If #9 seed Starocci wins it all, he must get OW, right?

[D3 for LU]

... by advocating for Starocci, you probably just JINXED HIM INSTEAD!!!

(Tanxs fer nuttin', Fool!)

D3

Edited March 15 by D3 for LU

[ionel]

55 minutes ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

I still think if the 9 seed wins they are the OW unless a lower seed wins it all this year. If Carter wins he has to be OW in this scenario.

If Starocci wins its cause he was the #1 wrestler all season and obviously still is/was at tourney time, nothing outstanding about the #1 winning, now if he pins & techs his way thru then sure OW.  He's the #9 seed because Cael refused to wrestle him in b10 and didn't allow him enough matches for RPI.

[JimmyCinnabon]

4 minutes ago, ionel said:

If Starocci wins its cause he was the #1 wrestler all season and obviously still is/was at tourney time, nothing outstanding about the #1 winning, now if he pins & techs his way thru then sure OW.  He's the #9 seed because Cael refused to wrestle him in b10 and didn't allow him enough matches for RPI.

He isn't the number one guy, though. If he was the number one guy he would be seeded one. If they seed him 9 then he needs to be treated like the 9 seed. Otherwise they should have seeded him as the 1 seed. People on this very forum defend the decision of him being the 9 seed and if he wins they want to treat him like he's the 1 seed? That doesn't make any sense. He's a 9 seed so let's treat him like he's the 9 seed. If he is obviously still the #1 wrestler he would be the #1 seed.

Edited March 15 by JimmyCinnabon

[ionel]

12 minutes ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

He isn't the number one guy, though. If he was the number one guy he would be seeded one. If they seed him 9 then he needs to be treated like the 9 seed. Otherwise they should have seeded him as the 1 seed. People on this very forum defend the decision of him being the 9 seed and if he wins they want to treat him like he's the 1 seed? That doesn't make any sense. He's a 9 seed so let's treat him like he's the 9 seed. If he is obviously still the #1 wrestler he would be the #1 seed.

They couldn't seed him #1, he didn't wrestle at b10 and had no rpi.  And I didn't say #1 seed, said he was the #1 ranked wrestler all season he was wrestling and maybe still is but rank no longer matters.  Maybe this was just a sneaky plan by Carl to get him OW.  

[RandolphTJones]

18 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

not gobsmacked?

 

That as well!

[Wrestleknownothing]

33 minutes ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

He isn't the number one guy, though. If he was the number one guy he would be seeded one. If they seed him 9 then he needs to be treated like the 9 seed. Otherwise they should have seeded him as the 1 seed. People on this very forum defend the decision of him being the 9 seed and if he wins they want to treat him like he's the 1 seed? That doesn't make any sense. He's a 9 seed so let's treat him like he's the 9 seed. If he is obviously still the #1 wrestler he would be the #1 seed.

The way I think about it is, Starocci is the clear best wrestler in the bracket who also failed to earn the #1 seed.

Seed and rank are often not the same concept. Freestyle is the extreme example of this. Sebastian Rivera at Worlds was seeded as high as he was because he optimized the seeding formula, not because he was "at that level". And it paid huge dividends for him at Worlds. 

Starocci failed to optimize the seeding formula.

That does not invalidate him from OW consideration, especially since he is clearly one of the most outstanding wrestlers this year, and in NCAA wrestling history, but for me his seed is not part of the consideration.

[peanut]

Crookham actually has a tough path to a title. Assuming higher seeds win, he’d have to go through:

(31) Leete

(15) Teske

(7) Bailey

(3) Orine (who’d have beaten reigning NCAA and world champ Arujau)

(1) Fix (world silver medalist)

 

Edited March 15 by peanut

[Fadzaev2]

 

On 3/14/2024 at 7:10 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

OK, in the spirit of @cowcards and his daily trivia, 24 unseeded wrestlers have won an NCAA title, but the lowest seeded wrestler to win was a #13 seed. Can you name that wrestler?

There has also been one #10, one #11, and one #12. Bonus points if you can name them.

Well, in 1994, they only seeded 12 guys, but using this years brackets, If I insert Mark Branch from 1994/167  into the same slot this year, against the number 2 seed, Mark Branch was the was the 31st seed.  That year he came in with a record of 8-9 and won his first national title.  He then went 2-2-1.  He is currently the Head Coach at Wyoming.

Edited March 16 by Fadzaev2

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 minutes ago, Fadzaev2 said:

 

Well, in 1994, they only seeded 12 guys, but using this years brackets, If I insert Mark Branch from 1994/167  into the same slot this year, against the number 2 seed, Mark Branch was the was the 31st seed.  That year he came in with a record of 8-9 and won his first national title.  He then went 2-2-1.  He is currently the Head Coach at Wyoming.

I like that one

[NM1965]

They should just already give OW to Aaron Brooks and dispense with the formality.