Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just to clarify for those that don't understand about allocations: they are given based on the very specific quality level of the specific individuals that make up your conference's talent pool at each weight.  Having more allocations--no matter the number of schools involved in your tournament--means there are more quality individuals to beat.  If you earn NCAA spots from those allocated amounts, you've earned a spot that either a) your guy earned for your conference and then rightfully claimed with his tourney performance or B) your guy took by beating others who earned them during the season.  There is no other way to get an allocated spot.  They don't magically appear because you add two sub-par teams to your conference.   If you only needed 9th place this year compared to needing 8th place last year, that means your conference had 9 qualification-worthy guys this year compared to only 8 qualification-worthy guys last year. 

 

A list of simple facts:

1. Purdue 2015 went 10-8 (3-6 conference), while Purdue 2014 went 6-8 (1-7 conference).

2. Purdue 2015's dual meet point differential was 2 points better per dual than 2014 in 8 common Division I duals and 4 points better in all common duals.

3. Purdue 2015 had 3 wins over teams ranked at the time of the match.  In 2014, they had none.

4. Purdue 2015 finished the season ranked, while in 2014 they did not.

5. Purdue 2015 qualified 8 guys for NCAA's compared to 4 in 2014 when the system for determining the depth of your conference's individuals for allocation purposes was exactly the same, no matter the number of teams (side note: if you want to ignore Rutgers and Maryland's presence, Purdue's B1G tournament placement per guy against only the 12 teams of the previous Big 10 was about 0.5 spots higher on average in 2015 than in 2014)

 

There are lots of reasons why this simple list of facts may or may not prove anything, but the simple truth remains: Purdue's results this year have been slightly better than last year.  I will say the same thing I've said all along: the only way to measure how the new staff is doing is to look at tried and true results--free from excuses--over the long haul.  These facts I listed are a small OBJECTIVE part of that picture going forward for those of us who have no association with the program and are just hopeful that our state's universities will perform well.

Edited by maligned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for posting this; while it SEEMS like improvement, but before the AD runs out with bonuses for the coaches, let's analyze the data. I think

the 8 qualifiers are misleading, especially when you have guys finishing 10th place. I wish the results were due to better wrestling, but if you study the data objectively, you would see there is a little more reality behind the scenes that benefited the Boilers this year. Celebrate all they want, but this has some smoke & mirrors to it:

 

 

I don't think you're the one to look at it objectively. 

 

1. Allocations are based on the quality of competition. The Big 10 has a lot of quality, thus it gets many allocations

2. Maryland and Rutgers are solid programs, Maryland is down this year but will be back up soon

3. You get the Welches back healthy, but have an unhealthy Atwood. Atwood has been a 10-15 ranked guy his whole career, while the Welches have flirted with top 20 rankings. A healthy Atwood is a serious AA contender, the Welches can push for a spot on the podium, but will have to perform better than their seeds.

4. They have been bad the last 5 years.....neither is exceptionally worse or better this year than they were last year or the year before

5. The 9th place matches didn't count

 

It is way too early to call Ersland a bust nor a great hire. He's barely 9 months into the job. Maybe you are just upset because someone close to you is riding the pine and you think they should be GIVEN a spot in the lineup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for posting this; while it SEEMS like improvement, but before the AD runs out with bonuses for the coaches, let's analyze the data. I think

the 8 qualifiers are misleading, especially when you have guys finishing 10th place. I wish the results were due to better wrestling, but if you study the data objectively, you would see there is a little more reality behind the scenes that benefited the Boilers this year. Celebrate all they want, but this has some smoke & mirrors to it:

 

 

So now we are using data to decide whether the Boilers are wrestling better?  I don't have any allegiances to a coach, but from my own eyes, they are wrestling better.  

 

Your argument is that the Welches came back?  But this years team doesn't have Cashe.  So who cares.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify for those that don't understand about allocations: they are given based on the very specific quality level of the specific individuals that make up your conference's talent pool at each weight.  Having more allocations--no matter the number of schools involved in your tournament--means there are more quality individuals to beat.  If you earn NCAA spots from those allocated amounts, you've earned a spot that either a) your guy earned for your conference and then rightfully claimed with his tourney performance or B) your guy took by beating others who earned them during the season.  There is no other way to get an allocated spot.  They don't magically appear because you add two sub-par teams to your conference.   If you only needed 9th place this year compared to needing 8th place last year, that means your conference had 9 qualification-worthy guys this year compared to only 8 qualification-worthy guys last year. 

 

A list of simple facts:

1. Purdue 2015 went 10-8 (3-6 conference), while Purdue 2014 went 6-8 (1-7 conference).

2. Purdue 2015's dual meet point differential was 2 points better per dual than 2014 in 8 common Division I duals and 4 points better in all common duals.

3. Purdue 2015 had 3 wins over teams ranked at the time of the match.  In 2014, they had none.

4. Purdue 2015 finished the season ranked, while in 2014 they did not.

5. Purdue 2015 qualified 8 guys for NCAA's compared to 4 in 2014 when the system for determining the depth of your conference's individuals for allocation purposes was exactly the same, no matter the number of teams (side note: if you want to ignore Rutgers and Maryland's presence, Purdue's B1G tournament placement per guy against only the 12 teams of the previous Big 10 was about 0.5 spots higher on average in 2015 than in 2014)

 

There are lots of reasons why this simple list of facts may or may not prove anything, but the simple truth remains: Purdue's results this year have been slightly better than last year.  I will say the same thing I've said all along: the only way to measure how the new staff is doing is to look at tried and true results--free from excuses--over the long haul.  These facts I listed are a small OBJECTIVE part of that picture going forward for those of us who have no association with the program and are just hopeful that our state's universities will perform well.

 

Allocations - Your nuts if you don't think the Big Ten was allocated more as a result of Maryland and Rutgers - the Big Ten noted last year

in discussion about the team addition and impact.  12 new allocations did not just get added because of last year, they were a result of more competition

from the addition of 2 East Coast teams. 

 

As to your Hillary Clintonesque Facts:

1. Purdue 2015 went 10-8 (3-6 conference), while Purdue 2014 went 6-8 (1-7 conference). -

They added Michigan State and Northwestern (who was forfeiting 1-2 weights all year.) and dropped #1 Minnesota and #2 Iowa (final team polls). I'll take that trade every year.

 

2. Purdue 2015's dual meet point differential was 2 points better per dual than 2014 in 8 common Division I duals and 4 points better in all common duals.

In 2014, Purdue wrestled 1,2,3,5,7,8, and #11 (7 of the top 11 in the FINAL coaches Poll), including perhaps the best Penn State Team of All-Time, the best Northern-Iowa (undefeated)

team, a Minnesota team with 7-AA, and an Iowa Team with 6-AA.

 

In 2015, this would be like taking #2, #3, and #8 OFF of your schedule. It's not even close. In 2015, Purdue was in the matches against Illinois (Purdue wrestled 125 back-up), OSU, and UNI.

Purdue also beat at least one FINAL Top 25 Team last year, which they did not do this year.    

 

3. Purdue 2015 had 3 wins over teams ranked at the time of the match.  In 2014, they had none.

What a load of BS, who cares what they were ranked at the "time of the match". NONE OF THOSE TEAMS FINISHED RANKED IN THE TOP 25

in the FINAL COACHES POLL in 2015.  Purdue also beat at least one FINAL Top 25 Team last year.  

 

4. Purdue 2015 finished the season ranked, while in 2014 they did not. - They were #26 last year, #24 in final poll. Dropping Iowa (now #2) & Minnesota (now #4), and picking up

    a brutal Michigan State and a depleted Northwestern, in addition to the worst IU Team in school history is kind of a big deal.  Had you told me MSU and IU were so great,

    we could have rushed the mat after the victory.  

 

5. Purdue 2015 qualified 8 guys for NCAA's compared to 4 in 2014 when the system for determining the depth of your conference's individuals for allocation purposes was exactly the same, no matter the number of teams (side note: if you want to ignore Rutgers and Maryland's presence, Purdue's B1G tournament placement per guy against only the 12 teams of the previous Big 10 was about 0.5 spots higher on average in 2015 than in 2014)  

Again, adding weak sister Maryland and Rutgers was the boon for Purdue - no other Team wrestled them as much at the Tourney. The allocations they brought was just enough

for Purdue to win out in the 10th place matches. Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!  Purdue went 6-2 against these teams.

That is where they bread was buttered.

 

 

2014 Illinois      L18-16       2015Illinois        L 21- 9 

2014 Ohio State L16-15       2015Ohio State - L 24-9

2014 Nebraska L28-9         2015Nebraska  L 25-6 

2014 Penn State L34-3      2015  Penn State L 26-9   (2014 PSU Team was arguable the best team in PSU History - this years was filled with back-ups for guys taking shirts)

2014 Michigan   L 22-12      2015 Michigan     L 26-9            (Had Michigan fielded it's full starting line-up, it could have been 40-3.)

Edited by Y2CJ41
Name calling will end
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say they didn't have more allocations because of Rutgers and Maryland, but I just now realized you might not know how allocations are given out.  They are because of the presence of strong specific individuals--nothing else. Adding bad teams to your conference doesn't somehow add phantom allocations or make it easier to earn automatic NCAA bids. There are only bids available if you are bid-worthy based on specific criteria or if there are corresponding bid-worthy individuals that you have to beat to get those bids.

 

The pre-conference tournament allocations are given by individuals meeting 2 of 3 criteria: Top 33 in RPI, Top 33 in Coaches Panel Rating, and whatever DI Win% cutoff level at each weight class that yields 29 allocated spots at that weight. (This year was complicated because the Big12 spots were determined but not officially given out due to a procedure conflict with the conference...so the 29 were determined at each weight and then Big 12 guys were put back into the at-large pool.)

 

Rutgers/Maryland individuals were directly responsible for definitely 8, possibly a 9th, allocated auto berths (I'm not sure about Spencer Myers at 285, with his lack of matches before Big 10's).  The individuals from the "old Big 10" were responsible for providing all of the other allocated automatic berths at the tournament.  Rutgers and Maryland then took 7 auto bids at Big 10's, meaning there were a grand total of 2 Rutgers/Maryland "gift" bids for the rest of the conference (maybe only 1 depending on the Myers situation).  All but those 2 bids would have been earned with the old Big 10 composition.

 

As far as all of your other points above...come on, man, I'm just saying you're grasping if you think there's some concrete way to prove Purdue is beyond a doubt no better than last year.  Of course all of your points are valid parts of the discussion, but in the end the results speak for themselves and there are plenty of counter-arguments for every point you've made (your responses in points 4 and 5 don't even address the points I made).   In the end, we've all got to move on and look at the big picture as it develops over the next few years.  Name calling and all the anger and bright colors just tell all of us there are sour grapes behind your responses.  If all of what you've said about the job search process is true, it's sad that Purdue didn't handle it better.  But does that in itself mean Ersland can't do the job or that we the fans should hope the team now fails?  Of course not.  We're still going to support the team and try to celebrate the positives that happen. 

 

Have fun watching NCAAs...cheers.

Edited by maligned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Praising coach Ersland is not equivalent to bashing coach Hinkel

 

In my opinion, Coach Hinkel was a fantastic coach.  He ran a good program, qualified wrestlers for the NCAA tournament, and in general ran a respectable program.  No, it wasn't one of the Big 10 elite programs, but I would rate his era as successful.  Period.  End of Story.

 

Now it is the beginning of a new era with Coach Ersland.  If he takes this team to the top 3 in the Big 10 (unlikely, but hey why not?!), it would *NOT* mean that Hinkel's era was suddenly worse.  They are two separate entities.

 

In that regard, there is a transition period as Coach Ersland recruits and brings in "his" athletes.  I think thus far his recruiting seems to be a success as he is bringing in a highly rated class.  How those wrestlers adjust to the Big10 level of competition remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transformation complete! No AA's, wasted development opportunities, 43rd place, 13th of 14th Big Ten Teams ahead of Michigan State who had -.5 points. But hey, we had 10 qualifiers!

 

Nice job AD Burke

For starters, they had 8 qualifiers. And this is only the FIRST YEAR. Ersland has had one year with this team, a top ten national finish and numerous All-Americans won't happen so fast. Stop being so cynical and give it some time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We still have to look at the big picture. 

 

What was the consensus, objective national view of Purdue's individuals going into the season?...One guy in the Top 20 (Atwood, who gets derailed by injury)

 

How did the season finish for those individuals?...Two guys in the final 16, two others in the final 24, and 4 more qualifiers. 

 

It was less than what we hoped going into the weekend because of the elevated expectations created by the good season, but it was still better than any national objective opinion of Purdue's talent level coming into the year.

Edited by maligned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transformation complete! No AA's, wasted development opportunities, 43rd place, 13th of 14th Big Ten Teams ahead of Michigan State who had -.5 points. But hey, we had 10 qualifiers!

 

Nice job AD Burke

Maybe Hinkel's recruiting is to blame. Hinkel failed to recruit high profile kids, maybe that's the problem.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Maybe Hinkel's recruiting is to blame. Hinkel failed to recruit high profile kids, maybe that's the problem.  

You can say what you want about Hinkel and not recruiting,  but if the Purdue Basketball or Football coach had their team in the top 25  four out of five years, they would be getting 6 figure bonuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly a fair comparison..

 

When you finish top 25 out of 77 wrestling schools, you're in the top 32.5%

 

When you finish top 25 out of 128 FBS football schools, you're in the top 19.5%

 

When you finish top 25 out of 351 basketball schools, you're in the top 7.1%

 

 

All told, finishing in the top 25 in the final basketball poll is the equivalent of a top 5 finish in the NCAA wrestling tournament.  This would and does pay any head coach a nice bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Flo guys were doing their end of season (awards, wrap-up, analysis, etc.) podcast, Coach Ersland's name came up in the discussion for Coach of the Year.  I guess no one knows wrestling except Hinkel supporters.  Again, I have no dog in the fight, but this is getting ridiculous.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly a fair comparison..

 

When you finish top 25 out of 77 wrestling schools, you're in the top 32.5%

 

When you finish top 25 out of 128 FBS football schools, you're in the top 19.5%

 

When you finish top 25 out of 351 basketball schools, you're in the top 7.1%

 

 

All told, finishing in the top 25 in the final basketball poll is the equivalent of a top 5 finish in the NCAA wrestling tournament.  This would and does pay any head coach a nice bonus.

You make a statistical point, but I totally disagree with the premise.    I think top 25 in wrestling, football, basketball or any college sport albeit baseball, tennis and swimming is comparably as difficult to achieve.   IMO and reality, in football theres only a percentage of FBS schoools that have the resources and recruiting capability to consistently compete for a top 25 spot.  I would say that number is approximately 50 schools that have a realistic chance.    The other 70+ schools try and on exception put a team together, but they reallly are not competing at the same level of the major schools.   Basketball might have a handful of more schoools that compete, but I would only say 60 to 70 schools have resources to compete for top 25. 

 

Wrestling is the same,  only approximately 50 schools have resources to realistically compete for top 25 just like Football.   The established programs have a monopoly and respectively recruit the talent.   I think for Purdue to break into the top 5 in wrestling would be an amazing feat but not reallistic.   

 Put it into a numbers perspesctive, how many times have they done that in history of purdue wrestling?   Im going to speculate they never have finished in top 5.    Only 25 different wrestling programs have finished in the top 5 in the last 40 years, that doesnt include Purdue.    Wrestling is so monopolized, its very difficult to break through the ceiling.  Dont take that top 25 ranking for granted.     

Edited by Wrestling Scholar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.