Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

Who will be the At-large Selections


Recommended Posts

The quality win criteria for seeding is based on national qualifiers right?  Interesting IMO that Vito has a few wins over some bubble guys that could impact his seeding if they don’t get at larges.  One being Leiphart of F&M who earned an allocation but might not qualify.  Also Kade Moore and Julian Farber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

The quality win criteria for seeding is based on national qualifiers right?  Interesting IMO that Vito has a few wins over some bubble guys that could impact his seeding if they don’t get at larges.  One being Leiphart of F&M who earned an allocation but might not qualify.  Also Kade Moore and Julian Farber.

Correct, they first determine the at-large and then use wins against the other 32 in the field as the definition of quality wins.

There is also a weighting scheme for quality wins. For example, a win over someone with a 90% win %, or a top 5 in CR or RPI counts twice as much as a win over someone with a 70% win %, or 11-15 in CR or RPI.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

From the NCAA Championship webinar:

image.thumb.png.34c850d89e8233bb61d46a06161167e5.png

So we get the field sometime today and the seeding starting at 8 ET tomorrow.

 

I know you are just copying this but I am curious to know how the wrestling committee can begin selections (at-large bids) before the coaches ranking portal closes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bracketbuster said:

I know you are just copying this but I am curious to know how the wrestling committee can begin selections (at-large bids) before the coaches ranking portal closes.

Good point. This is such a complicated process (perhaps overly so), that I can see them wanting to get a jump on it with the previous CR, and then updating the results when the new CR is ready. But just guessing.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, bracketbuster said:

I know you are just copying this but I am curious to know how the wrestling committee can begin selections (at-large bids) before the coaches ranking portal closes.

I assume that since the Coaches Ranking isn't the only factor they can begin figuring out who qualifies without final ranking details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CraigOR said:

A wrestler must have participated in at least two matches in his respective conference or qualifying tournament in order to be considered for at-large selection to the championships.

I guess we'll find out later today whether three seconds' worth of defaults counts as participation.

Edited by jdalu75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jdalu75 said:

I guess we'll find out later today whether three seconds' worth of defaults counts as participation.

Yeah, it seems like the whole purpose of the rule change was to better clarify what needs to have occurred.  What Starocci did was not in line with that clarification.  What scenario was the change supposed to address?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigRedFan said:

Yeah, it seems like the whole purpose of the rule change was to better clarify what needs to have occurred.  What Starocci did was not in line with that clarification.  What scenario was the change supposed to address?

My understanding was that having wrestlers being required to wrestle two matches to their natural conclusion didn't make it through Competitive Safeguards.

That being said, what would stop an injured wrestler from simply falling backwards at the start of the match and letting the opponent pin him twice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

Yeah, it seems like the whole purpose of the rule change was to better clarify what needs to have occurred.  What Starocci did was not in line with that clarification.  What scenario was the change supposed to address?

I think it addressed having to only take one loss. With the new rule you have to take two. Not a problem for an undefeated wrestler, but an issue for someone on the bubble.

Based on what @gimpeltf said in an earlier thread (and feel free to set me straight here, Gimp) the committee could allow the 2 injury default wrestler to be considered as having participated if they deemed he would be fit enough to wrestle at the NCAA tournament, or say he did not participate if they feel he would not be fit enough to wrestle at the NCAA tournament (call it the Suriano Clause). 

If that is accurate, then Starocci seems to fit in the former category based on what we have learned about his not wrestling at B1G. 

I just think this is a grey area when some want it to be black and white.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

Yeah, it seems like the whole purpose of the rule change was to better clarify what needs to have occurred.  What Starocci did was not in line with that clarification.  What scenario was the change supposed to address?

The rule change was  to help with tournaments, cklv, big 10s etc. Wrestlers would just injury default out and it wouldn't get held against their record. Now they can't do that without taking Ls.

Edited by jajensen09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said:

That being said, what would stop an injured wrestler from simply falling backwards at the start of the match and letting the opponent pin him twice?

Double Pinfall!!    😲

does Wkn know?  

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jajensen09 said:

The rule change was  to help with tournaments, cklv, big 10s etc. Wrestlers would just injury default out and it wouldn't get held against their record. Now they can't do that without taking Ls.

I believe he is referring to the criteria change specific to conference tournaments. Which I do not think is a rule. Whereas what you are referring to is a rule change. Hence the confusion.

  • Bob 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wask Vs. Wilson (Based on last RPI and Coaches Rankings:
The Criteria :

.700 Win % - Neither (Wask @ 67.65% & Wilson @ 57.14%)
● Top 33 RPI  - Wask -10th, Wilson - 19th
● Top 33 CR -  Wask - 26th Wilson - 31st
● .700 winning percentage against all competition - Neither 
● One win against a wrestler receiving an earned position (pre-allocated): Wask has 2 and Wilson has 1. 
● Qualifying event placement one below number of pre-allocated spots: They Both did. 

So by that Criteria It looks like Wask over Wilson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, killdozer said:

Wask Vs. Wilson (Based on last RPI and Coaches Rankings:
The Criteria :

.700 Win % - Neither (Wask @ 67.65% & Wilson @ 57.14%)
● Top 33 RPI  - Wask -10th, Wilson - 19th
● Top 33 CR -  Wask - 26th Wilson - 31st
● .700 winning percentage against all competition - Neither 
● One win against a wrestler receiving an earned position (pre-allocated): Wask has 2 and Wilson has 1. 
● Qualifying event placement one below number of pre-allocated spots: They Both did. 

So by that Criteria It looks like Wask over Wilson. 

Seems like Bubba has 2 as well. Also flo now has bubba ranked 18th. Will see if coaches poll follows 

Screenshot_20240312_134016_Facebook.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it addressed having to only take one loss. With the new rule you have to take two. Not a problem for an undefeated wrestler, but an issue for someone on the bubble.
Based on what [mention=42]gimpeltf[/mention] said in an earlier thread (and feel free to set me straight here, Gimp) the committee could allow the 2 injury default wrestler to be considered as having participated if they deemed he would be fit enough to wrestle at the NCAA tournament, or say he did not participate if they feel he would not be fit enough to wrestle at the NCAA tournament (call it the Suriano Clause). 
If that is accurate, then Starocci seems to fit in the former category based on what we have learned about his not wrestling at B1G. 
I just think this is a grey area when some want it to be black and white.
The zoom was somewhat vague as you suggest. It was said that defaulting twice didn't mean you would automatically be accepted and that the committee would take two defaults into account when deciding and that someone doing that would be doing so at their own risk (paraphrasing).
BTW, I suddenly can't seem to post on the online forum. I'm on Tapatalk here. In the last few hours I suddenly got email notifications from Tapatalk about this post of yours for example which I never got earlier and never asked for. Any ideas? (Anyone not just wkn)

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, killdozer said:

Wask Vs. Wilson (Based on last RPI and Coaches Rankings:
The Criteria :

.700 Win % - Neither (Wask @ 67.65% & Wilson @ 57.14%)
● Top 33 RPI  - Wask -10th, Wilson - 19th
● Top 33 CR -  Wask - 26th Wilson - 31st
● .700 winning percentage against all competition - Neither 
● One win against a wrestler receiving an earned position (pre-allocated): Wask has 2 and Wilson has 1. 
● Qualifying event placement one below number of pre-allocated spots: They Both did. 

So by that Criteria It looks like Wask over Wilson. 

Bubba also has a common opponent over wask

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, killdozer said:

Wask Vs. Wilson (Based on last RPI and Coaches Rankings:
The Criteria :

.700 Win % - Neither (Wask @ 67.65% & Wilson @ 57.14%)
● Top 33 RPI  - Wask -10th, Wilson - 19th
● Top 33 CR -  Wask - 26th Wilson - 31st
● .700 winning percentage against all competition - Neither 
● One win against a wrestler receiving an earned position (pre-allocated): Wask has 2 and Wilson has 1. 
● Qualifying event placement one below number of pre-allocated spots: They Both did. 

So by that Criteria It looks like Wask over Wilson. 

How did you come up with the name Killdozer? Are you from Granby ,Colorado?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would have to imagine that Cael and Co., asked for and received some clarification prior to making the Starocci/B1G decision, right? 

The NCAA committees have been known to provide clarifications about the process to the conferences/schools that aren't made public. Perhaps this issue is one of those times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Wask has three wins against the field. 

The name Killdozer is from an 80's/90's Noise Rock band from Madison WI (I am not from there) that was on Touch and Go Records. 

They are featured as the closing credits song in the Movie "Old School)

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...