Conference Allocations Are Out!!

[98lberEating2Lunches]

I went thru most the 2/19 duals and didn’t see anyone else in the same situation.

It seemed too onerous to do manually.

My method was to looked for WrestleStat RPIs to access names potentially likely to be ranked but only with wrestlers with 10 or fewer matches, which might include any with 3 matches at a 2/19 last chance qualifier. At 133 there were none but Teske.

Then I would've only checked the coaches ranking if their last match was 2/19.

I only noticed one other 133lber who crossed the 8 match threshold on 2/19. In my opinion, he was unlikely to be ranked to make the top 33.

This is a task for a data analytic program.

 

[mcpat]

It seemed too onerous to do manually.

My method was to looked for WrestleStat RPIs to access names potentially likely to be ranked but only with wrestlers with 10 or fewer matches, which might include any with 3 matches at a 2/19 last chance qualifier. At 133 there were none but Teske.

Then I would've only checked the coaches ranking if their last match was 2/19.

I only noticed one other 133lber who crossed the 8 match threshold on 2/19. In my opinion, he was unlikely to be ranked to make the top 33.

This is a task for a data analytic program.

I pretty much did the same, but looked at those that wrestled on 2/19 using wrestlestat.

 

[smalls103]

@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?

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?

I spoke to Morningstar almost immediately after allocations were released and told him Teske wasn't ranked and that Schriever was listed as the nominee. He said Schriever wasn't eligible for a ranking b/c he hadn't wrestled in 30 days and that he didn't think Teske was eligible either.

I don't think that it was at all intentional. I think it's a sh!t process/system.

Just about every college coach I talked to said I should put the Iowa staff on blast for not doing what they needed to do. but i see (and have seen) the bigger picture.

the national system to qualify for the ncaa tournament should not be contingent upon a f@cking clerical error or misinterpretation from a single staff. it's ridiculous that there is no oversight on this before being released.

and the fact of the matter is it's more likely to hurt the SoCon than have a significant impact in the B1G.

it's sad. and it's typical wrestling with the inability to both 1) preemptively see problems on the horizon and 2) to fix it before it goes public.

 

[El-Jefe]

I spoke to Morningstar almost immediately after allocations were released and told him Teske wasn't ranked and that Schriever was listed as the nominee. He said Schriever wasn't eligible for a ranking b/c he hadn't wrestled in 30 days and that he didn't think Teske was eligible either.

I don't think that it was at all intentional. I think it's a sh!t process/system.

Just about every college coach I talked to said I should put the Iowa staff on blast for not doing what they needed to do. but i see (and have seen) the bigger picture.

the national system to qualify for the ncaa tournament should not be contingent upon a f@cking clerical error or misinterpretation from a single staff. it's ridiculous that there is no oversight on this before being released.

and the fact of the matter is it's more likely to hurt the SoCon than have a significant impact in the B1G.

it's sad. and it's typical wrestling with the inability to both 1) preemptively see problems on the horizon and 2) to fix it before it goes public.

I'd add other inabilities here: 3) to see the problem demonstrated publicly just a few weeks prior, and not fix it before it matters; 4) lack of Project Mgmt 101 skills -- creating artificial deadlines so close to required tasks that it causes needless errors.

So both Iowa and NCAA both need to be better than this.

And classic wrestling: big-school power screws up, SoCon hardest hit.

 

[mcpat]

Not saying the process isn’t flawed but the Iowa coaches not knowing that their guy should be submitted to net a conference allocation reeks of incompetence. The coach of the B1G wrestler that loses in the 9th place match at 133 should be livid.

 

[El-Jefe]

The coach of the B1G wrestler that loses in the 9th place match at 133 should be livid.

Maybe, but probably not. Chances are the 10th placer will get an at large anyway.

Using Roar's predicted seeds as a guide: his projected 10 seed is 20-7 this year.

Willie's likely right (as always) -- some small-school kid will get screwed by Iowa's mistake.

 

[smalls103]

i wrote an article in the wee hours of the night last night analyzing it (mostly bc it was driving me nuts).

This covers all weights

however if you don't want to go full nerd or if you're not a subscriber the gist at 133 is this:

SoCon has 2 bids but has guys ranked #22, #23, and #24.

 

[ss7]

i wrote an article in the wee hours of the night last night analyzing it (mostly bc it was driving me nuts).

This covers all weights

however if you don't want to go full nerd or if you're not a subscriber the gist at 133 is this:

SoCon has 2 bids but has guys ranked #22, #23, and #24.

