D1 Brackets Released

[maligned]

Brackets for nationals came out tonight: 

 

Indiana natives:

C. Rooks, #32

Lemley, #8

Mendez, #1

G. Rooks, #17

Lee, #11

Baumann, #32

Bates, #33

Allred, #10

Davison, #10

Willham, #32

 

Others from Purdue:

Ramos #4

Clark #29

Blaze #23

Buell #24

 

Others from IU:

Fongaro #23

Lillard #17

 

Edited March 14 by maligned

[Ahap88]

Not Indiana related, but Mekhi Lewis' prize for getting the 1 seed is facing Starocci in quarters. They should have made Carter the 2 or 3 to keep that from happening. Borderline criminal.

[Ahap88]

Also, Vito the 6? Somebody's smokin' it.

[BIGCATSontheMAT]

2 hours ago, Ahap88 said:

Not Indiana related, but Mekhi Lewis' prize for getting the 1 seed is facing Starocci in quarters. They should have made Carter the 2 or 3 to keep that from happening. Borderline criminal.

Giving Carter a 2-3 as an at large would’ve been just as crazy as the 9. Yes he’s definitely the best wrestler in that but I think they should’ve gave him like the 10 so he would’ve been on the opposite side as Lewis

[maligned]

8 hours ago, Ahap88 said:

Not Indiana related, but Mekhi Lewis' prize for getting the 1 seed is facing Starocci in quarters. They should have made Carter the 2 or 3 to keep that from happening. Borderline criminal.

 

7 hours ago, Ahap88 said:

Also, Vito the 6? Somebody's smokin' it.

They're very rigid with their seeding formula because it's very intuitive in slotting guys correctly--IF the top guys have all wrestled a lot of matches and seen other top guys. But it rigidly considers MFFs at conference tournaments the same as regular losses, and it blindly ignores previous years' results or non-NCAA matches like the All-Star classic. So if Carr or Arujau haven't seen this year's top guys and theyve lost twice, they get put behind the undefeated or one-loss guys.

Edited March 14 by maligned

[smitty11]

Maybe Lemley vs. Mendez in the quarters??

[SIACfan]

3 hours ago, maligned said:

 

...So if Carr or Arujau haven't seen this year's top guys and theyve lost twice, they get put behind the undefeated or one-loss guys.

 

But in Vito's case his only 2 losses are to undefeated & 2nd seeded Ryan Crookham. Yet he is seeded behind Orine, Shawver & Ragusin who all have 2 or more losses as well & to lower ranked guys.

 

I understand him being ranked behind Fix & Crookham but not the other three.

 

Carr's 4 seed makes sense given O'Toole & Mesenbrink are undefeated & he lost to Ramirez.

[SIACfan]

Starocci is a major wildcard this year. Clearly he is the cream of the weight class but the extent of the injury is unknown to most of us. And Lewis is way to good to beat if Starocci is not close to 100%.

 

If this injury prevents him from becoming a 4-timer it is a perfect example of why there are so few of them. Even if you have the supreme talent to get it done, it doesn't ensure you won't avoid this type of scenario.

[AJ]

174 is a tale of two brackets!!!!  Wow one side is loaded!!!!

[maligned]

36 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

 

But in Vito's case his only 2 losses are to undefeated & 2nd seeded Ryan Crookham. Yet he is seeded behind Orine, Shawver & Ragusin who all have 2 or more losses as well & to lower ranked guys.

 

I understand him being ranked behind Fix & Crookham but not the other three.

The criteria is biased against guys like Vito with limited matches wrestled also:

 

Head-to-head competition — 25 percent

Quality wins — 20 percent

Coaches Ranking — 15 percent

Results against common opponents — 10 percent

RPI — 10 percent

Qualifying event placement — 10 percent

Win % — 10 percent

 

If you put him up against Orine and Shawver, for example, Vito loses quality wins (20 percent), Win% (10 percent), Qualifying event placement (10 percent). He wins Coaches rank (15) and possibly RPI (10). There are no head-to-heads and common opponents are most likely a wash because Vito didn't face many guys. There are a couple nuances with how these things get applied, but you see how it's an uphill battle for a guy with the two negatives of 1) limited matches wrestled and 2) a loss or two on his record.

[SIACfan]

37 minutes ago, maligned said:

The criteria is biased against guys like Vito with limited matches wrestled also:

 

Head-to-head competition — 25 percent

Quality wins — 20 percent

Coaches Ranking — 15 percent

Results against common opponents — 10 percent

RPI — 10 percent

Qualifying event placement — 10 percent

Win % — 10 percent

 

If you put him up against Orine and Shawver, for example, Vito loses quality wins (20 percent), Win% (10 percent), Qualifying event placement (10 percent). He wins Coaches rank (15) and possibly RPI (10). There are no head-to-heads and common opponents are most likely a wash because Vito didn't face many guys. There are a couple nuances with how these things get applied, but you see how it's an uphill battle for a guy with the two negatives of 1) limited matches wrestled and 2) a loss or two on his record.

 

I am not saying his seed is wrong based on their seeding criteria. I am just saying it doesn't appear right to me.

 

I find it interesting that quality losses are not considered. IMO the quality of your losses are more telling than Win%, RPI, Qualifying event placement, or even Quality wins.

 

Example, Vito is 13-2 while Ragusin is 21-2. But Ragusin's losses are to Van Dee & Shawver while Vito's are both to Crookham. In my book that clearly puts Vito ahead of Ragusin.

 

Then when you consider Shawver has 5 losses (3 of which are to guys outside of the top 15), while Vito has a better Win% & much better losses - Vito > Shawver.

 

With Orine at 15-2 it is probably less apparent. His losses are to Fix & Bouzakis, but Vito should get a slight edge here with both to Crookham. And Win% is less than 2% different.

 

Again based on the criteria you posted, his seed may be correct but I just don't agree with it. But I admit that past results prior to this year are playing into my thought process as well.

[maligned]

12 minutes ago, SIACfan said:

 

 

Again based on the criteria you posted, his seed may be correct but I just don't agree with it. But I admit that past results prior to this year are playing into my thought process as well.

This is 100% the issue. The seeding assumes there will be enough matches wrestled for the criteria to play itself out correctly. But often there aren't enough matches and the seeding ends up looking mechanical instead of intuitive--because we all know the past years' results.

 

The seeding is determined by putting each guy's results against each other guy's results and seeing who wins the most head-to-head criteria "battles." If I were in charge, I would take some points away from a few criteria and include about 20% for a new element: if they were in the same weight as each other in the previous year and if at least one was AA, who placed higher? That simple piece of knowledge is what makes human rankings seem more intuitive than the seeds.

[maligned]

...and honestly you could even just use that "who placed higher last year?" as a stand-in for head-to-head if there's no current-year head-to-head. Then you wouldn't need to even change the rest.

 

It would just have to be super-restricted to only the scenario where at least one was AA and they wrestled in the same bracket as each other the prior year.

Edited March 14 by maligned

[Ahap88]

11 hours ago, BIGCATSontheMAT said:

Giving Carter a 2-3 as an at large would’ve been just as crazy as the 9. Yes he’s definitely the best wrestler in that but I think they should’ve gave him like the 10 so he would’ve been on the opposite side as Lewis

Agreed. Anything that puts him in the bottom bracket. Lewis now is robbed of the benefit that the 1 seed is supposed to provide, the easiest path, he would have been far better off as the 2. Sure, you have to beat everybody, but shouldn’t have to face the guy everyone knows is the best until the final. They factored in everything but common sense.