Did Wrestlestat Faithfully Execute the B1G's Wishes?

[Wrestleknownothing]

H2H (vs. the field) is what is known as an oxymoron.

• It is either H2H (involving two parties confronting each other)
• Or, it is vs. the field (versus all other competitors).

It looks like it is not a "head to head" measure, but a "vs. the field" measure as several have pointed out.

Then the question becomes what was the intent of the people who outsourced this to wrestlestat? Did they intend this to be a "head to head" measure? Or did they intend this to be a "vs. the field" measure?

Given that there are other measures that encapsulate a "vs. the field" measure (common opponent, dual record) it seems they meant this as a true "head to head" measure. If that is the case, why was it not implemented that way?

It feels like a requirement was poorly communicated, then it was poorly executed, then it was poorly QAed, or not QAed at all.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

it's 'record vs. field'

it sounds like you're blaming a calculator for spitting out numbers.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

it's 'record vs. field'

it sounds like you're blaming a calculator for spitting out numbers.

It sounds like you didn't understand what I wrote.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

i don't think i do lol

are you suggesting WS didn't calculate the right metric?

if so, what makes you think that?

 

[InTheCircle]

it's 'record vs. field'

it sounds like you're blaming a calculator for spitting out numbers.

Yes, based on the human input given.

Do you even remotely agree with these seeds? Second, do you think the coaches believe this would be the outcome?

 

[InTheCircle]

i don't think i do lol

are you suggesting WS didn't calculate the right metric?

if so, what makes you think that?

Maybe because of the results?

The Big Ten went ahead with releasing these pre seeds, without asking themselves, did we get this right?
It looks like they did, which is a disappointing disaster. They should have just done a random draw, like freestyle used to.
Oh wait….there is a bigger tournament following this and the outcome of this tournament might negatively affect it?

 

[WillieTheBrain]

i don't follow you. it seems like you're speaking out of passion and not reason.

you don't like the results of this formula, which is fine. there's some real wonkiness in there.

but that doesn't mean the calculator is wrong. what i'm saying is, you're shooting the messenger.

i don't understand how WrestleStat (the calculator) is to blame.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

i don't think i do lol

are you suggesting WS didn't calculate the right metric?

if so, what makes you think that?

One thing that drives me crazy is when people incorrectly use the word literally.

This will not be one of those times.

I literally answered that question.

To quote myself, "It feels like a requirement was poorly communicated, then it was poorly executed, then it was poorly QAed, or not QAed at all."

The reasons I think that are also laid out above. Even though it is called H2H it is not H2H. Instead the part that is in parenthesis, Vs. Field, is what it is. And as I explained above those two things are the opposite of each other.

Furthermore, by making it vs. Field instead of H2H you wind up with three overlapping elements. vs. Field, Common Opponents Record, and Conference Record all overlap each other. Meanwhile H2H is unique and typically used in any seeding discussion for any NCAA event, yet it is nowhere present in the Big Ten seeding other than in the incorrect usage of the term.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

i think you're getting hung up by semantics and are wrong.

if it is the case, i'm sure we'll find out about it.

until then, you could always run the data on two guys.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

i think you're getting hung up by semantics and are wrong.

if it is the case, i'm sure we'll find out about it.

until then, you could always run the data on two guys.

What part do you think I am wrong about?

 

[WillieTheBrain]

your entire thesis, which started with 'i feel like they...'

do you have evidence of that? did you run the numbers? or is this just a gut feeling?

 

[TheREALSpooner]

It’s a crap algorithm. Always has been. Good for conversations. Using it for actual wrestling is insane.

 

[Sir Pin Alot]

it's 'record vs. field'

it sounds like you're blaming a calculator for spitting out numbers.

Questioning the 'statman' about numbers is not a good look...

 

[Crablegs1]

your entire thesis, which started with 'i feel like they...'

do you have evidence of that? did you run the numbers? or is this just a gut feeling?

The fact you keep asking if he ran the numbers shows you’re missing the point. I’m not quite sure why because it is a clear point being made.