Your last sentence... Isn't that true regardless of how many AQs go to B1G wrestlers at 133? Wouldn't a 10th AQ for B1G just mean there were only 4 at large spots available instead of 5?

Certainly not trying to say you're wrong. Just trying to understand...

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

He said Schriever wasn't eligible for a ranking b/c he hadn't wrestled in 30 days and that he didn't think Teske was eligible either.

Did Morningstar say why he thought these things, like whether there was some indication by the system that led Morningstar to believe Teske wasn’t eligibility?

Clearly fans here and on GIA were well aware of Teske's pending eligibility as long as he wrestled an won on 2/19.

There's got to be more to this. Burwick is ranked what, 28th, and WresteStat has Nebraska projected to take 2nd by quite a margin. It seems quite a coincidence, especially considering all the questions following the prior coaches ranking.

 

[vjk]

I’m probably the only person that’s had trouble finding the coach’s rankings and RPI. Of all the places to finally find it, I found it on a Rutgers site:

NCAA Announces Allocations, Final Coaches' Ranking & RPI - Rutgers University Athletics

PISCATWAY, N.J. – The NCAA Division I Wrestling Committee has announced the pre- allocation spots for the 2023 NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships as listed

scarletknights.com

 

[nitlion6]

Goodale has all 10 wrestlers qualified for Big10s. With nothing left to do other than recruit other big10 wrestling rooms after nationals he had time to make sure that was easy to find for you.

 

[slushhead]

Your last sentence... Isn't that true regardless of how many AQs go to B1G wrestlers at 133? Wouldn't a 10th AQ for B1G just mean there were only 4 at large spots available instead of 5?

Certainly not trying to say you're wrong. Just trying to understand...

Yeah, I don’t get the hubbub, either.

First, Iowa not securing a pre-allocation bid for B1G 133 had no bearing on how many bids were going to be awarded to SoCon. Second, Iowa not securing a bid actually created an extra at-large opportunity for someone. Seems like a plus for SoCon in the event Zaccone or Palmer (the 2 guys who earned the pre-allocation bid for SoCon) don’t make the finals of their conference tourney.


For anyone wanting a more detailed breakdown:

To get a pre-allocation bid (AQ slot) for the conference, a wrestler must have met at least 2 of the following 3 criteria:
• Coaches Rank in Top 30
• RPI in Top 30
• Winning Percentage .700 or greater

Only 28 of 29 allowable AQ slots were granted for 133. From SoCon, only 2 guys (Zaccone, Palmer) met criteria. The 3rd SoCon guy (Oakley) alluded to by smalls did not meet criteria. No matter what, a SoCon guy who doesn’t make the finals of the conference tourney needs an at-large to go to Nationals.

In Teske, Iowa could have met criteria and grabbed for the B1G that remaining AQ slot that was sitting on the table. They didn’t, so there are now 5 at-large opportunities instead of 4. Seems like that is a plus for the SoCon, as it gives Zaccone or Palmer an extra chance to get to Tulsa if either misses the finals at the SoCon tourney. Which is quite possible, since Oakley beat both of them recently.

With the extra at-large available, SoCon gets “screwed” only if 2 B1G guys (not just Teske) ”steal” an AQ finish at the B1G tourney and the 2 displaced guys who had previously earned pre-allocation bids for the conference are the ones granted an at-large berth to Nationals (effectively “stealing” an at-large that maybe would have otherwise gone to a SoCon guy).

Seems like an outcome that is both speculative and low probability.

 

[mcpat]

Let’s pretend for a moment that Iowa didn’t submit Lee at 125 for a ranking and the Big Ten got 8 qualifiers instead of 9. Let’s also pretend Steen then takes 9th.

I’m frankly surprised folks are not more upset about it. The conference deserved 10 AQs at 133 and only got 9. The wrestler that loses the 9th place match shouldn’t have to hope for an AL. Funny things happen; he might not get one.

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

I’m frankly surprised folks are not more upset about it.

As an affected wrestler or wrestler's team vying for a team trophy, I can wholly understand not getting upset about it now, because that would be a distraction and counterproductive use of energy.

The wrestler that loses the 9th place match shouldn’t have to hope for an AL.

Agreed. I expect upset will arise if the 10th place 133 finisher doesn't get an at large bid. The degree of upset will increase if his team hypothetically loses a podium spot due to points he might have earned.

Furthermore, if the NCAA process or other's shenanigans can reasonably be shown to be at fault for his missed championship opportunity, I would not be the least surprised by an appeal for an extra year of eligibility or subsequent litigation should that appeal fail.

 

[slushhead]

Let’s pretend for a moment that Iowa didn’t submit Lee at 125 for a ranking and the Big Ten got 8 qualifiers instead of 9. Let’s also pretend Steen then takes 9th.

