Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
1prouddad

NCAA Brackets are released

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

133- Micic comes in as 2 seed. Will be interesting to see how the injury effects him here. Win his 1st match and he most likely gets winner of RBY/Desanto match. Win there and he’ll square off against winner of Lizak/Suriano match barring and upsets. 

141-Red comes in as 16 seed. Win 1st round and immediately draws #1 Yianni. 

Lee comes in as 3 seed. His side of the backet is loaded. Win 1st couple matches and he’ll face winner of Moran/Carr match. Win that match and he will have McKenna waiting for him to punch his ticket to finals. 

174- will have 2 former Indiana studs facing off in the first round in Lydy/Harvey. Hughes gets a tough draw in Smith(OkSt)

285-Parris comes in as the 5 seed  

Thoughts heading into this weekends. 

Edited by 1prouddad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Lee has a great draw! I’m surprised Carr got the 6th seed after his poor showing at conference. 

 

Mason got an even better draw as the 5 seed! He stays away from Minnesota and Penn State. Wow. Could he make the finals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mason has Conan Jennings second round.. Conan has beat Mason three times this year, 6-4, 7-5, 9-7. All by two points. Surely Mason will get him this time, right? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, navy80 said:

Mason has Conan Jennings second round.. Conan has beat Mason three times this year, 6-4, 7-5, 9-7. All by two points. Surely Mason will get him this time, right? 

 

Parris at 5 is a bit of a head scratcher. Of the 5 guys he lost to 4 are below him. 9, 12, 16 and 17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, navy80 said:

I think Lee has a great draw! I’m surprised Carr got the 6th seed after his poor showing at conference. 

 

Mason got an even better draw as the 5 seed! He stays away from Minnesota and Penn State. Wow. Could he make the finals?

Carr with the 6 is a gift to the bottom half of the bracket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, navy80 said:

I think Lee has a great draw! I’m surprised Carr got the 6th seed after his poor showing at conference. 

 

Mason got an even better draw as the 5 seed! He stays away from Minnesota and Penn State. Wow. Could he make the finals?

I know Nick has a nice win over McKenna, but McKenna looked really good in the Big10 match. Nick had a tough time finishing the last time. Word had it that at their first match, McKenna was coming off an illness and wasn’t 100%. I’m still gonna be a hometown guy and pull for Nick, but it’s gonna be a tough one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't had time to dig in a ton and am heading out of town tomorrow, so just a couple of thoughts....

1.  Micic MFF's at BTT cost him big time.  Suriano, Desanto, RBY, Lizak, Tariq Wilson all on his side of the bracket.  If healthy, still think he's the favorite, but the draw was far from favorable.

2. I agree Lee got a pretty good draw.  He avoids Yianni and Eierman on his side.  I agree McKenna is a nod better than Nick, but they have 3 matches and all were 1 point decisions.  He needs to get off to a better start against Joey instead of relying on the ability to step on the gas late.  Still worry about him beating Carr, but not sure he's healthy.  He just has to avoid the early upset this year.  I think he will.

3. Think Mason got a gift with the 5 seed.  Then taken away with the 2nd round matchup with Jennings?  He'd got to figure out how to finish his shots and deal with his size.  Get past him and he could be in the Semifinals on Friday night.

That's all for now... Looking forward to next weekend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The committee must have put a lot of stock in Parris's big wins (5-2 vs. Top 10). The early one over #9 Stencel (27-4) looks big now. He gives #6 Dhesi (10-1...many would have picked him over Cassar or White in the pre-season) his only loss of the year, and he just beat #10 Hemida, who I'm sure the committee regards as much more of an AA candidate than Jennings or Jensen, for a second time. And I'm guessing committee discussion probably considered the 3 losses to Jennings as partly a match-up thing when you look at all the wins. Seems they weren't sure what to do, and they ended up weighting the good more than the bad.

#5 Parris is 7-7 overall against the field, but again 5-2 over the Top 10. Wins over 6,7,9,10,10,16,31. Losses to 2,9,12,12,12,16,17

#6 Dhesi loses the head-to-head to Parris and is only 2-1 vs. the field with no Top 10 wins this season.

#7 Hillger went 6-6 vs. the field, including 1-5 vs. the Top 10 compared to Parris's 7-7 & 5-2, plus loses the head-to-head.

#8 Thomas is 6-3 vs. the field but only 1-1 vs. the Top 10 and lost to a D2 guy.

#9 Stencel is 8-3 vs. the field and split with Parris, but only 1-2 vs. the Top 10.

#10 Hemida is 5-5 vs. the field, 1-4 vs. the Top 10, and 2 losses to Parris.

Anyway...you get my point when you start comparing with these guys...which one do you push ahead of Parris if you're weighing the whole season's body of work?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maligned said:

The committee must have put a lot of stock in Parris's big wins (5-2 vs. Top 10). The early one over #9 Stencel (27-4) looks big now. He gives #6 Dhesi (10-1...many would have picked him over Cassar or White in the pre-season) his only loss of the year, and he just beat #10 Hemida, who I'm sure the committee regards as much more of an AA candidate than Jennings or Jensen, for a second time. And I'm guessing committee discussion probably considered the 3 losses to Jennings as partly a match-up thing when you look at all the wins. Seems they weren't sure what to do, and they ended up weighting the good more than the bad.

