Conference Allocations Are Out!!
- Thread starter RoarLions1
- Start date
I think that's the inferred premise, but I don't know whether it's true. One of Teske's wins could've been over a teammate at the 'intrasquad' tournament Iowa hosted. So he may not have had the required number of matches. I did NOT do the work.
Last edited:
fify. That's too bad, I was hoping to meet up. First brew/soda/whatever is on me if that ever happens.
Since trying to do the work...
According to wrestlestat Brody had 8 matches, which is the min required for the coaches' ranking and his last was within 30 days. He doesn't qualify for an RPI, because he doesn't have 15 matches. His winning % is 75, which is greater than 0.70, so he meets 2 of 3 criteria to have been eligible for coaches ranking.
So you tell me @johnstownsteel @mcpat @vhsalum
Last edited:
I'm an Iowa Hater and I'm paid to do it. I'll abstain from giving an opinion. Ill say this though, I see no reason for them to try to pull shenanigans here. And if they would be trying to screw anyone here it really makes no sense. Mainly because unlike Cael, Brands isn't greater than Karma. Lol
@mcpat should ask his question on GIA (formerly known as HR 😉) -- if he hasn't already.
Maybe follow up with:
Every point counts at nationals ... whether you score it or deny your competition from scoring it ... right?
I am sure a couple Iowa expert visitors can speak on GIA's behalf whether or not a certain kind of gamesmanship is in play here.
Maybe follow up with:
- Who is Iowa's biggest competition for the 2nd place trophy?
- Are they a B1G team?
- Who is their 133lber?
- Is he marginal for qualifying via a conference allocation?
- Is he eligible for or likely to get an at large bid?
Every point counts at nationals ... whether you score it or deny your competition from scoring it ... right?
I am sure a couple Iowa expert visitors can speak on GIA's behalf whether or not a certain kind of gamesmanship is in play here.
The B1G tourney is going to be fun as always. 8 weight classes where the Big Ten has more coaches ranked wrestlers than allocations. A dozen guys.
If true, I have to assume Teske wasn’t submitted for a reason other than to keep a B1G qualifier out, but I’d really like to know what it was. After receiving some initial attention from the wrestling media (like three guys), it kinda fizzled out with no explanation.
Really, you "have to"? (I'll interpret this part as sarcasm.)
Probably shouldn't ask over at GIA then (especially to preserve favorite maggot status). I seem to remember a conclusion that 'Schriever must be going to B1G' but others rejected the idea without offering an alternative theory.
But don't you find it odd that it's not a lively topic on GIA? (You should Interpret this as rhetorical. They aren't going to talk about anything that might implicate less than most honorable motives of their HC. They also will most likely justify it as equivalent to Suriano stepping on the mat. )
Legit wrestling media, a niche of a niche, tends to be overly concerned with maintaining relationships. Best bet is if Askren or Stalemates bring it up.
Last edited:
This is not an explanation. Even if they decided Schriever was the guy, they still should have entered Teske for the allocations.
Iowa's biggest competition for 2nd from the B1G is either Ohio St. or Michigan, and there's little doubt whether Ragusin or Mendez will make the top 8 in conference. The guys who could get screwed are Heilmann, Burwick, or Porter (or Teske, LOL, that would be Karma...).
Nebraska probably more of a threat than at least 1 of the Bobsey Twins of the Midwest
No the question @mcpat needa to ask on GIA is everyone's favorite White Claw flavor.
The question has been asked (on @mcpat's behalf) -- not the White Claw one.
In my best Rocky impression, “if I can change and you can change, everybody can change!” Of course, I’m a Buckeye fan, so instead of changing I’ll be in Aruba on March 19th drinking away my misery and working on that all important tan.Hard to blame him. Everyone loves a winner🤣.
I've always had the same coverage you have and have always gotten full coverage for the BIG Tournament. Don't sweat it.
I think he meant he saw it all year, but when he returned from NCAA’s, with a medal in hand, he loved seeing it!
I have to wonder if they just didn’t realize he’d qualify for one.
Guessing what this means is that the coaches' ranking got screwed up again, like what we bitched about last time with RBY not getting votes because he wasn't eligible the time before.
Teske has 8 matches -- enough for a coaches' ranking but probably not in the poll before.
He doesn't have enough matches for an RPI. So if the coaches' poll went FUBAR, then he would've been ineligible for a conference allocation.
3 thoughts.
1. This year the coaches have not presented themselves very positively with the coaches poll fiasco.
2. The coaches last year failed to present themselves in a positive light with the manipulated Xtra matches fiasco.
3. It is fairly obvious some the coaches need to called to the principles office and lectured about being adults and responsibilities and working to avoid fiascos.
If the Big Ten deserved another allocation at 133, the coaches, athletic directors, and Commissioner should be pissed and getting to the bottom of what happened.
The conference bigwigs are waiting to see if it has a negative affect on Ohio State or Michigan.
For #1, it appears the process needs fixed, not the coaches, and for #2, last year followed the reduced season due to covid, which also impacted the number of bouts in 2021-22. I know the coaches aren't perfect.
Reduced matches or not, there were coaches who orchestrated and choreographed Xtra matches last year to take advantage of the system. In the past two seasons a small handful of coaches have piddled the bed leaving a stain on everybody. D1 head wrestling coaches are stewards of the sport, the few who do not take that responsibility seriously can cause harm to the sport. They should do better.
@smalls103 What were you told about the system or process that you understand led to Iowa not submitting Brody Teske to be ranked by the coaches, or sufficient coaches otherwise not voting for Brody Teske in their ranking?
Did it have anything to do with the voting timeline and Teske's 8th match being on 2/19?
Ascribing fault to the user interface seems a bit of a stretch to me, unless the NCAA fairly recently updated their system and subsequently provided inadequate or no training.
Did coaches blame the user interface for the earlier Coaches' Ranking anomalies?
The vast majority of schools seemed to have correctly figured it out.
Didn't see any answers in the Twitter thread. Some in that thread didn't understand it (or maybe see it as "a situation").
If Iowa purposefully did not submit Brody Teske to be ranked and Kyle Burwick fails to qualify for NCAAs by that one otherwise available allocation, after all the NCAA BS he's been through, that would be an odd turn of events.
Is there any chance Iowa did it in protest of the system, similar to what Dresser asserts he did with gaming his intrasquad last chance open? And, similarly, do you expect a corresponding change to the system?
Last edited:
I don’t believe it was purposeful. It’s not like Teske couldn’t lose a couple matches and end up 10th himself. His match against Burwick had its controversy.
I also don’t believe that his name was submitted but coaches simply didn’t rank him. What happened to RBY was two coaches left him off; the rest ranked him. Teske seeing a similar fate would still be ranked.
By deduction, I’m hypothesizing that whomever in the Iowa program was in charge of submitting the wrestlers to be ranked, simple didn’t submit Teske, not realizing he got his 8th match and qualified. That’s bad (if true). Shows incompetence and the rest of the conference should be pissed.
I would hope not, but nevertheless am not dismissing the possibility. The GIA "5D chess" comment seems consistent with not dismissing the possibility.
Agreed - if this means "I believe his name wasn't submitted."
Exactly. There could be a bad shared database design where images aren't properly synced or which allows coaches to use a cached offline set of records. This could explain the variation by coaches in the two anomalous ranking instances.
Then again, it could more relate to the date of Teske's last match and when/how his last result was entered. 2/19 was the last date to get a recorded match and the date of Teske's last match. The system might not have allowed Iowa coaches to submit Teske for the ranking until all other records reflected he had 8 matches on or before 2/19. Coaches may've inadvertently accepted 2/20 (the date they hypothetically manually entered Teske's 2/19 result), or it might not allow them to easily correct it. Then Iowa coaches might not have been able to figure out why they couldn't submit Teske at 133. This could be what Willie referred to as a bad user interface
Last edited:
@mcpat - 2/19 - the last date to get recorded match and the date of Teske's last match - is what software designers and testers refer to as a boundary value. It's critical to test edge cases.
I think a similarity in the Coach Ranking anomalies is the time between reaching a threshold and the earliest ranking might be input prior to submittal. Some rankers may not realize there is a temporal dependency that they should be honoring. The system may not have been designed to strictly enforce this temporal dependency. This kind of issue would have the same effect as using data records that lacked coherence among all rankers.
My gut and experience tells me this is part of the problem.
I think a similarity in the Coach Ranking anomalies is the time between reaching a threshold and the earliest ranking might be input prior to submittal. Some rankers may not realize there is a temporal dependency that they should be honoring. The system may not have been designed to strictly enforce this temporal dependency. This kind of issue would have the same effect as using data records that lacked coherence among all rankers.
My gut and experience tells me this is part of the problem.
Makes sense. But then the question is whether anyone else wrestled their 8th match that day and got ranked.
Why don't you get on that! 😉
I think it is highly unlikely. Too few matches on 2/19. Last chance qualifier type stuff is usually aimed at 'at large bid' criteria. Most will have had a good bit more than 7 matches by their last dual.
Wait ... was that sarcasm?
History justifies that the BIG should get MORE allocations based on performance at NCAAs. Last year the BIG received 88 out of 330 slots or 26.7% but had 39 out of 80 medalists or 48.7%. That happens every year although last years numbers were even more schewed than usual.
When I posted this, I meant the BTN+ coverage provided will allow you watch all the BTN+ coverage provided.
For example, you won’t be blocked from watching a first round match between two non-PSU wrestlers.
But that doesn’t mean you can watch (live) what BTN covers live but BTN does not. Replay - yes, but not live.
I went thru most the 2/19 duals and didn’t see anyone else in the same situation.
Similar threads