I’m frankly surprised folks are not more upset about it. The conference deserved 10 AQs at 133 and only got 9. The wrestler that loses the 9th place match shouldn’t have to hope for an AL. Funny things happen; he might not get one.

I just can’t get on board on the basis of such an extreme hypothetical example. But at least you’re talking about unfairness within conference, instead of hypothesizing that some other conference will be a victim when they arguably benefit in reality.

 

[slushhead]

I’ll add just one more observation — there will always be discontent about the qualification/selection process for Nationals until every team is allowed to send 10 guys.

The process has been improving. 33-man brackets instead of 32, which helps add some cushion when unfortunate circumstances might leave a deserving person out. Adding objective, quantitative measures to improve fairness. Giving the coaches some responsibility in the process. These things have added incremental improvements to the process.

But it’s never going to be perfect, and lines have to be drawn somewhere. I’m not going to lose sleep because the 10th-place finisher in a conference tournament isn’t guaranteed a spot at Nationals. If he’s clearly an outlier in not auto-qualifying, most times he’ll get an at-large. If it’s a borderline situation — tough, that’s wrestling, and that’s the B1G.

The B1G 133 situation is an isolated case that involves a team either making a boneheaded mistake, or that same team making a lineup change going into the postseason. It’s not a failure of the system, IMO.

 

[smalls103]

It’s not a failure of the system, IMO.

the 'system' is supposed to reward the top in-season performers within a conference for a berth to the postseason.

if you don't see how the B1G having 1 fewer b/c of clerical error isn't a 'failure of the system' idk what to tell you.

the conference, quite literally, has 1 less spot.

you can go ahead say 'well they can wrestle their way in' or 'if they had a better season it wouldn't matter'

to which the obvious reply is "so why even have the system to begin with'.

 

[slushhead]

the 'system' is supposed to reward the top in-season performers within a conference for a berth to the postseason.

if you don't see how the B1G having 1 fewer b/c of clerical error isn't a 'failure of the system' idk what to tell you.

the conference, quite literally, has 1 less spot.

you can go ahead say 'well they can wrestle their way in' or 'if they had a better season it wouldn't matter'

to which the obvious reply is "so why even have the system to begin with'.

How does responsibility for the “clerical error” not lie with the individual who made it?

Somehow just about everyone else was able to get it done. I work in a system where I often feel a need to dummy-proof a lot of things to help ensure the individuals involved collectively follow process to make the greater system function properly. But it is seldom possible to make things 100% dummy-proof.

I’m going to chuckle about this whole thing if it is Schriever (and not Teske) who takes the mat at B1Gs. The explanation you said you received from Morningstar makes no sense otherwise. “We don’t think either guy could earn a bid, so we nominated the guy we plan not to wrestle at the tournament.” Huh? That’s not a failure of the system.

Alternatively, there is an error in that explanation (e.g., you were not given the true story, or you did not relay it accurately).

EDIT: The only other way (I can think of) that Morningstar’s reported explanation makes sense is if Iowa just didn’t nominate anyone at 133 (because they thought no one was eligible to earn a bid), and the default response of the system is to make the official nominee from Iowa the roster guy with the most matches at the weight. That would be Schriever at 7-5.

It’s still Iowa’s responsibility, though, to understand that Teske was, in fact, eligible to earn the bid.

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

“We don’t think either guy could earn a bid, so we nominated the guy we plan not to wrestle at the tournament.”

I didn't get this from Willie's paraphrasing of his conversation with Morningstar. Willie said Morningstar thought a couple things (one correct and one incorrect). But there was no clear nexus made betwewn the accuracy or source of his understandings and cause of Cullan being listed.

Someone elsewhere has theorized Iowa left Cullan on simply because they forgot to update their submittal.

I suppose the responsible Iowa parties could have thought Cullan was still eligible (not realizing he would no longer be) and not realized Brody would be, based on whatever information they were using. Cullan's last match was 01/13, so between rankings is when his last match exceeded the 30-day recency criteria. Cullan was ranked 24th, regardless of whether he'd get an allocation, which most analysis indicates he would not.

 

[Psugo823]

How does responsibility for the “clerical error” not lie with the individual who made it?

Somehow just about everyone else was able to get it done. I work in a system where I often feel a need to dummy-proof a lot of things to help ensure the individuals involved collectively follow process to make the greater system function properly. But it is seldom possible to make things 100% dummy-proof.

