flyingcement Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 https://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling/article/2023-02-23/ncaa-division-i-wrestling-committee-releases-qualifying-tournament-allocations-2023 CONFERENCE 125 133 141 149 157 165 174 184 197 285 TOTAL Atlantic Coast Conference 2 3 4 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 34 Big 12 Conference 6 5 7 7 7 8 6 4 6 8 64 Big Ten Conference 9 9 9 9 10 8 7 9 9 9 88 Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association 6 5 5 2 3 5 4 4 5 6 45 Mid-American Conference 2 1 2 5 4 1 4 2 1 1 23 Pacific-12 Conference 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 18 Southern Conference 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 12 Pre-Allocations 29 28 29 29 29 28 28 26 29 29 284 At-Large 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 7 4 4 46 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 Big 12 has increased their allocations by almost 50% since 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizzouFan01 Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 10 minutes ago, Gus said: Big 12 has increased their allocations by almost 50% since 2021. Would that be the addition of Mizzou to the conference? I would assume the Mac number of allocations decreased to them leaving. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 12 minutes ago, MizzouFan01 said: Would that be the addition of Mizzou to the conference? I would assume the Mac number of allocations decreased to them leaving. It is certainly a factor. Mizzou presumably added 9 spots this year. In 2021 I believe the number of allocations was 45 for Big 12 nationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Deck Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 Big 12 in 2021, 2022, 2023 - 45, 58, 64 MAC - 35, 22, 23 Wonder how much wrestling Mizzou during the season helped MAC and now Big 12 schools. Looks like even outside of that, the Big 12 is improving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 PAC 12 and others getting only one person at a weight, seems not right. Maybe at large takes care of any inequities. But doesn't seem right to me. They should take top 2 at the least. mspart 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 40 minutes ago, mspart said: PAC 12 and others getting only one person at a weight, seems not right. Maybe at large takes care of any inequities. But doesn't seem right to me. They should take top 2 at the least. mspart Just going through Wrestlestat in regards to PAC-12. There is 1 per weight at 141, 149, 157, 184, & HWT. The weight class that seems strange to not have at least 2 AQ's is 149. The rest of the weights make sense at only have one based on the quality of conference at the weight. 141 - PAC-12 has 1 guy in top 33 Vasquez ASU at #23 149 - PAC-12 has 3 guys in top 33 Parco ASU #5, Abas Stanford #16, Demas Cal Poly #17 157 - PAC-12 has 1 guy Cardenas Stanford #7 184 - PAC-12 has 2 guys Munoz Oregon St #6, Montalovo ASU #25 HWT - PAC-12 has 2 guys Shultz ASU #6, Tinker Cal Poly #30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 58 minutes ago, mspart said: PAC 12 and others getting only one person at a weight, seems not right. Maybe at large takes care of any inequities. But doesn't seem right to me. They should take top 2 at the least. mspart Inequities? Thank God the tournament isn’t about equality or egalitarianism, it’s about merit. The B1G has 13 wrestlers in the top 33 according to intermat, they get 10 AQs; the Pac12 has one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warm Up Champ Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, mspart said: PAC 12 and others getting only one person at a weight, seems not right. Maybe at large takes care of any inequities. But doesn't seem right to me. They should take top 2 at the least. mspart Yeah, tough road at some of those weights. 149 has one qualifier and has Parco, Abas, and Demas in the bracket. Sorry, I just saw that Gus posted this above.... Edited February 23, 2023 by Warm Up Champ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 16 minutes ago, Offthemat said: Inequities? Thank God the tournament isn’t about equality or egalitarianism, it’s about merit. The B1G has 13 wrestlers in the top 33 according to intermat, they get 10 AQs; the Pac12 has one. I left out that the weight i was referring to is 157. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bryant Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 They corrected 149, ACC down to 3, Pac-12 back to 2. Insert catchy tagline here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 18 minutes ago, Offthemat said: Inequities? Thank God the tournament isn’t about equality or egalitarianism, it’s about merit. The B1G has 13 wrestlers in the top 33 according to intermat, they get 10 AQs; the Pac12 has one. If there are only 8AA spots then why does any conference need more than 8 qualifiers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 They’re greedy for their points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 If the rankings are any good at all, they could just include the top 32 and fill the bracket. That way conferences don't get auto bids, the top guys do. As in the case of 149, pac -12 should send 3. Maybe the correction takes this into account. Just seems like a weird way to do it. Yes, I understand B1G is the best and will have the most qualifiers. I think doing this by conference is wrong. Do it by individual ranking, if those are any good at all. mspart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idaho Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Gus said: Just going through Wrestlestat in regards to PAC-12. There is 1 per weight at 141, 149, 157, 184, & HWT. The weight class that seems strange to not have at least 2 AQ's is 149. The rest of the weights make sense at only have one based on the quality of conference at the weight. 