The question is not whether wrestlestat’s numbers are correct, it is if there was a misunderstanding of definition. I think this is a good question since “Head to head vs field” is such an oddly worded criteria.

When coaches voted on that criteria, did they know it actually meant “record vs the field” and not “head to head”. Why even put head to head in the description. Head to head has a clear meaning and is entirely different than record vs the field.

The question is even further supported by the exclusion of actual head to head as a criteria at all. Head to Head is one of the main seeding criteria in wrestling and has been since the beginning of seeding. It seems weird that the coaches would knowingly choose a criteria that completely ignores head to head results. That makes me think there may have been some misinterpretation somewhere along the line.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

wtf am i missing?

why are you (both) acting like the numbers are wrong.

what is the evidence that they are wrong?

what is the evidence that they put the wrong metric in?

is the evidence simply that you don't like the result?

fwiw i'm not even saying you're wrong. i'm asking why you think that and any evidence to support it.

 

[dtripp26]

wtf am i missing?

why are you (both) acting like the numbers are wrong.

what is the evidence that they are wrong?

what is the evidence that they put the wrong metric in?

is the evidence simply that you don't like the result?

fwiw i'm not even saying you're wrong. i'm asking why you think that and any evidence to support it.

Well you're the brain...if you can look at those pre-seeds and not figure out what the main issue is, time to get that big brain checked out.

 

[Crablegs1]

wtf am i missing?

why are you (both) acting like the numbers are wrong.

what is the evidence that they are wrong?

what is the evidence that they put the wrong metric in?

is the evidence simply that you don't like the result?

fwiw i'm not even saying you're wrong. i'm asking why you think that and any evidence to support it.

No one is saying the numbers are wrong… so confusing that you don’t understand

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

wtf am i missing?

why are you (both) acting like the numbers are wrong.

what is the evidence that they are wrong?

what is the evidence that they put the wrong metric in?

is the evidence simply that you don't like the result?

fwiw i'm not even saying you're wrong. i'm asking why you think that and any evidence to support it.

There are no numbers to check. The only number that has been published is the seed. So let's start there with the biggest head scratcher.

Chris Minto is the #1 seed at 174. Levi Haines is the #2 seed.*

Now let's work from the bottom up since it is the first category that is my bone of contention, I will leave it for last.

• Conference Allocation - 5 points. They each earned an allocation, so 2.5 points each.
• Coaches' Rank - 5 points. Haines is the #1, Minto is the #4. 5 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 2.5 points to Minto.
• RPI - 10 points. Haines RPI is 0.66148. Minto's RPI is 0.70296, 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto.
• Quality Matches - 10 points. This one is not defined. Did they mean quality wins? Or just matches, win or lose? Let us assume it is the same as the NCAA definition of quality wins over wrestlers in the field. Haines has 4, Minto has 7. 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto (though if you go with the NCAA splits it would be 2.5/7.5). Running total 7.5 to Haines, 22.5 to Minto.
• Conference Duals - 20 points. Haines is 8-0, Minto is 6-2. 20 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 27.5 points to Haines, 22.5 points to Minto.
• Common Opponents Record - 25 points. They have three common opponents and are each 3-0. 12.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto. Running total 40 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.
• H2H (vs the field) - And now we arrive at the problem. H2H means one thing. Vs. the field means the opposite. If this were a true head-to-head measure then it is clear. Haines beat Minto HEAD-TO-HEAD. And hand-to-hand, and foot-to-foot and... 25 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 65 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.

But wait. Minto is the #1 seed. So it must have been 0 points to Haines, 25 points to Minto. Running total 40 points for Haines, 60 points for Minto. Meaning the category must not be head-to-head as that term is very well defined. It must really have been vs. the field. But wait again. We already have a vs. the field measure called Quality Matches. And we have a pretty similar measure called Common Opponent Record. Do we really need a third measure of the same thing? Are we really going to be the only seeding process anywhere that does not account for head-to-head as that term is defined and understood by everyone in sports, everywhere, all the time?

