That was specific to 2021 due to the truncated season (due to the dreaded pathogen).
Conference Allocations Are Out!!
- Thread starter RoarLions1
- Start date
It is not a failure of the system. My brothers sr year in HS our AD didn’t submit the paperwork on the number of boys that decides AA or AAA. We were automatically bumped to AAA for one year. You can’t create an idiot proof system.
@smalls103 argument comes down to this: Do you care about getting it right?
In your example, if there was real concern about getting it right, the mistake should have been easily correctable. Instead, they knowlingly made a team wrestle in the wrong class for an entire season. Idiocy!!!
If we actually cared about getting the allocations right, the rankings would be done by a committee of professional rankers whose job it is to follow these results. We wouldn't be in a situation where we know the allocations are wrong and still not do anything to fix it.
If a team could do a simple, "My bad", how could the situation be gamed?
I am not advocating one way or another, trying to brainstorm why a hard and fast deadline exists and cannot be altered in case of emergency mistake. The powers that be have to fearful that allowing such things would allow exceptions to be abused in the future I imagine.
Yeah, I counted 6 guys from Big 12 that had met the minimum 2 out of 3 criteria (Top 30 in Coaches Rank, Top 30 in RPI, and Winning % .700 or greater) for a pre-allocation bid. Within the Big12, Wyatt Henson was 6th in both the Coaches Rank and RPI (and did not meet Win% threshold), and so I figured he was the guy left out when the original announcement revealed only 5 allocations for the conference.
I counted 10 guys from the B1G meeting at least 2 of the 3 criteria . . . which almost certainly would have been 11 if Iowa had nominated the correct guy (Teske).
So, in total, there were 30 nominated wrestlers (i.e., excluding Teske) that met minimum criteria for 29 allocations. I haven’t seen how they weight the criteria to decide who the top 29 guys are in that situation, but it would appear Henson’s criteria must have bested those of the guy who was 10th in the B1G, giving 6 (instead of 5) allocations to the Big 12 and 9 (instead of 10) allocations to the B1G.
It appears to me that the last 3 pre-allocations among the B1G/Big 12 were decided among Porter, Foley, Lamont, and Henson. Here are their numbers
(Coaches Rank — RPI — Win%):
• Porter — 26 — 22 — .731
• Foley — 19 — 30 — .600
• Lamont — 28 — 20 — .429
• Henson — 29 — 25 — .541
We know Henson earned an allocation for the Big12. Porter met all 3 criteria and was better than Henson in all 3, so we can conclude Porter earned an allocation. Foley, with far superior Coaches Rank and Win% to Lamont, almost certainly earned an allocation.
So, Lamont appears to be the one guy who met criteria but did not earn an allocation. Win% must have factored highly, as Lamont finished higher than Henson in both Coaches Rank and RPI, yet it was Henson who earned an allocation.
For further comparison, let’s throw Ferretti, who earned the 5th EIWA allocation, into the mix:
• Porter — 26 — 22 — .731
• Foley — 19 — 30 — .600
• Lamont — 28 — 20 — .429
• Henson — 29 — 25 — .541
• Ferretti — 31 — 19 — .731
His Coaches Rank and RPI are most comparable to Lamont’s, but his Win% separates the two wrestlers in a big way and overcomes the fact he was outside the Top 30 in Coaches Rank (the only such 133-lber to earn an allocation for his conference).
I’d love to know the formula used. Anyone know if it is made public?
Generally - "The pre-allocations will be determined by using a sliding scale of the three standards while never going below the base of .700 winning percentage, Top 30 Coach Rank and Top 30 RPI Rank reaching up to the maximum of 29 wrestlers per weight class." is what the NCAA published.
See page 5 of the following for the sliding scale:
It's a predetermined algorithm in tabular form rather than a mathematical formula based on weighting the three criteria. All three criteria are relaxed in parallel to a lower limit (from 0.750 to 0.700 by 0.100 for winning %, and from 25 to 30 for both Coach and RPI Ranks.
I guess it's the first one to no longer meet 2 of the 3 criteria when moving from the bottom of the table upwards as long as there are still more than 29 who met two of the three criteria.
@slushhead - Why are you beating this dead horse?
