There are two schools of though re: rankings.
1). Flo and others approach - what have you done for me lately. Ignore past acholades, petigre, freestyle results, world medals and basically what everyone expects you to do, and focus almost entirely on what you what a wrestler has earned recently and at the same level. It would fare better in the scripting of an audit and claims to weed out subjectivity. Guys like Duke and Blaze have to slowly earn their way up the rankings. It's the most defensible way of tracking, but ultimately is of little value and doesn't have much staying power week to week, month to month. It's click bait early in the season. At the end of the day a computer program can do the same, and the value of the author is far more insignificant that the debate gives credit. Ultimately, Flo really doesn't have much of a real 'opinion' here.
When you have something like PSU as a team 3rd or PJ lower than AA, what is really being said. Answer - not much of anything. Then by March the rankings are pretty darned accurate, but there is an element of either no **** or who cares by then, as they are telling us what we already know
2). The Crystal Ball approach which is a blend of objectivity and subjectivity. Rank a wrestler based both upon the full body of work, all results are considered (highschool, freestyle, etc...) and expert opinion. The eye test is important and one match aberrations, upsets or illness can be ignored if the expert chooses to do so. In the end it projects a prediction of where one sees the result in March. This too can be click bait, but I much prefer crystal ball rankings, as the author puts his expertise and judgement on the line for scrutiny and debate.
1). Flo and others approach - what have you done for me lately. Ignore past acholades, petigre, freestyle results, world medals and basically what everyone expects you to do, and focus almost entirely on what you what a wrestler has earned recently and at the same level. It would fare better in the scripting of an audit and claims to weed out subjectivity. Guys like Duke and Blaze have to slowly earn their way up the rankings. It's the most defensible way of tracking, but ultimately is of little value and doesn't have much staying power week to week, month to month. It's click bait early in the season. At the end of the day a computer program can do the same, and the value of the author is far more insignificant that the debate gives credit. Ultimately, Flo really doesn't have much of a real 'opinion' here.
When you have something like PSU as a team 3rd or PJ lower than AA, what is really being said. Answer - not much of anything. Then by March the rankings are pretty darned accurate, but there is an element of either no **** or who cares by then, as they are telling us what we already know
2). The Crystal Ball approach which is a blend of objectivity and subjectivity. Rank a wrestler based both upon the full body of work, all results are considered (highschool, freestyle, etc...) and expert opinion. The eye test is important and one match aberrations, upsets or illness can be ignored if the expert chooses to do so. In the end it projects a prediction of where one sees the result in March. This too can be click bait, but I much prefer crystal ball rankings, as the author puts his expertise and judgement on the line for scrutiny and debate.