Apparently, yes.

*the analysis is identical for Caliendo/Blaze, but as I am a guest here I will politely ignore that.

 

[Corby2]

There are no numbers to check. The only number that has been published is the seed. So let's start there with the biggest head scratcher.

Chris Minto is the #1 seed at 174. Levi Haines is the #2 seed.*

Now let's work from the bottom up since it is the first category that is my bone of contention, I will leave it for last.

• Conference Allocation - 5 points. They each earned an allocation, so 2.5 points each.
• Coaches' Rank - 5 points. Haines is the #1, Minto is the #4. 5 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 2.5 points to Minto.
• RPI - 10 points. Haines RPI is 0.66148. Minto's RPI is 0.70296, 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto.
• Quality Matches - 10 points. This one is not defined. Did they mean quality wins? Or just matches, win or lose? Let us assume it is the same as the NCAA definition of quality wins over wrestlers in the field. Haines has 4, Minto has 7. 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto (though if you go with the NCAA splits it would be 2.5/7.5). Running total 7.5 to Haines, 22.5 to Minto.
• Conference Duals - 20 points. Haines is 8-0, Minto is 6-2. 20 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 27.5 points to Haines, 22.5 points to Minto.
• Common Opponents Record - 25 points. They have three common opponents and are each 3-0. 12.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto. Running total 40 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.
• H2H (vs the field) - And now we arrive at the problem. H2H means one thing. Vs. the field means the opposite. If this were a true head-to-head measure then it is clear. Haines beat Minto HEAD-TO-HEAD. And hand-to-hand, and foot-to-foot and... 25 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 65 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.

But wait. Minto is the #1 seed. So it must have been 0 points to Haines, 25 points to Minto. Running total 40 points for Haines, 60 points for Minto. Meaning the category must not be head-to-head as that term is very well defined. It must really have been vs. the field. But wait again. We already have a vs. the field measure called Quality Matches. And we have a pretty similar measure called Common Opponent Record. Do we really need a third measure of the same thing? Are we really going to be the only seeding process anywhere that does not account for head-to-head as that term is defined and understood by everyone in sports, everywhere, all the time?

Apparently, yes.

*the analysis is identical for Caliendo/Blaze, but as I am a guest here I will politely ignore that.

And both are within 15 points and those will be changed. Not sure why they released these without changing the obvious ones that were within 15 points

 

[maxpain]

It’s a crap algorithm. Always has been. Good for conversations. Using it for actual wrestling is insane.

They didn’t create this algorithm. The Big Ten did. They just ran the algorithm and provided the results.

I guess I’m with Willie and don’t understand why anyone would insinuate wrestlestat failed in their duty.

H2H (vs. the field) is what is known as an oxymoron.

• It is either H2H (involving two parties confronting each other)
• Or, it is vs. the field (versus all other competitors).

It looks like it is not a "head to head" measure, but a "vs. the field" measure as several have pointed out.

Then the question becomes what was the intent of the people who outsourced this to wrestlestat? Did they intend this to be a "head to head" measure? Or did they intend this to be a "vs. the field" measure?

Given that there are other measures that encapsulate a "vs. the field" measure (common opponent, dual record) it seems they meant this as a true "head to head" measure. If that is the case, why was it not implemented that way?

It feels like a requirement was poorly communicated, then it was poorly executed, then it was poorly QAed, or not QAed at all.

The QA would involve them ensuring their algorithms ran correctly right? I don’t think it involves inserting their own opinions on the matter which is what you are saying. So I just don’t get how can you say it was poorly executed.

 

[TNTwrestle]

There are no numbers to check. The only number that has been published is the seed. So let's start there with the biggest head scratcher.

Chris Minto is the #1 seed at 174. Levi Haines is the #2 seed.*

Now let's work from the bottom up since it is the first category that is my bone of contention, I will leave it for last.

