When you see fans posting that the BIG gets to many allocations to NCAAs give them the facts. This season the BIG got less than 33% of the NCAA spots but had 41 out of 80 AAs so better than 50%. Happens pretty much every year.
BIG got hosed again
- Thread starter NoVaLion
- Start date
I went thru it again and I had 5 at 149 and there were only 4 so 40 AAs is correct.
Can you explain how the stats you cite lead to the conclusion you’ve drawn? If you will, take us through whether you think the AQ allocations are to blame, or the at large process. What would you change, and what stats after your change would demonstrate it worked better?
Also considering any allocations that were either not given (not enough matches) or “stolen” spots by those not allocated). Generally, your stars have merit…just seeing if it can be refined.
Let me add this. What criterion would you ideally shoot for in determination of allocations? There’s one I have in mind; maybe it’s not universal.
In the interest in moving this along, the stats you show are essentially assessing average returns (to allocations). I contend that what you should shoot for is equal marginal probabilities of the last guy in AAing - roughly the criterion for achieving maximum performance in other realms. In our case, does the last allocation at say 149 going to a non-B1G kid come with a higher/equal/lower probability of AA-ing relative to the first B1G kid omitted?
In the interest in moving this along, the stats you show are essentially assessing average returns (to allocations). I contend that what you should shoot for is equal marginal probabilities of the last guy in AAing - roughly the criterion for achieving maximum performance in other realms. In our case, does the last allocation at say 149 going to a non-B1G kid come with a higher/equal/lower probability of AA-ing relative to the first B1G kid omitted?
Last edited:
This is meaningless. 33 guys get in. Very few of the lower seeds place, and B10 gets its share of the higher seeds that are most likely to place.
So if we truncated nationals to, say, 20 per weight, then B10 allocations would be much more proportional to the AA spreads. And we'd get a lot more schools cut because they didn't qualify anybody for years.
B10 also had the most guys go 0-2, and the 2nd most go 1-2 (behind B12), so one could argue the conference is over-represented. And this is what B10 would get more of with additional allocations.
So if we truncated nationals to, say, 20 per weight, then B10 allocations would be much more proportional to the AA spreads. And we'd get a lot more schools cut because they didn't qualify anybody for years.
B10 also had the most guys go 0-2, and the 2nd most go 1-2 (behind B12), so one could argue the conference is over-represented. And this is what B10 would get more of with additional allocations.
Some teams, especially in the ACC and VA Tech in particular play the allocation game. Looking at Tom Crook who earned an allocation at 141. Lost his last 4 matches of the season to finish 17-13. He hit the Southeast open, Patriot Open and Southern Scuffle He picked up a "countable" record of 11-2 at these opens wrestling the likes of Ohio's 5th stringer. Without the opens, he's 6-11 on the year. That's not an allocation worthy wrestler.
I appreciate Open tournaments but some teams flat out abuse them. Like Dresser with his last chance games, some schools send wrestlers then they don't weigh in if the bracket isn't favorable. I'd really like to see a rule that only one open per year counts for RPI and record.
I appreciate Open tournaments but some teams flat out abuse them. Like Dresser with his last chance games, some schools send wrestlers then they don't weigh in if the bracket isn't favorable. I'd really like to see a rule that only one open per year counts for RPI and record.
What if we said you can go to as many in-season tourneys as you want within Competition Date restrictions, but all of them count only toward Quality Wins and RPI (and # matches for coaches' poll and RPI)? But absolutely do not count toward W-L.
This way, facing a bunch of stiffs would ultimately hurt RPI, without helping Win %. And there is little downside to facing top guys at Opens, because it won't hurt your Win % -- it can only help your Quality Wins.
I don't think this would be too taxing for the NCAA seeding computers.
Restricting wrestlers to 1 Open runs up against the Law of Unintended Consequences. As in, fewer Opens happening.
Those same opens are available to every team. And the Dresser last chance invites were removed by rule a couple of seasons ago.
With 67% of Big Ten wrestlers making the field this year I have a hard time buying any argument that the conference was hard done by. Add to that the fact that 20 Big Ten wrestlers went 0-2 and I do not see an argument for letting in more.
I am with @PSU Mike on this one - marginal probability of last guy scoring.
.700 is the winning % needed so Crook going 11-2 doesn't mean anything his 17-13 record didn't get him an allocation. Beating guys who were ranked and getting an RPI did
My son had 56/80 AAs called correctly and earned 5 hundo in our pool.
yes he’s smarter than the ncaa allocation metric
And how many of the 20 0-2 wrestlers lost to other BIG opponents?
Yes, other teams can play the open game but look at schools like Purdue and Indiana. How many opens are within a reasonable distance?
It also has a cumlative effect. Lack of Opens doesn't artificially inflate records so beating them doesn't jump the RPI and the worse record doesn't jump them in the rankings.. all of these play a role in getting underseeded so you can understand going 0-2 in some cases. Worse wrestlers than some non-qualifier BIG wrestlers were in the blood round and a few even AA'd. A lot of wrestlers need a perfect draw to AA. The easiest way to get that perfect draw is to have some overseeded ACC wrestlers in your path.
If the ACC is overseeded then someone else is underseeded. My contention is that BIG wrestlers are often underseeded and quite a few BIG non-qualifiers should have been in Cleveland.
RPI can be manipulated by opens. Hitting a backup that is 10-5 at opens is oftentimes better than hitting a starter for RPI especially if that backup hit a high record wrestler in each of the 5 losses. The best way to fix this is only the matches against wrestlers that have started 5 duels count.
There was a Lock Haven backup who won 50 matches not too long ago hitting nothing but opens. A starter catching him at an open would have been an RPI dream.
125 Smith
133 Shawver
141 Lemus
149 Clark
149 Zargo
165 Scoles
197 Wisler
So seven by my count. Plus others got terrible seeds/draws. Dekraker ended up with a 31 and went 0-2 against 1st and 5th placers.
7 total.
125:
- Round 1: 25 Lauridsen lost to 8 Peterson
- Consis: 24 Smith lost to 25 Lauridsen (Lauridsen lost his next match, went 1-2)
133:
- Round 1: 26 Shawver lost to 7 Byrd
141:
- Round 1: 30 Lemus lost to 3 Hardy
149:
- Round 1: 13 Zargo lost to 20 Lamer
165:
- Round 1: 17 Scoles lost to 16 Gallagher
197:
- Consis: 28 Wisler lost to 12 Geog
Also, while none of these were B10-on-B10 crime, 3 guys lost in consi pigtails: 141 Lemus, 149 Jones, 174 Condon. Jones and Condon lost both pigtails.
Sorry, but this is a stupid argument. 8 kids per weight class will go 0-2. Does that mean they didn’t belong? No. It’s the nature of the tournament. Some kids are just better than others.
No it wouldnt Ross lock haven was in RS that year. So you started by using his record and now moved the goalpost got it. I know all about the allocation process and how it works.
Matches against redshirts count for RPI and record.
I used Crook as an example of someone that allocated a spot based on hammering backups. An interesting thing about Crook is that he lost to Cornella twice but only one counted since Cornella was taking the Ivy unenrollment for a semester for one match. Basically redshirts are ok but Ivy "redshirts" aren't.
I've said that RPI is crap and all the other sports have tweaked it because it can be abused. Basketball ditched it, Hockey ditched it... yet wrestling continues to use it and some schools and conferences show why they shouldn't