which is exactly what this Seeding Protocol would have forced.
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
Hypothetical….

Gable Steveson tweaks an ankle in Rd 1 of BIGs. Forfeits down to 8th. So he should be seeded 8th at NCAAs? So then the guy who busted his ass all year to be #2 gets bumped up to 1, and his reward is Gable Steveson in the quarters.

No formula works if you consider the impact on the other wrestlers. Sure you “penalize” the guy who forfeits out. But 90% of those guys don’t care where they are seeded! Artificially moving top guys down doesn’t hurt the top guys, it hurts the other guys in the bracket.
Not what I said - he could not be seeded higher than the Finalists of the Championship & Consi Brackets. So he could be seeded as high as 5th if all four of the wrestlers in front of him were the 4 from his Conference in Finals of Championship & Consi B1G Brackets. Beyond that, if he was hurt so badly that he was unable to wrestle or continue in the B1G Tourney, then there's a good chance that he would not be able to go at Nationals (which is less than two weeks later) - or at the very least, would be significantly less than 100% which absolutely should impact his seeding. If by "tweaking his ankle" you mean that he could easily continue in B1G Tourney, but decides not to to protect his current ranking (i.e., MFF'ing out of Tournament after continuing in, and winning, match he tweaked his ankle in - i.e., ducking via fake MFF), this Seeding Protocol would make him think twice about doing that and would likely see him wrestle out the Tournament to protect his current ranking/seed if healthy enough to do so. How is that a bad thing pray tell??? If you're saying he Medically Forfeited the match where hurt his ankle because he was unable to go any further in match, this would be a loss in the Conference Tourney and it would be unclear if he could even go at NCAAs (or if he could go, it might be at significantly less than 100%), this type of situation absolutely should have a significant impact on his NCAA seeding.
 

dmm53

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2017
3,226
5,351
1
Who is on the seeding committee this year? Anyone know?

It might be revealing. This is all I could find with a quick search:

Section 1•2 National Committee Matt Azevedo – Term Expires August 2023 Head Wrestling Coach Drexel University Andy Noel – Term Expires August 2022 Director of Athletics Cornell University Daniel Bartholomae – Term Expires August 2025 Executive Deputy Athletic Director Oregon State University Kyle Ruschell – Term Expires August 2023 Head Wrestling Coach University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Bob Burda – Term Expires August 2023 Associate Commissioner Big 12 Conference Jennifer Tuscano – Term Expires August 2024 Senior Woman Administrator University of Pittsburgh
 
Last edited:

Psugo823

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2021
1,062
915
1
If Hildebrandt wanted a better seed then he should have wrestled better at Big Tens. He got what he deserved, now it's up to him to wrestle better.
 

psudotedu

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2018
108
230
1
I you look at Hildebrandt, Berge and Kemerer, they all only wrestled 1 semester and thus have limited matches. I can see Hildebrandt getting a crappy seed, he finished 10th at B1G’s. Berge and Kemerer are both 9-2, wrestled similar opponents, quality wins are about the same. Berge was 3rd at B1G’s and Kemerer was 6th. Yet one is the 16th seed and the other is the 5th seed. Makes no sense.
We've all been reminded again this year that it's not seeds that matter so much as it is placement position in the bracket. Berge & Hildebrandt would much rather have a 19, 21, 26 seed than a 16. Kerk would be better positioned at 7 or 10 than at 4.
Committees know this, they know that Berge is ranked in the top 10, they know Hildebrandt was a 4th last yr and ranked top 10 all year. It's dishonest to ignore it and it's actually very unfair to guys like Carr & Suriano. I know these guys aren't scared but we're going to hear a lot of screaming & complaining if there's an upset.
 

McScoreley

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 24, 2019
3,733
8,598
1
The seeding system is fine IMO, it's objective but there has to be a common sense aspect. Like just a duh application that most people would agree with. The right thing to have done with Brady is to move him away from drawing a Deakin/Carr until the QF (as if he were an 8/9 seed) but give him a tougher Round 1 draw (as "punishment" for being a late entry to 157)

Last year was a good example, the seeding matrix had Nick Lee and Mason Parris to be 4th and everyone knew that was BS and they manipulated it to what it should be.
 