• Conference Allocation - 5 points. They each earned an allocation, so 2.5 points each.
• Coaches' Rank - 5 points. Haines is the #1, Minto is the #4. 5 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 2.5 points to Minto.
• RPI - 10 points. Haines RPI is 0.66148. Minto's RPI is 0.70296, 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto.
• Quality Matches - 10 points. This one is not defined. Did they mean quality wins? Or just matches, win or lose? Let us assume it is the same as the NCAA definition of quality wins over wrestlers in the field. Haines has 4, Minto has 7. 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto (though if you go with the NCAA splits it would be 2.5/7.5). Running total 7.5 to Haines, 22.5 to Minto.
• Conference Duals - 20 points. Haines is 8-0, Minto is 6-2. 20 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 27.5 points to Haines, 22.5 points to Minto.
• Common Opponents Record - 25 points. They have three common opponents and are each 3-0. 12.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto. Running total 40 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.
• H2H (vs the field) - And now we arrive at the problem. H2H means one thing. Vs. the field means the opposite. If this were a true head-to-head measure then it is clear. Haines beat Minto HEAD-TO-HEAD. And hand-to-hand, and foot-to-foot and... 25 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 65 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.

But wait. Minto is the #1 seed. So it must have been 0 points to Haines, 25 points to Minto. Running total 40 points for Haines, 60 points for Minto. Meaning the category must not be head-to-head as that term is very well defined. It must really have been vs. the field. But wait again. We already have a vs. the field measure called Quality Matches. And we have a pretty similar measure called Common Opponent Record. Do we really need a third measure of the same thing? Are we really going to be the only seeding process anywhere that does not account for head-to-head as that term is defined and understood by everyone in sports, everywhere, all the time?

Apparently, yes.

*the analysis is identical for Caliendo/Blaze, but as I am a guest here I will politely ignore that.

This actually makes sense, proving that the metrics aren't what they should be. The H2H (vs the field) needs to be thrown out and replaced with true H2H. Problem fixed? In my opinion, RPI is a messed-up indicator too, as there is no way Minto's should be better than Haines'. Coaches' rank is also subjective, but is usually the most accurate ranking system, except in a few cases from time to time.

 

[Spykers Secretary]

The computer didn’t do anyone wrong.

the coaches did by abdicating their responsibility due to being “busy”.

ok so they are busy and hired the team to do it. Is what it is.

what perplexes me and maybe it did happen but why didn’t the computer run like 10+ years of simulations going backwards and see what if any anomalies there were. Share these with decisions makers and make adjustments.

surely during the ducking era these seed issues would have shown up and they could have course corrected before **** hit the fan.

surely they could have ran the simulation earlier in the season and reported to the coaches or B10 what outcomes were possible.

or they could let happen the way it looks like it happened and just be a big **** show.

for that part at least people are talking and the backside bracket wrestling is going to interesting.

 

[TheREALSpooner]

They didn’t create this algorithm. The Big Ten did. They just ran the algorithm and provided the results.

Thanks. This isn’t better. It’s actually worse.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

They didn’t create this algorithm. The Big Ten did. They just ran the algorithm and provided the results.

I guess I’m with Willie and don’t understand why anyone would insinuate wrestlestat failed in their duty.



The QA would involve them ensuring their algorithms ran correctly right? I don’t think it involves inserting their own opinions on the matter which is what you are saying. So I just don’t get how can you say it was poorly executed.

The reason I say QA involves making sure the algo/equation is right is that is one of the tings I do for a living. I provide calculations for brokers to make sure they are in compliance with regulatory requirements for how much they charge their retail customers on opaque instruments. Those calculations often have to match rules promulgated by the SEC, FINRA and the MSRB. These regulators often do not write their rules in clear, or even non-contradictory, ways. So I spend a fair amount of time with the regulators asking some form of the question, "are you sure that is what you want (wink, wink, that is not what you want)?" I have, on occasion told them they are flat out wrong. And sometimes they change, and sometimes they do not. I even had an instance where one changed their rule and the other didn't, making it necessary to have side branches in our code to handle certain edge cases. The regulatory that balked came around to my way of thinking (and the other regulator's) about two years later.

That is a long way of saying that the person hired to do the work should feel a responsibility, when specifications are imprecise, to ensure that once the work is done it will produce the desired outcome, not just do what they are imprecisely told to do.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

And both are within 15 points and those will be changed. Not sure why they released these without changing the obvious ones that were within 15 points

Do you know that for a fact? Because in the scenario where quality match is winner take all the spread is 20 points.

 

[Corby2]

Do you know that for a fact? Because in the scenario where quality match is winner take all the spread is 20 points.

I know for a fact they're within 15. And the coaches will use common sense and the head to heads within 15 will be flip flopped. The human element hasn't been implemented yet. It was all an equation and whatever those #s said became the preseeds

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

I know for a fact they're within 15. And the coaches will use common sense and the head to heads within 15 will be flip flopped. The human element hasn't been implemented yet

Does that mean my assumption they would split quality matches the way the NCAA splits quality wins is correct?

 

[WrestleEveryDay]

i don't follow you. it seems like you're speaking out of passion and not reason.

you don't like the results of this formula, which is fine. there's some real wonkiness in there.

but that doesn't mean the calculator is wrong. what i'm saying is, you're shooting the messenger.

i don't understand how WrestleStat (the calculator) is to blame.

WrestleStat is to blame because it's their proprietary formula, correct?

 

[Fink26]

Corby, do you know the point totals for Haines/Minto and Blaze/Caliendo? Can you tell us because if so, we might be able to reverse engineer whether any of the categories are split.

Wrestleknownothing, knows a lot. His question goes right to the heart of the matrix -- what was item 1 supposed to mean -- Head to Head or Versus the Field -- those mean two different things.

So while the numbers likely add up, were the inputs what was intended or understood? The main reason for the question is totally removing head to head seems strange (it was the dominant factor previously and is the largest component at NCAAs) also there are two ways to run the matrix -- (1) as the NCAA does and create a win/loss record for each person in the field or (2) add up the 13 individual results and compare them. Given the reference to needing to be within 15 points to challenge, it has to be the latter. This changes the results. As we have seen, Minto is ahead of Haines by the aggregation method but would be behind him with a record of 12-1 versus 13-0 under the NCAA method.

It just seems odd that Big10 went so far from the NCAA model instead of just tweaking it to focus on conference matches.

 

[maxpain]

WrestleStat is to blame because it's their proprietary formula, correct?

Incorrect. It’s big ten’s formula and completely separate from wrestlestat.

 

[Corby2]

Corby, do you know the point totals for Haines/Minto and Blaze/Caliendo? Can you tell us because if so, we might be able to reverse engineer whether any of the categories are split.

Wrestleknownothing, knows a lot. His question goes right to the heart of the matrix -- what was item 1 supposed to mean -- Head to Head or Versus the Field -- those mean two different things.

So while the numbers likely add up, were the inputs what was intended or understood? The main reason for the question is totally removing head to head seems strange (it was the dominant factor previously and is the largest component at NCAAs) also there are two ways to run the matrix -- (1) as the NCAA does and create a win/loss record for each person in the field or (2) add up the 13 individual results and compare them. Given the reference to needing to be within 15 points to challenge, it has to be the latter. This changes the results. As we have seen, Minto is ahead of Haines by the aggregation method but would be behind him with a record of 12-1 versus 13-0 under the NCAA method.

It just seems odd that Big10 went so far from the NCAA model instead of just tweaking it to focus on conference matches.

Minto 829 Haines 818 have fun

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

Minto 829 Haines 818 have fun

This raises a separate issue. The score method publicized by the Big Ten is on a 100 point scale. I assume the 15 point difference threshold also applies to that 100 point scale.

By using numbers that are 8 times that scale you are clearly referring to a sub-calculation not the final calculation. It seems unlikely that the 15 point difference threshold applies to all of the sub-calculations and not the main calculation, or that it applies at all levels.

