Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

No more seeds


Mr. PeanutButter

Recommended Posts

I didn't crunch the numbers on this but it seems to me that ducking accelerated once NCAAs started to seed out to all 33.

I would propose we go back to seeding the top 8 since having no seeds whatsoever doesn't actually incentivize wrestling. 

Perhaps seeding should be based on a team's record at each weightclass rather than on an individual wrestler'S record at that weightclass. Ie, if a team ducks at 133, whatever happens at that weight (a loss, for instance) goes on the record for the weight and is taken into account for seeding purposes. I really like this idea. Call it, the peanut butter rule. Make losses (and wins) really stick. 

 

  • Fire 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

I didn't crunch the numbers on this but it seems to me that ducking accelerated once NCAAs started to seed out to all 33.

I would propose we go back to seeding the top 8 since having no seeds whatsoever doesn't actually incentivize wrestling. 

Perhaps seeding should be based on a team's record at each weightclass rather than on an individual wrestler'S record at that weightclass. Ie, if a team ducks at 133, whatever happens at that weight (a loss, for instance) goes on the record for the weight and is taken into account for seeding purposes. I really like this idea. Call it, the peanut butter rule. Make losses (and wins) really stick. 

 

Team success at a weight class for seeding purposes is a brilliant idea. A+

Edited by Gus
  • Fire 3
  • Clown 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gus said:

Team success at a team class for seeding purposes is a brilliant idea. A+

I agree - excellent idea.  Only downside is you have some stud pinning everyone all year - gets seriously injured - and some skimpy backup steps up as the number one seed.  But I think that downside is worth it considering the upsides

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

I didn't crunch the numbers on this but it seems to me that ducking accelerated once NCAAs started to seed out to all 33.

I would propose we go back to seeding the top 8 since having no seeds whatsoever doesn't actually incentivize wrestling. 

Perhaps seeding should be based on a team's record at each weightclass rather than on an individual wrestler'S record at that weightclass. Ie, if a team ducks at 133, whatever happens at that weight (a loss, for instance) goes on the record for the weight and is taken into account for seeding purposes. I really like this idea. Call it, the peanut butter rule. Make losses (and wins) really stick. 

 

I have advocated for this at the conference level for damn near ever.  You could go back to the late 80s and I would have told you the same thing.

"I know actually nothing.  It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

 

Perhaps seeding should be based on a team's record at each weightclass rather than on an individual wrestler'S record at that weightclass. 

 

I've said this for years, hasn't happened, prob never gonna happen.

Why do we even have 33 vs just 32?  Its stupid.  I'd compromise say seed 12 but again 8 ... 12 ... never gonna happen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

I agree - excellent idea.  Only downside is you have some stud pinning everyone all year - gets seriously injured - and some skimpy backup steps up as the number one seed.  But I think that downside is worth it considering the upsides

Another possible downside is it will disincentivize bumping guys for dual victories.  Not that that happens a lot anyway.

Will also disincentivize getting lesser guys matches in likely blowouts.

But overall I think I like the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jchapman said:

So it's just record, not the quality of the wins?  

I think quality of wins would still matter 100%, you would just have to count the losses where a team decided to sit their starter into the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gus said:

I think quality of wins would still matter 100%, you would just have to count the losses where a team decided to sit their starter into the equation.

So there would still be individual rankings, but the seeding is based only on the result of the team?  So a #1 ranked guy could beat a #2 ranked guy, get hurt, and then his backup gets seeded as though he himself beat the #2 guy?

Craig Henning got screwed in the 2007 NCAA Finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thinking out loud, but what about keeping seeds and incentivizing wins and quality wins--don't punish losses at all?  Just seed based on who has the most wins weighted for quality.  This way guys will be encouraged to get as many wins as they can--particularly the quality wins--and no downside for losing.  Put in some guardrails for allowable number of matches so guys don't wrestle too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hillbilly Jim said:

Just thinking out loud, but what about keeping seeds and incentivizing wins and quality wins--don't punish losses at all?  Just seed based on who has the most wins weighted for quality.  This way guys will be encouraged to get as many wins as they can--particularly the quality wins--and no downside for losing.  Put in some guardrails for allowable number of matches so guys don't wrestle too much.

I like it but how about 32 man bracket, seed 16 and use you wins only approach? 

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
  • Playwire Ad Area


  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...