Psugo823

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2021
1,062
915
1
We've all been reminded again this year that it's not seeds that matter so much as it is placement position in the bracket. Berge & Hildebrandt would much rather have a 19, 21, 26 seed than a 16. Kerk would be better positioned at 7 or 10 than at 4.
Committees know this, they know that Berge is ranked in the top 10, they know Hildebrandt was a 4th last yr and ranked top 10 all year. It's dishonest to ignore it and it's actually very unfair to guys like Carr & Suriano. I know these guys aren't scared but we're going to hear a lot of screaming & complaining if there's an upset.
Beat the guy in front if you and if you get a bad draw go down to wrestle backs and beat THOSE guys and bonus em. That's how championships are won anyways.
 

McScoreley

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 24, 2019
3,733
8,598
1
I agree with you.

I also wonder if you're fun at parties?
According to him, we're basically capped at 3rd place and could be in trouble with NC State, Arizona State and Missouri potentially lurking. A trophy would be a good accomplishment for our team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: diggerpup

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,249
10,765
1
why does amine rate above Brooks they split matches but Brooks had the tougher schedule so he should be seeded first!!

I don't have a problem with that one. Amine won the most recent match, so I am okay with using recency bias to seed him #1 when the two have only lost to each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cali_Nittany

ss7

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2018
679
2,040
1
Who is on the seeding committee this year? Anyone know?

It might be revealing. This is all I could find with a quick search:

Section 1•2 National Committee Matt Azevedo – Term Expires August 2023 Head Wrestling Coach Drexel University Andy Noel – Term Expires August 2022 Director of Athletics Cornell University Daniel Bartholomae – Term Expires August 2025 Executive Deputy Athletic Director Oregon State University Kyle Ruschell – Term Expires August 2023 Head Wrestling Coach University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Bob Burda – Term Expires August 2023 Associate Commissioner Big 12 Conference Jennifer Tuscano – Term Expires August 2024 Senior Woman Administrator University of Pittsburgh
I'd say having the results of the seeding matrix would be much more enlightening.

As far as I know (according to this article and discussions on this forum), guys can move 3 spots up or down from their seeding matrix slot. None of us here know where he was slotted, or how much he was moved off that slot by the committee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnstownsteel

Psugo823

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2021
1,062
915
1
We aren't talking about Hildebrandt dipshit - we're talking about Berge who wrestled to 3rd at B1Gs beating Young twice (in the B1G QTRs and Consi Finals) yet he's seeded behind not only Young at NCAAs (Young is the 9 Seed at NCAAs, while Berge is 16 seed, despite Young losing to Berge twice at B1Gs!), but also Robb who wrestled to 5th at B1Gs is seeded 6 places higher than Berge at NCAAs! So let's talk about Berge getting what he deserved based on how he wrestled at B1Gs dipwad.
Looking at the bracket, Brady has a real good shot at bonusing his way to a high podium place in wrestle backs. Sometimes that bad seed is a blessing in disguise. Nobody is beating either Carr or Deakin. And that's "Mr" Dipshit to you Sir. Respect!
 

bwfight

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
449
1,160
1
I’d probably dismiss everyone on the committee and fill it with folks with knowledge and not intent on giving the clear favorite bad seeds to even things up a bit. Yeah… I said

Some of those seeds are so dumb that no one could have made them unless it was intentional. Yeah…. I said that too.
Come on JTS, how do you really feel about it? 😉
 
  • Haha
Reactions: johnstownsteel

5q

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2001
538
301
1
I think the BB 165 or 157 is on PsU , not the committee. Shit. If he started at wrestling at two wks prior, he could have gotten extra matches at 157 or hit an open. Or they could have talked about this in fall semester so Brady started some tournaments in fall at 165 so was ready for 157 in January.
Anyway. Due to this issue , there should be one to two opens on the last week of a season to send people to get their Extra 4 to 5 matches , even against red shirts and back ups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVPFAN

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,035
1
Personally, I believe any conspiracy theory stuff is a bunch of bunk. Berge was a victim of fewer matches (7 at 157) than anyone at his weight class. He didn't have a win % (for the 157-only portion), and he didn't have an RPI. Plus with few matches, the chance for any HTH wins was minimal. Stinks, but those are the facts.

I agree with Cael, and have said so in the past. I don't believe the current system should be tossed. I also don't believe a human-only solution exists. In fact, I don't believe there's a system that can be used that will satisfy everyone. Simply not going to happen. What can happen, imo, is a tweaking of the current system.

