Big Ten Seedings

[Fink]

Starting to think about the Big Ten Tourney and seeding. It could be a mess this year -- Rivera no matches, DeSanto missed 3 duals, several mid-season lineup switches. What if Berge comes back, how do you seed him?

What do you do at 133?

Gross 7-1 in Big 10 duals plus avenged conference loss and beat Rivera at Midlands)
RBY 6-1 loss to Gross, beat DeSanto when AD injury defaulted or
DeSanto 5-1 beat Gross in dual, lost at Midlands -- Inj def to RBY
Piotrowski 8-0 in Big 10 duals -- RBY did not wrestle that match, Piotrowski did not meet Gross or AD
Rivera 0-0 lost to Gross and Piotrowski (inj) at Midlands

Can Rivera be ahead of Lovett or Alvarez? Could Piotrowski be top 3?

184 -- is Brooks the 1 or Caffey, Assad, Venz and Jordan all pretty similar for 3-5.

285 -- Parris or Gable the 1 -- both undefeated but Gable didn't wrestle Parris

What about Shak at 197? 4-3 with Moore left
Schultz 6-1 wins over Warner & Shak, loss to Moore
Warner 6-1 win over Shak didn't wrestle Moore (sat out)
Davison 6-1 win over Shak, loss to Moore didn't wrestle Schultz or Warner


Moore, Schultz, Warner, Davison?

 

[RoarLions1]

For anyone that reads my gibberish, Roar's Annual Big Ten Seedings review will start hopefully early next week now that I have a bit more time. At least two weight classes per day is my hope.

To get you in the mood, I'm going out on a limb and making Spencer Lee my #1 seed at 125 .

 

[Fink]

I can't wait for your postings on the subject. (In fact, I couldn't wait so I started it on my own but it is time consuming and difficult.) It is made even harder because I can't find a site with conference records. Last year, Blackshoediaries would compile the Big 10 records on a weekly basis. I miss those posts.

 

[El-Jefe]

Right now HWT is an easy call: 1 Parris, 2 Steveson.
- Parris is 23-0 (7-0 B10), likely finishes 26-0 (12-0)
- Steveson is 10-0 (5-0), likely finishes 12-0 (7-0)

If they both run the table, Parris' B10 record will be exactly the same as Steveson's overall record (12-0).

In case that's not enough:
- Steveson missed their dual, Parris did not.
- Parris just dominated and stuck Cassioppi. Steveson will face Cass next -- if he does not comparably dominate, that's a seeding strike against him -- though it won't get that far.

To whatever extent non-conference quality wins are used for B10 seeding, Parris holds a huge edge:
- Parris: Stencel 3x, Thomas, Hall, Isley
- Steveson: Wood

 

[CholleyVandine]

Starting to think about the Big Ten Tourney and seeding. It could be a mess this year -- Rivera no matches, DeSanto missed 3 duals, several mid-season lineup switches. What if Berge comes back, how do you seed him?

What do you do at 133?

Gross 7-1 in Big 10 duals plus avenged conference loss and beat Rivera at Midlands)
RBY 6-1 loss to Gross, beat DeSanto when AD injury defaulted or
DeSanto 5-1 beat Gross in dual, lost at Midlands -- Inj def to RBY
Piotrowski 8-0 in Big 10 duals -- RBY did not wrestle that match, Piotrowski did not meet Gross or AD
Rivera 0-0 lost to Gross and Piotrowski (inj) at Midlands

Can Rivera be ahead of Lovett or Alvarez? Could Piotrowski be top 3?

184 -- is Brooks the 1 or Caffey, Assad, Venz and Jordan all pretty similar for 3-5.

285 -- Parris or Gable the 1 -- both undefeated but Gable didn't wrestle Parris

What about Shak at 197? 4-3 with Moore left
Schultz 6-1 wins over Warner & Shak, loss to Moore
Warner 6-1 win over Shak didn't wrestle Moore (sat out)
Davison 6-1 win over Shak, loss to Moore didn't wrestle Schultz or Warner


Moore, Schultz, Warner, Davison?

I would seed 197 1. Moore, 2. Schultz, 3. Davidson, 4. Warner because there should be consequences for healthy wrestlers who opt out of tough matches

 

[jmadden1998]

Flo just put out their 125 seeding predictions and included this paragraph:

“The seeding rules changed once again this year. In 2019, they seeded all 14 guys if a weight had eight or more automatic qualifier allocations. This year, they are seeding every entry at all 10 weights no matter what the allocations look like.”

This is the first I’ve heard of this. Does this help/hurt any lower seeded Iowa/PSU guys?

 

[slushhead]

Flo just put out their 125 seeding predictions and included this paragraph:

“The seeding rules changed once again this year. In 2019, they seeded all 14 guys if a weight had eight or more automatic qualifier allocations. This year, they are seeding every entry at all 10 weights no matter what the allocations look like.”

This is the first I’ve heard of this. Does this help/hurt any lower seeded Iowa/PSU guys?

Looks to me like it is detrimental to the lowest 4 guys at each weight.

 

[El-Jefe]

Flo just put out their 125 seeding predictions and included this paragraph:

“The seeding rules changed once again this year. In 2019, they seeded all 14 guys if a weight had eight or more automatic qualifier allocations. This year, they are seeding every entry at all 10 weights no matter what the allocations look like.”

This is the first I’ve heard of this. Does this help/hurt any lower seeded Iowa/PSU guys?

It does open up the possibility of facing 1 or 2 in Round 1.

Also depends on how they set up consis. Last year the 8-9 and 7-10 losers got Bye. If that is changed, it could mean 1 less match for those who lose their openers. Alternately, for those who go 1-1 in the winners' bracket, their first consi opponent could be rested.

Frankly, I think this is stupid. All 14 should be seeded at every weight. 1 and 2 earned byes as a reward for being the best in the regular season.

 

[jmadden1998]

Looks to me like it is detrimental to the lowest 4 guys at each weight.

Haha! Obviously. Dumb question. So this would mean all the 1 and 2 seeds get a bye into the quarters. Right now my guess at each weight:

125
Lee and Schroeder

133
Gross and RBY

141
Pletcher and Lee

149
Sasso and winner of Lugo and Lee

157
Deakin and Young

165
Joseph and Marinelli

174
Kemerer and Hall

184
Brooks and Caffey (most likely)

197
Moore and Schultz

285
Parris and winner of Cassioppi/Steveson

 

[jmadden1998]

It does open up the possibility of facing 1 or 2 in Round 1.

Also depends on how they set up consis. Last year the 8-9 and 7-10 losers got Bye. If that is changed, it could mean 1 less match for those who lose their openers. Alternately, for those who go 1-1 in the winners' bracket, their first consi opponent could be rested.

Frankly, I think this is stupid. All 14 should be seeded at every weight. 1 and 2 earned byes as a reward for being the best in the regular season.

It does open up the possibility of facing 1 or 2 in Round 1.

Also depends on how they set up consis. Last year the 8-9 and 7-10 losers got Bye. If that is changed, it could mean 1 less match for those who lose their openers. Alternately, for those who go 1-1 in the winners' bracket, their first consi opponent could be rested.

Frankly, I think this is stupid. All 14 should be seeded at every weight. 1 and 2 earned byes as a reward for being the best in the regular season.

I read it as that’s exactly what they are doing. All 10 weights will be seeded no matter the allocations. I assume this means every 1 and 2 gets a bye and then 3v14, 4v13, 5v12, etc...

 

[El-Jefe]

Looks to me like it is detrimental to the lowest 4 guys at each weight.

To be more specific, the 11-12 guys are most likely to take a hit -- before they drew 5-6, now that is their best possible draw.

The 13-14 guys drew 3-4, now they could draw any of the top 6. Some better off, some worse, some the same.

 

[slushhead]

Don't mind me, guys -- I read 14 guys . . . and seeding "all 10 weights" too quickly and thought it was "all 10 guys", thus representing a typo implying the bottom 4 weren't even going to be allowed to compete. Let's just call it a "slush moment" and forget it ever happened. Long day.

 

[NoVa Lion]

To be more specific, the 11-12 guys are most likely to take a hit -- before they drew 5-6, now that is their best possible draw.

The 13-14 guys drew 3-4, now they could draw any of the top 6. Some better off, some worse, some the same.

If they seed everyone there won;t be a draw. 13 will wrestle 4 and 14 will wrestle 3 in the first round at every weight. I think slush confused you.

 

[NittanyChris]

Right now HWT is an easy call: 1 Parris, 2 Steveson.
- Parris is 23-0 (7-0 B10), likely finishes 26-0 (12-0)
- Steveson is 10-0 (5-0), likely finishes 12-0 (7-0)

If they both run the table, Parris' B10 record will be exactly the same as Steveson's overall record (12-0).

In case that's not enough:
- Steveson missed their dual, Parris did not.
- Parris just dominated and stuck Cassioppi. Steveson will face Cass next -- if he does not comparably dominate, that's a seeding strike against him -- though it won't get that far.

To whatever extent non-conference quality wins are used for B10 seeding, Parris holds a huge edge:
- Parris: Stencel 3x, Thomas, Hall, Isley
- Steveson: Wood

Completely agree. That said, it matters very little because no one else is in their class.

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

Completely agree. That said, it matters very little because no one else is in their class.

Any chance Cass is hurt bad enuf to miss the GS match?

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

If they seed everyone there won;t be a draw. 13 will wrestle 4 and 14 will wrestle 3 in the first round at every weight. I think slush confused you.

I only believe 17% of what Slush posts, so I can see how he was confused.

 

[Fink]

149 seeding could be interesting:

Sasso 8-0
Lugo 7-1 (B.Lee left)
Storr 6-1 (Purinton and Martin left) B.Lee did not wrestle the dual
B.Lee 4-1 (Lugo left)
Rooks 6-3 (didn't have to face Sasso, Storr, Verk)
Verkleeren 5-3 (Sasso left) beat Martin, lost to Lugo, Lee and Purinton
C.Martin 3-4 (Storr left) (beat Purinton, lost to Verk and Rooks)
Purinton 3-4 (Storr and Lee left) (beat Verk) (lost to Rooks, Sasso, Lugo and Martin) split with Parriott (won dual) beat Angelo at tourney
Angelo 3-3 (Y.Thomas left) (lost to Storr, Sasso and Limmex + Purinton at tourney) Rooks best win
Y.Thomas 2-1 (Angelo & Doetsch left) 0-2 with Rooks beat Parriott, d/n/w Sasso, Lugo, Storr, Lee, Verk or Martin)
Parriott 0-4 (Jodeh left)
Hrisopoulos 2-7
Jodeh 1-7 (Parriott left)
Doetsch (0-5) Y.Thomas left)

I think Verkleeren could be 5 with an upset of Sasso or 6 with a loss unless Purinton and/or Martin pull upsets.

 

[rassling]

Right now HWT is an easy call: 1 Parris, 2 Steveson.
- Parris is 23-0 (7-0 B10), likely finishes 26-0 (12-0)
- Steveson is 10-0 (5-0), likely finishes 12-0 (7-0)

If they both run the table, Parris' B10 record will be exactly the same as Steveson's overall record (12-0).

In case that's not enough:
- Steveson missed their dual, Parris did not.
- Parris just dominated and stuck Cassioppi. Steveson will face Cass next -- if he does not comparably dominate, that's a seeding strike against him -- though it won't get that far.

To whatever extent non-conference quality wins are used for B10 seeding, Parris holds a huge edge:
- Parris: Stencel 3x, Thomas, Hall, Isley
- Steveson: Wood

I could be wrong but I believe the B1G uses previous seasons B1G and NCAA tournament results for seeding. If this is the case Gable will be #1. After what I saw last week there is a clear separation between Gable/Parris and the rest of the field so it won't really matter.

 

[El-Jefe]

If they seed everyone there won;t be a draw. 13 will wrestle 4 and 14 will wrestle 3 in the first round at every weight. I think slush confused you.

He didnt. I lumped them together for probability discussion and confused you.

Yes, last year 14 vs. 3. This year, if 1 and 2 do get byes, then 14' draw will remain same or improve. If 1 and 2 do not get byes, then 14 draw could get worse.

I've seen no official statement that 1 and 2 will still get byes, only poster interpretations, so that's still an open question for me.

 

[minnhawkeye]

Gable will get one but I really feel Parris should have it ..but really one or two makes no difference they will meet in the finals most likely.

 

[Cowbell Man]

I could be wrong but I believe the B1G uses previous seasons B1G and NCAA tournament results for seeding. If this is the case Gable will be #1. After what I saw last week there is a clear separation between Gable/Parris and the rest of the field so it won't really matter.

The Big 10 uses matches in Big 10 duals nearly exclusively. If they need more data they would include matches against the big ten opponent that occurred in a tourney like midlands. Last years results are irrelevant.


And like El-Jefe, I would like the official statement on the seeding and if the low 4 are in traditional placement or drawn into the remaining 6 spaces. Not sure why they would seed and then not give 1/2 byes....but I am often surprised.

 

[ZepGraffiti]

Am I the only confused?
What madden posted about seeding all weights out 1-14, doesn't seem to match jefe's responses about there still be any kind of 'blind draw'?

tough morning I guess

 

[El-Jefe]

Am I the only confused?
What madden posted about seeding all weights out 1-14, doesn't seem to match jefe's responses about there still be any kind of 'blind draw'?

tough morning I guess

Madden's post from Flo said 1-10 will be seeded at all weights, 11-14 unseeded.

If 11-14 are unseeded, by definition they're randomly drawn somewhere in the bracket.

It does not mention if 11-14 will be randomly drawn against 3-6 or against 1-6.

 

[NoVa Lion]

Madden's post from Flo said 1-10 will be seeded at all weights, 11-14 unseeded.

If 11-14 are unseeded, by definition they're randomly drawn somewhere in the bracket.

It does not mention if 11-14 will be randomly drawn against 3-6 or against 1-6.

Actually, that is not what madden posted. Her it is with the important part bolded. They are seeding EVERY entry, meaning all 14. The 10 refers to 10 weight classes.

The seeding rules changed once again this year. In 2019, they seeded all 14 guys if a weight had eight or more automatic qualifier allocations. This year, they are seeding every entry at all 10 weights no matter what the allocations look like.”

 

[ZepGraffiti]

Madden's post from Flo said 1-10 will be seeded at all weights, 11-14 unseeded.

If 11-14 are unseeded, by definition they're randomly drawn somewhere in the bracket.

It does not mention if 11-14 will be randomly drawn against 3-6 or against 1-6.

Flo just put out their 125 seeding predictions and included this paragraph:

“The seeding rules changed once again this year. In 2019, they seeded all 14 guys if a weight had eight or more automatic qualifier allocations. This year, they are seeding every entry at all 10 weights no matter what the allocations look like.”

This is the first I’ve heard of this. Does this help/hurt any lower seeded Iowa/PSU guys?

Are you sure?

 

[RoarLions1]

Just another example of the lack of transparency in the Big Ten. Why so secretive? Transfer rules?, requirement for two referees for B1G duals?, EXACTLY how does seeding work (only have insight myself as I knew someone in the room, albeit years ago), and on and on.

 

[nitlion6]

Just another example of the lack of transparency in the Big Ten. Why so secretive? Transfer rules?, requirement for two referees for B1G duals?, EXACTLY how does seeding work (only have insight myself as I knew someone in the room, albeit years ago), and on and on.

There has almost never been transparency in the Big10 or NCAA models. Not much in the PIAA model either. Nor the IOC.
1. Amateur sports organizations
2. Large amounts of money
3. Transparency

It just seems if you have the first 2 then number 3 is not doable. No matter what.

 

[El-Jefe]

Actually, that is not what madden posted. Her it is with the important part bolded. They are seeding EVERY entry, meaning all 14. The 10 refers to 10 weight classes.

The seeding rules changed once again this year. In 2019, they seeded all 14 guys if a weight had eight or more automatic qualifier allocations. This year, they are seeding every entry at all 10 weights no matter what the allocations look like.”

You're right. My extra strength idiot pills worked.

 

[NoVa Lion]

You're right. My extra strength idiot pills worked.

Can I get a bottle of those? Hoping they will work in reverse and cure my idiocy.

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

Actually, that is not what madden posted. Her it is with the important part bolded. They are seeding EVERY entry, meaning all 14. The 10 refers to 10 weight classes.

The seeding rules changed once again this year. In 2019, they seeded all 14 guys if a weight had eight or more automatic qualifier allocations. This year, they are seeding every entry at all 10 weights no matter what the allocations look like.”

So, 1 and 2 will naturally get byes?

 

[nitlion6]

Can I get a bottle of those? Hoping they will work in reverse and cure my idiocy.

If you get a bottle let me know, I could use some also.

 

[raslen007]

They are given out over on HR

 

[rassling]

So, 1 and 2 will naturally get byes?

I don't think so. I would think they would randomly draw the byes in. There would be a real disadvantage of having top seeds for team scoring.

 

[Cali_Nittany]

I don't think so. I would think they would randomly draw the byes in. There would be a real disadvantage of having top seeds for team scoring.

But does team scoring at the conference tourney really matter all that much? As others have said the 1s and 2s have earned their byes. That's one less match that a freak injury can happen to your team's top wrestlers.

 

[El-Jefe]

I don't think so. I would think they would randomly draw the byes in. There would be a real disadvantage of having top seeds for team scoring.

Easily remedied -- 1 and 2 seeds get a W + 2 bonus for the bye.

Don't like it? Get more 1 and 2 seeds. They earned it.

 

[rassling]

But does team scoring at the conference tourney really matter all that much? As others have said the 1s and 2s have earned their byes. That's one less match that a freak injury can happen to your team's top wrestlers.

Depends on the team I guess. Probably a decent recruiting tool to say they were B1G champs.

Easily remedied -- 1 and 2 seeds get a W + 2 bonus for the bye.

Don't like it? Get more 1 and 2 seeds. They earned it.

Don't mind that idea but I don't think they aren't going to implement it.

 

[NoVa Lion]

I don't think so. I would think they would randomly draw the byes in. There would be a real disadvantage of having top seeds for team scoring.

Since the BIG started seeding all wrestlers at some weights (those that had 8+ NCAA slots) they have been giving the 1 & 2 seeds byes. Can;t imagine why they would change that. It is a disadvantage to a team with more 1/2 seeds due to the loss of possible bonus points. However, IMHO, it is just as fair as making those byes randoms. No way to get around it unless the BIG expands to 16 teams, which I don;t see happening any time soon. Of course, I didn;t think it would expand from the 11 teams the BIG had once PSU joined, so what do I know.

 

[RoarLions1]

Since the BIG started seeding all wrestlers at some weights (those that had 8+ NCAA slots) they have been giving the 1 & 2 seeds byes. Can;t imagine why they would change that. It is a disadvantage to a team with more 1/2 seeds due to the loss of possible bonus points. However, IMHO, it is just as fair as making those byes randoms. No way to get around it unless the BIG expands to 16 teams, which I don;t see happening any time soon. Of course, I didn;t think it would expand from the 11 teams the BIG had once PSU joined, so what do I know.

Maybe not much when it comes to conference expansion, but truth be known -- more than most about Penn State and college wrestling.

 

[NoVaLion2]

I think seeding all 14, assuming byes for 1&2, is probably helpful to those who have not been seeded due to injury (and therefore lack of matches against the top guys)) but likely would have been. This way they're sure to NOT draw 1 or 2 in the first round. e.g., Berge.

 

[nitlion6]

They are given out over on HR

I thought they were forbidden on HR. Maybe served with Carver ice cream they are not metabolized properly.