See page 5 of the following for the sliding scale:
It's a predetermined algorithm in tabular form rather than a mathematical formula based on weighting the three criteria. All three criteria are relaxed in parallel to a lower limit (from 0.750 to 0.700 by 0.100 for winning %, and from 25 to 30 for both Coach and RPI Ranks.
I guess it's the first one to no longer meet 2 of the 3 criteria when moving from the bottom of the table upwards as long as there are still more than 29 who met two of the three criteria.
@slushhead - Why are you beating this dead horse?
Last edited:
The NCAA not even getting its first press release correct made me curious. I have no agenda, just curious who, precisely, earned the 29 allocations.
I am confident that Ferretti and Henson earned allocations. There are no other EIWA or Big12 guys who could have earned the 5th and 6th allocations for the respective conferences.
Yeah, I screwed up. I edited my post to:
"I guess it's the first one to no longer meet 2 of the 3 criteria when moving from the bottom of the table upwards as long as there are still more than 29 who met two of the three criteria."
All good — and thanks for the link to the NCAA slideshow. That helps illustrate the “sliding scale” that was not defined in the allocation-award press release, beyond stating only what the lower limit was for each of the 3 criteria (i.e., 30-30-.700).
@slushhead I think Foley drops out before Lamont due to his higher RPI. I don't believe either Foley or Lamont got allocations and think Porter was the B1G's ninth absent Teske.
Order of dropping out to get to 29 would've been
1st - Foley
Not necessary
2nd - Henson
3rd - Lamont
4th - Ferretti
5th - Porter
Order of dropping out to get to 29 would've been
1st - Foley
Not necessary
2nd - Henson
3rd - Lamont
4th - Ferretti
5th - Porter
Using the sliding scale, it's probably Foley who fell out for the B1G due to failing 2 of the 3 criteria first. His WP is already below the 0.700 threshold, as is Henson's, but his 30 RPI fell out just before Henson's 29 coaches rank. It's a weird thing because the eye test (IMO anyway) says that Foley is the best of all five of those guys.
Yeah, looking at that table, I have it pretty close to what you have . . . except I go from top to bottom, “accepting” the first 29 guys to meet 2 of the thresholds, rather than “eliminating” the first 48 (I think there are 77 programs?) who fail to meet 2 thresholds.
Of those 5 individuals I had pointed out…
• Porter is the 1st in, with Rank 26, RPI 22
• Ferretti is 2nd in, with Win% .731, RPI 19
• Lamont is 3rd in, with Rank 28, RPI 20
• Henson is 4th in, with Rank 29, RPI 25
• Foley is out (because Henson was the 29th overall to earn an allocation, which was the predetermined limit)
On that basis, the 9 B1G earners were (in no particular order):
RBY
Mendez
Byrd
Ragusin
Cannon
Nagao
Heilmann
Porter
Lamont
Yeah, I saw my mistake with Porter and Ferretti and had since flipped them. Speed kills.
I’m pecking away on my phone while trying to compare one table written down on paper with another on a webpage. Slow-and-steady . . .
Thanks guys — it didn’t sit well with me that I didn’t know exactly how the bids shook out at the bottom when >29 guys met 2 criteria but only 29 bids could be awarded. And I’m the type of personality that tries to problem-solve on his own before asking for help.
So to bring this full circle, all that would have had to happen for Teske to earn an allocation for the B1G was to be ranked higher than Henson in the Coaches Rank. That would seem to have been a virtual certainty had Iowa nominated him.
And now for some pure silliness . . . let the conspiracy theories run wild:
Iowa hands the Big12 an extra allocation, “earned” by none other than a former roster member. 🧐🤨🤫😉
It looks like Henson has had a down season at Oklahoma. He portaled out of Iowa presumably because they recruited over him with Woods at 141, but then cut to 133 for Oklahoma anyway. Maybe the cut was too tough, but if he and Iowa had known he'd be going 133 this year, would he have stayed, and would he have started over Teske? He was a top recruit out of high school, right ?
As insiders posted at the time, the Woods transfer was not the reason he left.
What was it then? I have no motivation to search through the HR archives for that.
Unless other coaches now ranking Teske might have subsequently ranked Lamont below Henson to pre-spread the wealth. That one swap between 28 and 29 would seem to be all needed to put Henson in above Lamont, and Lamont in the position to be cut after Foley.
Didn't look at the Glory situation, but here's a quick look at Diakomihalis vs Zapf;
Diakomihalis is 7-0 in conference with 6 bonus point wins. He also owns a HTH win vs Zapf, 8-3.
Zapf is 5-1, with 2 bonus point wins, and his only conference loss to Diakomihalis.
I don't understand at all. This is bizarro. Did one or more of the coaches leave Diakomihalis off their ballot? Calling Willie.
I imagine the Glory seed is based on him only having (by my count) 4 conference dual matches at 125.
Glory majored Ungar. LOL.Didn't look at the Glory situation, but here's a quick look at Diakomihalis vs Zapf;
Diakomihalis is 7-0 in conference with 6 bonus point wins. He also owns a HTH win vs Zapf, 8-3.
Zapf is 5-1, with 2 bonus point wins, and his only conference loss to Diakomihalis.
I don't understand at all. This is bizarro. Did one or more of the coaches leave Diakomihalis off their ballot? Calling Willie.
125 would be at least somewhar defensible due to Glory's lack of matches, except for this.
In terms of process, yes.
As a qualification event, it likely won't matter. They're the top 2 guys in the conference by a mile. Switching their seeds won't affect the quarters or semis, and thus won't affect consis.
I do agree, get it right.
Total auto qualifiers per school
Total 284
At large 46 (announced Tuesday, Mar 7)
Virginia Tech (10)
Missouri (10)
Iowa (10)
Oklahoma St (9)
NC State (9)
Penn State (9)
Iowa St (8)
Oklahoma (8)
Northwestern (8)
Nebraska (7)
Ohio State (7)
Michigan (7)
Minnesota (7)
Wisconsin (7)
Rutgers (7)
Cornell (7)
Oregon State (7)
South Dakota St (6)
Pitt (6),
North Dakota St (5)
Illinois (5)
Northern Iowa (5)
Lehigh (5)
Penn (5)
Navy (5)
Columbia (5)
Stanford (5)
Campbell (5)
App State (4)
Arizona State (4)
Harvard (4)
Virginia (4)
Purdue (4)
Lock Haven (4)
Ohio (4)
Cal Poly (3)
Central Michigan (3)
Clarion (3)
Maryland (3)
Michigan State (3)
Indiana (3)
North Carolina (3)
West Virginia (3)
Air Force (3)
Utah Valley (3)
Wyoming (3)
Princeton (3)
Army (3)
Binghamton (3)
Bucknell (2)
Northern Colorado (2)
Rider (2)
George Mason (2)
Chattanooga (2)
Gardner-Webb (1)
Bloomsburg (1)
Edinboro (1)
Kent State (1)
Northern Illinois (1)
SIUE (1)
Duke (1)
Hofstra (1)
American (1)
Drexel (1)
Total 284
At large 46 (announced Tuesday, Mar 7)
Virginia Tech (10)
Missouri (10)
Iowa (10)
Oklahoma St (9)
NC State (9)
Penn State (9)
Iowa St (8)
Oklahoma (8)
Northwestern (8)
Nebraska (7)
Ohio State (7)
Michigan (7)
Minnesota (7)
Wisconsin (7)
Rutgers (7)
Cornell (7)
Oregon State (7)
South Dakota St (6)
Pitt (6),
North Dakota St (5)
Illinois (5)
Northern Iowa (5)
Lehigh (5)
Penn (5)
Navy (5)
Columbia (5)
Stanford (5)
Campbell (5)
App State (4)
Arizona State (4)
Harvard (4)
Virginia (4)
Purdue (4)
Lock Haven (4)
Ohio (4)
Cal Poly (3)
Central Michigan (3)
Clarion (3)
Maryland (3)
Michigan State (3)
Indiana (3)
North Carolina (3)
West Virginia (3)
Air Force (3)
Utah Valley (3)
Wyoming (3)
Princeton (3)
Army (3)
Binghamton (3)
Bucknell (2)
Northern Colorado (2)
Rider (2)
George Mason (2)
Chattanooga (2)
Gardner-Webb (1)
Bloomsburg (1)
Edinboro (1)
Kent State (1)
Northern Illinois (1)
SIUE (1)
Duke (1)
Hofstra (1)
American (1)
Drexel (1)
Missouri only has nine AQ's. Jacques finished 7th, and the Big 12 gave back their 7th bid at the weight because Caleb Dowling didn't go.
Similar threads