I recommend a couple things;
1) Weight the conference tournament results more than the regular season results. HTH, good wins, and results against common opponents could be affected.
2) I understand that to have significance (statistically), win% and RPI requires a certain number of matches. However, I would toss the criteria anytime one or both wrestlers doesn't meet the thresholds (8 and 15 bouts respectively). Together they are 20% of the criteria, and removing it when it does not apply evens the playing field.
3) Somehow, the "qualifying event placement" needs to be tweaked. A fair way shouldn't be terribly difficult using some combination of # of qualifier spots and Coaches Ranking. SoCon had one spot at 157, the Big Ten had 7. Casto, the #21 seed, earned the spot for the SoCon. That's extreme, but the value given a Big Ten finish, in today's world, should be worth more.

In another post below, I will do several rough comparisons at 157, to show how the current system may not have treated Brady fairly.
 

RoarLions1

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
9,505
16,035
1
157
I will leave the first 6 seeds alone (Carr, Deakin, Teemer, Scott, Monday and Franek). Their records are better than others.

#7 Humphries lost to Cerniglio, Teemer and Zapf. He also beat Cerniglio during the season, as well as #9 Young and #15 Lovett. Looking at results, he's about where he should be.

#8 Lewan lost to Deakin, Lovett, Brayton Lee, Monday and Wright. He beat Berge & Robb. Pretty close to where he should be.

#9 Young lost to Berge (2x), Scott, B. Lee, Carr, Monday and Humphries. Best wins were Robb and Lovett. A bit too high to me.

#10 Robb lost to Young (2x), Deakin (2x), Lewan, B. Lee, Monday, Wright, Carr. Beat Ausit O'Conner first D-1 bout of the year for his only great win. That somehow played a part in a 10-seed for the Big Ten's 5th place finisher. Too high to me.

#11 O'Conner only lost twice, to Robb and Scott. Tough call, imo, could be higher, though he wasn't based on an incredibly weak schedule. No great wins at all for the 2021 National Champ at 149. I wouldn't want to face him as an 11 seed.

#12 Wright lost to Carr, Jacques, Willits, Franek, Sheets and Coleman (the same Coleman that Berge beat). He did beat #13 Thomas. This is the first guy whose record appears worse than Berge's, though #9 Young, having lost twice could also be behind the Lion.

#13 Thomas lost to Wright (2x), Franek, Carr, Sheets, Casto, and Teemer. A couple wins over Keating got him a seed above, but the story is the same as for Wright. Could be behind Berge, imo.

#14 Keating lost to Scott, O'Conner, Wentzel, Thomas and Carida. A couple of ok losses. Carida didn't make the tourney. Could be behind Berge.

#15 Lovett lost to Barton, Saldate, Young (same Young Brady beat twice), Humphries, Sharenbrock and Zuunbayen. Not sure how he got ahead of Berge.

So there, it's a bit of an eye test, not using the NCAA criteria. By appearances however, Berge could/should be as high as 11/12.
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
Personally, I believe any conspiracy theory stuff is a bunch of bunk. Berge was a victim of fewer matches (7 at 157) than anyone at his weight class. He didn't have a win % (for the 157-only portion), and he didn't have an RPI. Plus with few matches, the chance for any HTH wins was minimal. Stinks, but those are the facts.

I agree with Cael, and have said so in the past. I don't believe the current system should be tossed. I also don't believe a human-only solution exists. In fact, I don't believe there's a system that can be used that will satisfy everyone. Simply not going to happen. What can happen, imo, is a tweaking of the current system.

I recommend a couple things;
1) Weight the conference tournament results more than the regular season results. HTH, good wins, and results against common opponents could be affected.
2) I understand that to have significance (statistically), win% and RPI requires a certain number of matches. However, I would toss the criteria anytime one or both wrestlers doesn't meet the thresholds (8 and 15 bouts respectively). Together they are 20% of the criteria, and removing it when it does not apply evens the playing field.
3) Somehow, the "qualifying event placement" needs to be tweaked. A fair way shouldn't be terribly difficult using some combination of # of qualifier spots and Coaches Ranking. SoCon had one spot at 157, the Big Ten had 7. Casto, the #21 seed, earned the spot for the SoCon. That's extreme, but the value given a Big Ten finish, in today's world, should be worth more.

In another post below, I will do several rough comparisons at 157, to show how the current system may not have treated Brady fairly.

One things for sure, the Selection Committee should not have the power to just completely negate, and throw out, the results of the Conference Tournaments - especially in the case of the B1G which is the strongest Conference in the Country at 157 (as well as virtually every other weight class). Their ability to just throw out the Conference results as if they never happened needs to be significantly restrained.
 