#5 Parris is 7-7 overall against the field, but again 5-2 over the Top 10. Wins over 6,7,9,10,10,16,31. Losses to 2,9,12,12,12,16,17

#6 Dhesi loses the head-to-head to Parris and is only 2-1 vs. the field with no Top 10 wins this season.

#7 Hillger went 6-6 vs. the field, including 1-5 vs. the Top 10 compared to Parris's 7-7 & 5-2, plus loses the head-to-head.

#8 Thomas is 6-3 vs. the field but only 1-1 vs. the Top 10 and lost to a D2 guy.

#9 Stencel is 8-3 vs. the field and split with Parris, but only 1-2 vs. the Top 10.

#10 Hemida is 5-5 vs. the field, 1-4 vs. the Top 10, and 2 losses to Parris.

Anyway...you get my point when you start comparing with these guys...which one do you push ahead of Parris if you're weighing the whole season's body of work?

 

Nice evaluation maligned, that really demonstrates the parity of the HWT's this year. I think Steveson, Cassar & White are all at a level beyond this next tier of guys though.

Not real sure about Dhesi, did his loss to Parris have a lot to do with it being his 1st match of the year? Does he deserve to be listed in the tier with the top 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 1prouddad said:

I know Nick has a nice win over McKenna, but McKenna looked really good in the Big10 match. Nick had a tough time finishing the last time. Word had it that at their first match, McKenna was coming off an illness and wasn’t 100%. I’m still gonna be a hometown guy and pull for Nick, but it’s gonna be a tough one. 

It did seem odd that McKenna was so gassed at the end of their first match, so the illness theory seems to make sense anyway. And he (McKenna) had missed the previous match or two before the PSU meet.

IMO, McKenna seems to control their matches more than Lee does, but it is close enough that Lee can definitely get it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

Not real sure about Dhesi, did his loss to Parris have a lot to do with it being his 1st match of the year? Does he deserve to be listed in the tier with the top 3?

In my view, he could be. He's been rolling now that he's been back a number of weeks. He would definitely be my first choice for someone that could upset one of the "Big 3." White has to be pinching himself over the seeding/draw he got with all 3 of those guys on the other side. He gets Wood, who has zero good wins this year, a possibly overseeded Parris, and unproven Thomas and Stencel on his side while probably the two guys that should be 1-2 (Cassar/Steveson), 2 AAs (Dhesi/Hemida), and Hillger maul each other on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maligned said:

In my view, he could be. He's been rolling now that he's been back a number of weeks. He would definitely be my first choice for someone that could upset one of the "Big 3." White has to be pinching himself over the seeding/draw he got with all 3 of those guys on the other side. He gets Wood, who has zero good wins this year, a possibly overseeded Parris, and unproven Thomas and Stencel on his side while probably the two guys that should be 1-2 (Cassar/Steveson), 2 AAs (Dhesi/Hemida), and Hillger maul each other on the other side.

Spot on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanna talk about recency bias.

I have been thinking about some of these brackets and the seeding decisions I find odd and it occurs to me that a lot of it comes down to recency bias. I have it, but the seeding committee does not. 

Relative seeds for Red v Carr and Storr, Parris v Jensen, Jennings, Dhesi, Pantaleo v Deakin can all be explained by the LACK of recency bias.

Red had a tough season, but finished strong and winds up seeded well below the guys he just beat. No benefit for recent results.

On the flip side, Parris finishes 7th at Big Tens (as the 3 seed, I think) but gets the 5 seed anyway. No penalty for recent results.

Related to Red, Mike Carr lays an egg, finishing 8 in his conference, but remains 6th nationally. Again no penalty for recent results.

Related to Parris, Dhesi comes in as the highest returning AA, but has a good record on a weak schedule. Here they look to be looking back to last year. That definitely raises the tide for Parris.

Pantaleo beats Deakin head to head just days earlier, but Deakin came in with the better resume. No benefit for recent results for Pantaleo, no penalty for Deakin.

Normally we talk about recency bias as a bad thing (especially when analyzing sports), but in this case is it a bad thing to weight the past more than the present in determining seeds for the present?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wrestlenewbie said:

I wanna talk about recency bias.

I have been thinking about some of these brackets and the seeding decisions I find odd and it occurs to me that a lot of it comes down to recency bias. I have it, but the seeding committee does not. 

Relative seeds for Red v Carr and Storr, Parris v Jensen, Jennings, Dhesi, Pantaleo v Deakin can all be explained by the LACK of recency bias.

Red had a tough season, but finished strong and winds up seeded well below the guys he just beat. No benefit for recent results.

On the flip side, Parris finishes 7th at Big Tens (as the 3 seed, I think) but gets the 5 seed anyway. No penalty for recent results.

Related to Red, Mike Carr lays an egg, finishing 8 in his conference, but remains 6th nationally. Again no penalty for recent results.

Related to Parris, Dhesi comes in as the highest returning AA, but has a good record on a weak schedule. Here they look to be looking back to last year. That definitely raises the tide for Parris.

Pantaleo beats Deakin head to head just days earlier, but Deakin came in with the better resume. No benefit for recent results for Pantaleo, no penalty for Deakin.

Normally we talk about recency bias as a bad thing (especially when analyzing sports), but in this case is it a bad thing to weight the past more than the present in determining seeds for the present?

My understanding is that once they've put together the somewhat subjective coaches' panel ratings post-conference tourneys, they just do straight one vs. one matchups of everyone using the criteria below. Whoever has more the most criteria point wins gets the top seed. Next most gets second, and so on. So you nailed it. No recency bias and machine-like objectivity once the coaches have given their opinions for the panel ranking.

1244987967_ScreenShot2019-03-12at10_34_10AM.thumb.png.878c31b40cd0f6300e330b274f641b24.png.51104b8793a89cde2ffbff877d0f0008.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 7:43 AM, SIACfan said:

It did seem odd that McKenna was so gassed at the end of their first match, so the illness theory seems to make sense anyway. And he (McKenna) had missed the previous match or two before the PSU meet.

IMO, McKenna seems to control their matches more than Lee does, but it is close enough that Lee can definitely get it done.

It’s also extremely hard to win in the Rec hall as an opponent. Look at all the huge wins over ranked opponents for PSU in the rec hall this year. I think that might’ve played big in the Lee/McKenna match. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RaiderColfax said:

It’s also extremely hard to win in the Rec hall as an opponent. Look at all the huge wins over ranked opponents for PSU in the rec hall this year. I think that might’ve played big in the Lee/McKenna match. 

So would you be more impressed if Lee won in front of a hostile OSU crowd instead of Rec Hall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wrestlenewbie said:

So would you be more impressed if Lee won in front of a hostile OSU crowd instead of Rec Hall?

I’m still impressed by the win, I didn’t say I wasn’t. He controlled the entire match at the rec hall, but in the big tens McKenna controlled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, RaiderColfax said:

I’m still impressed by the win, I didn’t say I wasn’t. He controlled the entire match at the rec hall, but in the big tens McKenna controlled. 

The match wasn't in Rec Hall. It was at OSU. So if home mat played huge doesn't that makes Lee's win more impressive,  not less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wrestlenewbie said:

The match wasn't in Rec Hall. It was at OSU. So if home mat played huge doesn't that makes Lee's win more impressive,  not less?

Ohh I stand corrected! I thought it was at the rec hall. And you’re still not understanding me saying it was an impressive win. 

 

11 hours ago, RaiderColfax said:

I’m still impressed by the win, I didn’t say I wasn’t. He controlled the entire match at the rec hall, but in the big tens McKenna controlled. 

See. I just thought it was at the rec hall. I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RaiderColfax said:

I’m still impressed by the win, I didn’t say I wasn’t. He controlled the entire match at the rec hall, but in the big tens McKenna controlled. 

I disagree that Lee controlled their dual meet match. Mckenna lead the entire match but was completely gassed in the 3rd period when Lee was able to come from behind for the win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SIACfan said:

I disagree that Lee controlled their dual meet match. Mckenna lead the entire match but was completely gassed in the 3rd period when Lee was able to come from behind for the win.

McKenna controlled the first no doubt. But lees pace was non stop. That’s what gassed McKenna. McKenna took one shot in the second and lee got out of position and got down 5-1 but Lee was controlling it from the second on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that McKenna was gassed at the end of all three matches.

Last year the difference was he had riding time. Lee gave up a bad take down with 1 second left on the clock at the end of 2 to loose the lead. He tied it at 6 in the third but couldn't overcome the riding time point. 

The dual this year Lee was down 5-1 after 1 and then out scored McKenna 6-1 the rest of the way. When Lee got the final take down with about 30 seconds to go McKenna had nothing left and barely made an attempt to get off the mat.

In the B1Gs it was almost a similar story. McKenna goes up 5-1 with Lee giving up another bad take down with 3 seconds to go in the first. The difference this time is McKenna puts on a clinic on how to defend. There are at least two shots that look like he is definitely giving up 2, but he keeps wrestling and fights off the take down (Flo calls it Matrix level D). In the third McKenna is very slow to return to neutral and Lee does get the take down on his second attempt with about 2 seconds left. I think if Lee finishes the first attempt in the third we see the same ending as last time. But he didn't. And all credit goes to McKenna for stopping him.

That said, let me paint a scenario for you. Its Friday night and Lee is facing McKenna in the semis. They both wrestled Friday morning. McKenna looks bigger than Lee. That is because he is bigger. He has to cut harder to make weight. He has to stay at weight all day. Hard to do without an effect on the energy levels.  Lee is more natural at 141 and is less affected by multiple weigh ins. Now Lee avoids giving up the silly take down with zeros almost showing on the clock. It is a close match because they are closely matched, but McKenna finds himself even more gassed than normal in the third. 

Lee/Diakomiholis under the lights Saturday night. 

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.