141 - PAC-12 has 1 guy in top 33 Vasquez ASU at #23 149 - PAC-12 has 3 guys in top 33 Parco ASU #5, Abas Stanford #16, Demas Cal Poly #17 157 - PAC-12 has 1 guy Cardenas Stanford #7 184 - PAC-12 has 2 guys Munoz Oregon St #6, Montalovo ASU #25 HWT - PAC-12 has 2 guys Shultz ASU #6, Tinker Cal Poly #30 The NCAA article is now showing that the Pac-12 has 2 at 149..... Belton, Montalvo, Tinker and Demas are all bubble guys that were close to getting allocations. It will depend on how conferences go, but I can see those guys getting at-larges if they place 2nd or 3rd (149) in the conference. https://www.ncaa.com/news/wrestling/article/2023-02-23/ncaa-division-i-wrestling-committee-releases-qualifying-tournament-allocations-2023 1 Sponsored by INTERMAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formally140 Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 53 minutes ago, mspart said: If the rankings are any good at all, they could just include the top 32 and fill the bracket. That way conferences don't get auto bids, the top guys do. As in the case of 149, pac -12 should send 3. Maybe the correction takes this into account. Just seems like a weird way to do it. Yes, I understand B1G is the best and will have the most qualifiers. I think doing this by conference is wrong. Do it by individual ranking, if those are any good at all. mspart I mean, if you don’t care about keeping a modicum of competitive balance and want the sport to shrink.. sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SetonHallPirate Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 6 hours ago, Gus said: It is certainly a factor. Mizzou presumably added 9 spots this year. In 2021 I believe the number of allocations was 45 for Big 12 nationals. 2021 is a bad year to use…that was the year they were forced to use historical data due to the truncated season. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingcement Posted February 24, 2023 Author Share Posted February 24, 2023 4 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said: 2021 is a bad year to use…that was the year they were forced to use historical data due to the truncated season. Plus no ivys 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SetonHallPirate Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 4 minutes ago, flyingcement said: Plus no ivys True, but the EIWA still got the Ivy’s bids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 12 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said: 2021 is a bad year to use…that was the year they were forced to use historical data due to the truncated season. Okay, if we go back a couple more years to 2018 it was 45 for Big 12. The Big 12 has been adding more affiliate teams over the years so the allotment keeps changing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingcement Posted February 24, 2023 Author Share Posted February 24, 2023 8 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said: True, but the EIWA still got the Ivy’s bids. Good point. My argument is only valid that year from a placement standpoint but not qualifying standpoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracketbuster Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Using this list by @SetonHallPirate: https://wrestlingbypirate.wordpress.com/ Here are the guys who are going to have to "steal" to get an AQ from the coaches ranking (includes those outside the cutline). There were only three guys who qualified a spot for their conference without having a coaches ranking: Caleb Dowling (West Virginia; 157), Logan Messer (George Mason; 174 lbs.), and Will Miller (Appalachian State; 174 lbs.). 125 lbs. 14. Michael DeAugustino (Northwestern) 30. Eddie Ventresca (Virginia Tech) 31. Anthony Molton (Campbell) 33. Kase Mauger (Utah Valley) 133. 19. RayVon Foley (Michigan St.) 24. Ethan Oakley (App State) 29. Wyatt Henson (Oklahoma) 32. Kyle Burwick (Nebraska) 33. Angelo Rini (Columbia) 141. 10. Frankie Tal Shahar (Northwestern) 29. Cleveland Belton (Oregon St.) 31. Jordan Titus (West Virginia) 33. Zach Price (Gardner-Webb) 149 lbs. 24. Dom Demas (Cal Poly) 29. Jarod Verkleeren (Virginia) 31. Alec Hagan (Ohio) 32. Dylan Martinez (Air Force) 157 lbs. 12. Cobe Siebrecht (Iowa) 20. Brayton Lee (Minnesota) 29. Jason Kraisser (Iowa St.) 30. Andrew Cerniglia (Navy) 31. Michael North (Maryland) 165 lbs. 28. Andrew Sparks (Minnesota) 29. Rodrick Mosley (Gardner-Webb) 30. Matthew Singleton (NC State) 31. Avery Bassett (Lock Haven) 33. Bubba Wilson (Nebraska) 174 lbs. 15. Nelson Brands (Iowa) 22. Tate Picklo (Oklahoma) 23. Andrew Berreyesa (Northern Colo.) 24. Clay Lautt (North Carolina) 31. Cael Valencia (Arizona St.) 32. Philip Conigliaro (Harvard) 33. Lennox Wolak (Columbia) 184 lbs. 25. Colton Hawks (Missouri) 27. Deanthony Parker Jr (North Dakota St.) 29. David Key (Navy) 30. Caleb Hopkins (Campbell) 31. Anthony Carman (West Virginia) 32. Anthony Montalvo (Arizona St.) 33. Jha`Quan Anderson (Gardner-Webb) 197 lbs. 30. Andrew Davison (Northwestern) 31. Cole Urbas (Penn) 32. Austin Cooley (West Virginia) 33. Tyler Bagoly (Clarion) 285 lbs. 30. Juan Mora (North Dakota St.) 31. Garrett Joles (Minnesota) 32. Isaac Reid (Lock Haven) 33. Travis Stefanik (Princeton) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1032004 Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Looks like Northwestern should’ve went to the last chance open? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idaho Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 They don't necessarily have to steal an AQ at the conference tournament to get in - If they finish one place outside of the allocations at conference (i.e. 4th when there are 3) they would still have a good shot at an at-large depending on who got upset at the conferences. Of course the best way to get in is to earn it and steal the spot at conference, but they still have a shot at an at-large if they place outside the allocation number. Sponsored by INTERMAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SetonHallPirate Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 56 minutes ago, 1032004 said: Looks like Northwestern should’ve went to the last chance open? DeAugustino actually did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now