It seems far more likely that the 15 point difference threshold only applies to the 100 point scale.

 

[dtripp26]

There are no numbers to check. The only number that has been published is the seed. So let's start there with the biggest head scratcher.

Chris Minto is the #1 seed at 174. Levi Haines is the #2 seed.*

Now let's work from the bottom up since it is the first category that is my bone of contention, I will leave it for last.

• Conference Allocation - 5 points. They each earned an allocation, so 2.5 points each.
• Coaches' Rank - 5 points. Haines is the #1, Minto is the #4. 5 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 2.5 points to Minto.
• RPI - 10 points. Haines RPI is 0.66148. Minto's RPI is 0.70296, 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto.
• Quality Matches - 10 points. This one is not defined. Did they mean quality wins? Or just matches, win or lose? Let us assume it is the same as the NCAA definition of quality wins over wrestlers in the field. Haines has 4, Minto has 7. 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto (though if you go with the NCAA splits it would be 2.5/7.5). Running total 7.5 to Haines, 22.5 to Minto.
• Conference Duals - 20 points. Haines is 8-0, Minto is 6-2. 20 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 27.5 points to Haines, 22.5 points to Minto.
• Common Opponents Record - 25 points. They have three common opponents and are each 3-0. 12.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto. Running total 40 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.
• H2H (vs the field) - And now we arrive at the problem. H2H means one thing. Vs. the field means the opposite. If this were a true head-to-head measure then it is clear. Haines beat Minto HEAD-TO-HEAD. And hand-to-hand, and foot-to-foot and... 25 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 65 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.

But wait. Minto is the #1 seed. So it must have been 0 points to Haines, 25 points to Minto. Running total 40 points for Haines, 60 points for Minto. Meaning the category must not be head-to-head as that term is very well defined. It must really have been vs. the field. But wait again. We already have a vs. the field measure called Quality Matches. And we have a pretty similar measure called Common Opponent Record. Do we really need a third measure of the same thing? Are we really going to be the only seeding process anywhere that does not account for head-to-head as that term is defined and understood by everyone in sports, everywhere, all the time?

Apparently, yes.

*the analysis is identical for Caliendo/Blaze, but as I am a guest here I will politely ignore that.

 

[Fink26]

There should be 1300 points possible for a wrestler that swept every category unless there are splits. There must be splits because the numbers don't add up. Willie said that the Coaches is a 3/2 split if both ranked, so I used that. Others must as well.

CR -- At 174, 11 of 14 are ranked so Haines should get 54 points

RPI, Haines is 4th in the Big10 so he gets 100 points.

AQ -- Hines should get all 65.

QW -- Haines had the 5th most QWs in conference, so 90

Big 10 Dual Record -- Haines is the 1, so 260

Common Opp. -- Haines is undefeated so he can only lose points for a split with someone that did not lose to anyone he wrestled. Minto and Digby (3-11) did not lose to anyone that Haines beat. Digby did not wrestle any. That would be 300 11 wins and 2 ties at 25).

H2H vs. Field -- if by percentage, LH would defeat everyone. If counting wins, he (4-0) is behind PK (7-1) , Minto (7-3), BMan (7-3), Kharchla (6-3) and tied with Gilcher (4-3) and Riddle (4-5) Seems silly that 4-0 would tie with 4-3 and 4-5. That would be 200 points.

Added up that is 1109, well above 818.

 

[InTheCircle]

I know for a fact they're within 15. And the coaches will use common sense and the head to heads within 15 will be flip flopped. The human element hasn't been implemented yet. It was all an equation and whatever those #s said became the preseeds

So why does the Big Ten even release the pre seeds? Was it on TV and they didn’t have anything else to fill the slot?
If a company was making a presentation to win business, you’d think they’d cancel the meeting because they had technology errors.

 

[Corby2]

So why does the Big Ten even release the pre seeds? Was it on TV and they didn’t have anything else to fill the slot?
If a company was making a presentation to win business, you’d think they’d cancel the meeting because they had technology errors.

