Fixing the Seeding Algorithm

[Wrestleknownothing]

I have complained long and loud about the problem. Now it is time to attempt to be part of the solution.

I think there are three easy, common sense adjustments that can be made right away, and a fourth to think about.

1. Make H2H H2H. Drop (vs. field) as it is nonsensical. This solves two major problems. It removes a duplication in the formula, and it restores the single most important element to the seeding process. It also removes a potential gaming strategy that rewards teams for not using their starters in a conference dual.
2. Switch RPI and CR weightings. Quality wins (matches?) is very similar to RPI in that they measure the quality of the opponents faced (though in different ways). There is no need to have them both be weighted the same. Drop one down to 5% (could drop QW or RPI) and bump CR up to 10%.
3. Start with binary measures, finish with binary measures. The switch from binary comparisons (who had a better record? who won more categories?) to non-binary is bad math. No bad math.

One other thing that was discussed was the coaches' desire to emphasize showing up and wrestling in conference duals. That could be reinforced by tweaking the H2H a bit, too. If we make H2H a two tiered measure where H2H conference dual results are considered first, then if no conference result is available, H2H in non-conference competition is considered.

There is a potential problem with this, though. If two wrestlers meet at National Duals the winner has a dis-incentive to compete in a conference dual against the same wrestler. One way to solve this is to consider the H2H, for conference dual purposes only, at the team level. If Levi Haines beats whoever Iowa sends out at 174 in the dual, he is considered to have beaten whoever they send out at the conference tournament. Far from a perfect solution, but worth consideration.

 

[PessimisticallyHopefulPragmatist]

I doubt they have anyone who understands statistical data as well as you do. Getting their attention is the trick.

 

[Kiddagger311]

I have complained long and loud about the problem. Now it is time to attempt to be part of the solution.

I think there are three easy, common sense adjustments that can be made right away, and a fourth to think about.

1. Make H2H H2H. Drop (vs. field) as it is nonsensical. This solves two major problems. It removes a duplication in the formula, and it restores the single most important element to the seeding process. It also removes a potential gaming strategy that rewards teams for not using their starters in a conference dual.
2. Switch RPI and CR weightings. Quality wins (matches?) is very similar to RPI in that they measure the quality of the opponents faced (though in different ways). There is no need to have them both be weighted the same. Drop one down to 5% (could drop QW or RPI) and bump CR up to 10%.
3. Start with binary measures, finish with binary measures. The switch from binary comparisons (who had a better record? who won more categories?) to non-binary is bad math. No bad math.

One other thing that was discussed was the coaches' desire to emphasize showing up and wrestling in conference duals. That could be reinforced by tweaking the H2H a bit, too. If we make H2H a two tiered measure where H2H conference dual results are considered first, then if no conference result is available, H2H in non-conference competition is considered.

There is a potential problem with this, though. If two wrestlers meet at National Duals the winner has a dis-incentive to compete in a conference dual against the same wrestler. One way to solve this is to consider the H2H, for conference dual purposes only, at the team level. If Levi Haines beats whoever Iowa sends out at 174 in the dual, he is considered to have beaten whoever they send out at the conference tournament. Far from a perfect solution, but worth consideration.

They need a formula that encourages actually wrestlings more matches.. a system that rewards taking chances and actually showing up and wrestling tough in season tournaments, such as midlands, CLKV, and Scuffle… somehow making duals mean something and maybe not just only conference duals.. most recently the meta has been, show up and get your pay check, wrestle as few as possible, “all that matters is March”, why bc this is what the system rewards.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

They need a formula that encourages actually wrestlings more matches.. a system that rewards taking chances and actually showing up and wrestling tough in season tournaments, such as midlands, CLKV, and Scuffle… somehow making duals mean something and maybe not just only conference duals.. most recently the meta has been, show up and get your pay check, wrestle as few as possible, “all that matters is March”, why bc this is what the system rewards.

While I want more wrestling, not less, I don't think it is the conference's responsibility to promote in-season tournaments through their seeding formula as much as it is the NCAA's.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

I just took a look at the seeds with regard to H2H.

• There are 21 instances where a wrestler lost the H2H to the wrestler seeded one spot below him.
• Only 141 had zero such instances.
• 174 had four such instances (#1Minto/#2Haines, #3Kennedy/#4Mantanona, #4Mantanona/#5Kharchla, #10Pinto/#11Enright)
• 157, 165, and 285 had three such instances each.
• While I did not keep count, much more often than not, the higher seeded wrestler also won the H2H.