CJFisJoePaII

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2019
2,367
2,486
1
157
I will leave the first 6 seeds alone (Carr, Deakin, Teemer, Scott, Monday and Franek). Their records are better than others.

#7 Humphries lost to Cerniglio, Teemer and Zapf. He also beat Cerniglio during the season, as well as #9 Young and #15 Lovett. Looking at results, he's about where he should be.

#8 Lewan lost to Deakin, Lovett, Brayton Lee, Monday and Wright. He beat Berge & Robb. Pretty close to where he should be.

#9 Young lost to Berge (2x), Scott, B. Lee, Carr, Monday and Humphries. Best wins were Robb and Lovett. A bit too high to me.

#10 Robb lost to Young (2x), Deakin (2x), Lewan, B. Lee, Monday, Wright, Carr. Beat Ausit O'Conner first D-1 bout of the year for his only great win. That somehow played a part in a 10-seed for the Big Ten's 5th place finisher. Too high to me.

#11 O'Conner only lost twice, to Robb and Scott. Tough call, imo, could be higher, though he wasn't based on an incredibly weak schedule. No great wins at all for the 2021 National Champ at 149. I wouldn't want to face him as an 11 seed.

#12 Wright lost to Carr, Jacques, Willits, Franek, Sheets and Coleman (the same Coleman that Berge beat). He did beat #13 Thomas. This is the first guy whose record appears worse than Berge's, though #9 Young, having lost twice could also be behind the Lion.

#13 Thomas lost to Wright (2x), Franek, Carr, Sheets, Casto, and Teemer. A couple wins over Keating got him a seed above, but the story is the same as for Wright. Could be behind Berge, imo.

#14 Keating lost to Scott, O'Conner, Wentzel, Thomas and Carida. A couple of ok losses. Carida didn't make the tourney. Could be behind Berge.

#15 Lovett lost to Barton, Saldate, Young (same Young Brady beat twice), Humphries, Sharenbrock and Zuunbayen. Not sure how he got ahead of Berge.

So there, it's a bit of an eye test, not using the NCAA criteria. By appearances however, Berge could/should be as high as 11/12.

Could be as high as 9 using your analysis if based simply on the strength of quality wins and a 3rd Place BIG finish - you can make a case that Berge should have been 9 followed by O'Connor, then Young, Wright......
 

johnstownsteel

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
6,318
13,838
1
Johnstown Pa
Can I throw in one more conspiracy theory on top of the one I already threw out there? I warn you though, this rant may be lengthy. Lol

I still believe some guys were seeded poorly (Berge, Hildy and Austin Desanto) so PSU doesn’t run away with this thing but I’d also now like to add that Creighton Edsell isn’t even able to compete at Nationals because of what they and some coaches are doing to draw PSU closer to the rest of the field. Edsell should have been selected as the at large instead of Brian Meyer. I’m including “some coaches” because their rankings in my opinion unfairly cost Creighton a trip to Detroit. Why tf would coaches rankings even be part of a kid getting in or not? Coaches will give/receive :01 MFFs to game the system for crying out loud… you don’t think they will rank kids lower to keep him from competing for their highly favored competitor? Last week I had a former assistant coach at ODU freely admit that coaches call each other to make “deals” to get their kids in thus leaving deserving kids out.

Everything I see tells me Creighton should be in. To me, the most compelling argument that he shouldn’t is that Creighton was 1-2 at his conference tourney. Well guess what? SO WAS BRIAN MEYER. What, are the EIWAs somehow tougher? Creighton had a better win percentage and beat Meyer h2h…in my opinion that coaches ranking is why he isn’t in.

Ya wanna know what then nailed it for me that things are fishy? When the brackets came out, Brian Meyer is then seeded 17th…essentially the same seeds given to Berge and Hildebrandt. That’s right, a kid that went 1-2 at his weaker conference tourney got pretty much the same seed as Berge (who finished 3rd at Big 10s) and Hildebrandt who was ranked top 10 all year and had the same record (1-2) at a much tougher conference tournament. Btw, it’s my opinion you throw Edsell into that 17 slot and he gets one win and possibly two.

To wrap this up, it almost looks to me like the seed was given to “hide” the bullshit going on behind the scenes between coaches and the commitee. How the hell does Brian Meyer, who shouldn’t even be in the tourney, be seeded in front of someone like like Justin McCoy who at least was his conference runner up? And how is he seeded higher than a WHOLE SLEW of guys that won spots outright without the benefit of getting a bogus at large bid?

I understand why Cael is pissed.
 
Last edited: