Non-Olympic Semi-Final Brackets

[BobDole]

Can someone that is not dead explain why the brackets aren't made like this?

Instead they just lazily plop Arujau in the bottom half forcing the #2 seed to go through the #3 seed AND the non-Olympic weight placer.

 

[nhs67]

9 minutes ago, BobDole said:

Can someone that is not dead explain why the brackets aren't made like this?

Instead they just lazily plop Arujau in the bottom half forcing the #2 seed to go through the #3 seed AND the non-Olympic weight placer.

 

I hear you entirely.  I might tweak that a bit, but it's current setup is absolutely nonsense.

EDIT: Actually I have the exact same thing.

Edited April 9 by nhs67

[nhs67]

Edited April 9 by nhs67

[nhs67]

For the weight(s) with 13, 14, or 15 in them there becomes pigtail matches.

13 VS 12
14 VS 11
15 VS 10

[nhs67]

It could be real easy to 're-seed' the consolations as well with the top two (2) seeds getting byes in the first round of consis.

In the case of there being 14 gents (65 KG), there would be eight gents right out the gate in the consis, so also re-seed by order of seeds.

In the case of there being 15 gents (74 KG), you would also re-seed with the bottom two seeds in a consi-pigtail.

Edited April 9 by nhs67

[Hammerlock3]

 

2 hours ago, BobDole said:

Can someone that is not dead explain why the brackets aren't made like this?

Instead they just lazily plop Arujau in the bottom half forcing the #2 seed to go through the #3 seed AND the non-Olympic weight placer.

 

I talk about this in another topic, I think the core idea is that they have to treat the alien from another weight as a wild card. There are good reasons for this. I likely haven't had a lot of recent head to heads, and most of all, there is no way to tell for any them whether they are gonna be a juggernaut or a skeleton at the new weight. Even if we knew how much they were cutting it would be hard to tell what aspects of recovery would be compromised, bad weight cuts can come out of nowhere.

So if you've made that decision, which is sort of a punt but also sort of prudent if you acknowledge that seeding them in would be even more of a crap shoot than usual, the smart thing becomes preserving the integrity of the seeds and keeping the wildcard as far away from the one seed as possible.

[BobDole]

4 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

 

I talk about this in another topic, I think the core idea is that they have to treat the alien from another weight as a wild card. There are good reasons for this. I likely haven't had a lot of recent head to heads, and most of all, there is no way to tell for any them whether they are gonna be a juggernaut or a skeleton at the new weight. Even if we knew how much they were cutting it would be hard to tell what aspects of recovery would be compromised, bad weight cuts can come out of nowhere.

So if you've made that decision, which is sort of a punt but also sort of prudent if you acknowledge that seeding them in would be even more of a crap shoot than usual, the smart thing becomes preserving the integrity of the seeds and keeping the wildcard as far away from the one seed as possible.

At any weight this is happening you can with a lot of confidence say that the wrestler in this case is a top 3 seed. You can say that about Retherford and Valencia also. They really shouldn't be the #1 with a lack of results as you state and I agree with. That puts them in as a 2/3 seed which is fair and justified based upon their performances.

With the way that USAW is doing the bracket they are forcing the #2 and #3 guys to wrestle just to get to another top 3 guy. On top of that the bottom half bracket wrestlers would be wrestling an extra match to get to the finals. This gives an extreme advantage to the top half of the bracket by putting 3 of the top 4 wrestlers on the same side. 

 

 

[Caveira]

If you fix the seeds.  I.e medal winner #1.    Make sure #1 has bye to semi… I.e no 8,9,16 seed.  Aren’t the matchups in quarters the same as it is here ?   Semis are flipped though but this doesn’t seem all that wrong.  

[Hammerlock3]

29 minutes ago, BobDole said:

This gives an extreme advantage to the top half of the bracket by putting 3 of the top 4 wrestlers on the same side. 

 

 

Yes this is true and bad. The benefit of it however is that preserves the integrity of of everything the seeders are willing to take responsibility for. Not saying thats good, just guessing as to the logic.

My biggest problem with this scenario is that you are giving someone who is probably enormous a weigh in completely dissimilar to what they have at worlds. Shouldnt we be screening for whether or not these people can move after a 2 hour weigh in? Conversely, if Marstellar had placed and gone up, we'd be dropping someone with NO chance of winning into the semis.

Anyway as evidenced by the way we need to resort to guessing and inventing new pseudo sciences to exaplain it means dropping these people into the semi's is stupid.

[Hammerlock3]

Another thing that occurred to me which is maybe part of the rationale but still is not good, no matter what happens the seeders are vindicated. Alein beats 2? His spot in the bracket is justified and the procedure was right (even if its because he didn't have to wrestle that morning)! He loses, well the seeds held so the seeders were right."

Lets say you seed everyone, drop the alien in at the 3, and he gets teched in the first round cause he can't move....who looks stupid then?

[BobDole]

5 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

Another thing that occurred to me which is maybe part of the rationale but still is not good, no matter what happens the seeders are vindicated. Alein beats 2? His spot in the bracket is justified and the procedure was right (even if its because he didn't have to wrestle that morning)! He loses, well the seeds held so the seeders were right."

Lets say you seed everyone, drop the alien in at the 3, and he gets teched in the first round cause he can't move....who looks stupid then?

The reasoning you suggest would still fit with the RIGHT way of doing it as they would get beat by a #2 or #5 seed and thus the justification of it being fine. 

I'm thinking they were just lazy and didn't want to do it correctly so they just plopped them in as they felt would be easiest. The quarter bracket that has to wrestle an extra round is at an extreme disadvantage and seems illogical in trying to get the best into the finals.

[Hammerlock3]

1 minute ago, BobDole said:

The reasoning you suggest would still fit with the RIGHT way of doing it as they would get beat by a #2 or #5 seed and thus the justification of it being fine. 

I'm thinking they were just lazy and didn't want to do it correctly so they just plopped them in as they felt would be easiest. The quarter bracket that has to wrestle an extra round is at an extreme disadvantage and seems illogical in trying to get the best into the finals.

If you do it the right way (notice I didn't put right way in quotes), you lose the 2/3 matchup, which is the most contentious one typically. I'd disagree with you slightly about getting the best guys into the finals. No one is gonna be annoyed when the one seed makes it, and overloading the bottom means whoever emerges is gonna seem legit. But yes if i was in charge i'd make em seed the whole thing and sit no one out, then seed the whole thing with the alein in an empty quarter, then your way, fourth best would be the way they're doing it apparently.

[BobDole]

6 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

If you do it the right way (notice I didn't put right way in quotes), you lose the 2/3 matchup, which is the most contentious one typically. I'd disagree with you slightly about getting the best guys into the finals. No one is gonna be annoyed when the one seed makes it, and overloading the bottom means whoever emerges is gonna seem legit. But yes if i was in charge i'd make em seed the whole thing and sit no one out, then seed the whole thing with the alein in an empty quarter, then your way, fourth best would be the way they're doing it apparently.

I like giving a medalist at another weight the bye to the semi-finals. It helps us get the best possible team for the prior year at Worlds. This doesn't punish them for going after a world medal and capturing it.

As far as the 2 vs. 3 match being the best, you are right. However, we all can likely agree that all of the "aliens" as you put it are top three guys. We do want as close to the best in the finals, especially at 57kg and 65kg where those are best of three matches.

Punishing one half of the bracket seems very illogical and unfair to the 2nd and 3rd seeds who have proven they are contenders for a spot on the Olympic team. This honestly gives a 4 or 5 seed a better path than a 3 seed to the finals.

[Eagle26]

4 hours ago, Caveira said:

If you fix the seeds.  I.e medal winner #1.    Make sure #1 has bye to semi… I.e no 8,9,16 seed.  Aren’t the matchups in quarters the same as it is here ?   Semis are flipped though but this doesn’t seem all that wrong.  

The problem is with wrestle backs and all those byes. But I agree, they could do much better

[Wrestleknownothing]

 

 

 

 

I had forgotten how strange these OTT brackets are when there is a semi-finalist laying in wait.

The way they have it set up means at 57kg:

• Arujau gets a triple bye,
• Richards and Suriano get a double bye,
• Fix and Gilman get a single bye,
• The #5, #8, #9, #12 all get a single bye,
• But the #6, #7, #10, #11 do not get a bye.

At 65kg:

• Retherford gets a triple bye,
• Lee gets a double bye,
• Alirez and Diakomihalis get a single bye,
• The #4, #5, #8, #9, #12, #13 all get a single bye,
• But the #6, #7, #10, #11 do not get a bye.

 

[Eagle26]

Here’s how I think the seeds should be set up

[gromit]

nm

Edited April 10 by gromit