They did in on TV yesterday during B1G today after about 20 min of basketball stuff

 

[jakgray]

WrestleStat is to blame because it's their proprietary formula, correct?

Actually it's the coaches fault.

They voted on a metric that they didn't even run a trial on. That's like buying a new truck that you haven't seen or driven. Just place the order.

My thoughts yes the seeds are bad but they voted on this now live with it. But hey it's just a qualifier right? So why all the complaints? Because a seed matters if you qualify or not. All you young bucks are spoiled. This is what all wrestlers and coaches say. It's all about the NCAA tournament. Guess what we're not there yet fellas.

Enjoy the tournament I know I will no matter who qualifies.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

WrestleStat is to blame because it's their proprietary formula, correct?

NO!

the coaches voted on it. they could/can change anything they wish.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

Well you're the brain...if you can look at those pre-seeds and not figure out what the main issue is, time to get that big brain checked out.

if you can't read what he wrote and the permutations thereafter, i can't help you.

he starts by assuming something is true and it just spirals from there....none of it based in fact.

i'm asking how he knows it and/or any proof.

and he keeps deflecting.

"they must have messed up because the outcome was undesirable" isn't sound logic and it's just not true.

 

[WillieTheBrain]

There are no numbers to check. The only number that has been published is the seed. So let's start there with the biggest head scratcher.

Chris Minto is the #1 seed at 174. Levi Haines is the #2 seed.*

Now let's work from the bottom up since it is the first category that is my bone of contention, I will leave it for last.

• Conference Allocation - 5 points. They each earned an allocation, so 2.5 points each.
• Coaches' Rank - 5 points. Haines is the #1, Minto is the #4. 5 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 2.5 points to Minto.
• RPI - 10 points. Haines RPI is 0.66148. Minto's RPI is 0.70296, 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto. Running total 7.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto.
• Quality Matches - 10 points. This one is not defined. Did they mean quality wins? Or just matches, win or lose? Let us assume it is the same as the NCAA definition of quality wins over wrestlers in the field. Haines has 4, Minto has 7. 0 points to Haines, 10 points to Minto (though if you go with the NCAA splits it would be 2.5/7.5). Running total 7.5 to Haines, 22.5 to Minto.
• Conference Duals - 20 points. Haines is 8-0, Minto is 6-2. 20 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 27.5 points to Haines, 22.5 points to Minto.
• Common Opponents Record - 25 points. They have three common opponents and are each 3-0. 12.5 points to Haines, 12.5 points to Minto. Running total 40 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.
• H2H (vs the field) - And now we arrive at the problem. H2H means one thing. Vs. the field means the opposite. If this were a true head-to-head measure then it is clear. Haines beat Minto HEAD-TO-HEAD. And hand-to-hand, and foot-to-foot and... 25 points to Haines, 0 points to Minto. Running total 65 points to Haines, 35 points to Minto.

But wait. Minto is the #1 seed. So it must have been 0 points to Haines, 25 points to Minto. Running total 40 points for Haines, 60 points for Minto. Meaning the category must not be head-to-head as that term is very well defined. It must really have been vs. the field. But wait again. We already have a vs. the field measure called Quality Matches. And we have a pretty similar measure called Common Opponent Record. Do we really need a third measure of the same thing? Are we really going to be the only seeding process anywhere that does not account for head-to-head as that term is defined and understood by everyone in sports, everywhere, all the time?

Apparently, yes.

*the analysis is identical for Caliendo/Blaze, but as I am a guest here I will politely ignore that.

Starts post with "There are no numbers to check." --> Proceeds to check numbers lololo

inaccurately, btw. Haines doesn't get 5 to 0 for rank.

and it's RECORD vs THE FIELD. you're having a really hard time with this. Haines wrestled a bunch of guys NOT IN THE FREAKIN FIELD

say the formula sucks. that's fine. saying it was inaccurately crunched is an entirely different story you have no evidence to support.

for god's sake you don't even know how the points are split.

65 to 35 lol.

the top scores are in the 800-900's