I’m going to chuckle about this whole thing if it is Schriever (and not Teske) who takes the mat at B1Gs. The explanation you said you received from Morningstar makes no sense otherwise. “We don’t think either guy could earn a bid, so we nominated the guy we plan not to wrestle at the tournament.” Huh? That’s not a failure of the system.

Alternatively, there is an error in that explanation (e.g., you were not given the true story, or you did not relay it accurately).

EDIT: The only other way (I can think of) that Morningstar’s reported explanation makes sense is if Iowa just didn’t nominate anyone at 133 (because they thought no one was eligible to earn a bid), and the default response of the system is to make the official nominee from Iowa the roster guy with the most matches at the weight. That would be Schriever at 7-5.

It’s still Iowa’s responsibility, though, to understand that Teske was, in fact, eligible to earn the bid.

So who goes this Saturday? Teske or Schriever?

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

So who goes this Saturday? Teske or Schriever?

Someone will have to find another reason to chuckle when Teske steps on the mat. Teske seems to be who the GIA faithful want to see.

 

[Psugo823]

Someone will have to find another reason to chuckle when Teske steps on the mat. Teske seems to be who the GIA faithful want to see.

So Teske goes.

 

[El-Jefe]

How does responsibility for the “clerical error” not lie with the individual who made it?

Somehow just about everyone else was able to get it done. I work in a system where I often feel a need to dummy-proof a lot of things to help ensure the individuals involved collectively follow process to make the greater system function properly. But it is seldom possible to make things 100% dummy-proof.

I’m going to chuckle about this whole thing if it is Schriever (and not Teske) who takes the mat at B1Gs. The explanation you said you received from Morningstar makes no sense otherwise. “We don’t think either guy could earn a bid, so we nominated the guy we plan not to wrestle at the tournament.” Huh? That’s not a failure of the system.

Alternatively, there is an error in that explanation (e.g., you were not given the true story, or you did not relay it accurately).

EDIT: The only other way (I can think of) that Morningstar’s reported explanation makes sense is if Iowa just didn’t nominate anyone at 133 (because they thought no one was eligible to earn a bid), and the default response of the system is to make the official nominee from Iowa the roster guy with the most matches at the weight. That would be Schriever at 7-5.

It’s still Iowa’s responsibility, though, to understand that Teske was, in fact, eligible to earn the bid.

You're right that it's Iowa's responsibility.

But this will be like politicians who claim full responsibility. Somebody else will bear any consequences.

Which I get: Teske didn't make the mistake and shouldn't bear that burden. But neither should any non-Iowa wrestler.

 

[smalls103]

How does responsibility for the “clerical error” not lie with the individual who made it?

When there is a system wherein an error by a person that made it affects other people there should be oversight. ya, know, like every other system on planet earth.

It’s still Iowa’s responsibility, though, to understand that Teske was, in fact, eligible to earn the bid.

sure it was. that's not the point. the point is 'accuracy'. it seems you want to throw up your hands and say 'oh well'.

it is not very difficult to apply a process where there is proofing. many people noticed the omission within minutes of opening the document.

if it affected only Iowa, i guess i could understand your point. but it goes beyond that - to the B1G and to the entire ncaa field.

would you still feel this way if Penn State couldn't play a bowl game b/c James Franklin forgot to check a box on a website?

 

[slushhead]

You're right that it's Iowa's responsibility.

But this will be like politicians who claim full responsibility. Somebody else will bear any consequences.

Which I get: Teske didn't make the mistake and shouldn't bear that burden. But neither should any non-Iowa wrestler.

I just can’t get worked up over it. People also get ticked when guys who wrestle abbreviated seasons “steal” AQ or AL berths. There are always going to be hard-working wrestlers on the cusp who don’t make it, even though there may be an argument they should have.

In the case of 133, Iowa’s (possible) blunder opened up an extra AL spot for someone. I think this works out fairly in the end, especially if this apparent blunder is noticed by (or brought to the attention of) the NCAA Selection Committee. They have the option of — essentially — making an automatic decision to grant an AL berth to the 10th-place finisher at B1G.

The “wrong” in this philosophical debate can still be corrected.

 

[slushhead]

When there is a system wherein an error by a person that made it affects other people there should be oversight. ya, know, like every other system on planet earth.

sure it was. that's not the point. the point is 'accuracy'. it seems you want to throw up your hands and say 'oh well'.

it is not very difficult to apply a process where there is proofing. many people noticed the omission within minutes of opening the document.

if it affected only Iowa, i guess i could understand your point. but it goes beyond that - to the B1G and to the entire ncaa field.

would you still feel this way if Penn State couldn't play a bowl game b/c James Franklin forgot to check a box on a website?

You claimed earlier that Schriever was the nominee for Iowa. Is that because Iowa submitted his name, or is it because they submitted no name and the system, by default, nominated the roster guy with the most matches at that weight?

The answer to that has some bearing on the merit of a position that the system failed to recognize an error.

 

[smalls103]

why does that matter?

if, on selection sunday, Duke was not in the brackets b/c they forgot click a box, all hell would break lose.

the difference is, NCAA BB and Football are run professional and wrestling is still in the dark ages. This would never happen in a major sport.

 

[Random4598375]

Let’s pretend for a moment that Iowa didn’t submit Lee at 125 for a ranking and the Big Ten got 8 qualifiers instead of 9. Let’s also pretend Steen then takes 9th.

This is where the system failed because there is a pathway for teams to make strategic submission decisions to affect rivals. Imagine a world where trust completely broke down and every team was making Machiavellian decisions about allocations. In that case, Iowa doesn’t submit Lee for an allocation spot because it will make it harder for Steen to qualify. We retaliate by leaving RBY off 133 because it makes it harder for Teske to qualify. That could lead to a huge ugly mess. It would need much better for the allocations to be done automatically, not through submissions by the teams.

 

[mcpat]

This is where the system failed because there is a pathway for teams to make strategic submission decisions to affect rivals. Imagine a world where trust completely broke down and every team was making Machiavellian decisions about allocations. In that case, Iowa doesn’t submit Lee for an allocation spot because it will make it harder for Steen to qualify. We retaliate by leaving RBY off 133 because it makes it harder for Teske to qualify. That could lead to a huge ugly mess. It would need much better for the allocations to be done automatically, not through submissions by the teams.

100%. And I think this is part of the process / system failure to which Willie was referring.

Over and over again the D1 wrestling coaches prove they can’t be trusted - not from an ethics perspective and not from a competence perspective - when it comes to issues affecting the NCAA tournament qualifiers and seeds. For a sport that participants consistently cite as teaching them life lessons through sport, it’s very sad.

 

[Random4598375]

100%. And I think this is part of the process / system failure to which Willie was referring.

Over and over again the D1 wrestling coaches prove they can’t be trusted - not from an ethics perspective and not from a competence perspective - when it comes to issues affecting the NCAA tournament qualifiers and seeds. For a sport that participants consistently cite as teaching them life lessons through sport, it’s very sad.

Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear this one is a “competence” issue, not ethics, but whoever gets screwed by it might be tempted to retaliate next time. That’s why I’m hoping it’s Teske himself who gets 10th so they just end up screwing themselves.

 

[slushhead]

why does that matter?

if, on selection sunday, Duke was not in the brackets b/c they forgot click a box, all hell would break lose.

the difference is, NCAA BB and Football are run professional and wrestling is still in the dark ages. This would never happen in a major sport.

It matters because it speaks to whether this is simply a case of someone actually forgetting to click a box vs. clicking the wrong box. If Iowa actually submitted “Schriever”, it is not reasonable to expect the system to make a judgment call as to whether that was intentional vs. accidental and warrant an inquiry.

If Iowa submitted nothing, then I could
see a case for arguing that the system
should have an automatic control in place that provides time for a follow-up inquiry and correction (if needed) for an incomplete submission.

Error of comission vs. error of omission. The governing body can recognize the latter with objectivity and identify it easily. An error of commission, on the other hand, is tougher to identify — detecting it requires controls that are based on more complex (or even subjective) criteria . . . which of course is more resource intensive.

 

[slushhead]

Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear this one is a “competence” issue, not ethics, but whoever gets screwed by it might be tempted to retaliate next time. That’s why I’m hoping it’s Teske himself who gets 10th so they just end up screwing themselves.

Well, I think it is low odds Iowa has screwed itself. Teske would very likely
get an at-large berth if he took 10th at B1Gs.

Like I indicated earlier, the problem at 133 is a non-issue if the NCAA Selection Committee grants an at-large berth to the 10th-place finisher at B1Gs. That seems very easy to do.

 

[mcpat]

Well, I think it is low odds Iowa has screwed itself. Teske would very likely
get an at-large berth if he took 10th at B1Gs.

Like I indicated earlier, the problem at 133 is a non-issue if the NCAA Selection Committee grants an at-large berth to the 10th-place finisher at B1Gs. That seems very easy to do.

If someone other than one of 10 B1G wrestlers at 133 that earned or should have earned an allocation loses in the 9th place match, then the B1G lost a qualifier. That’s my beef.

Also - a 10th place Teske might be 8-5, right? Are you sure he gets an AL?

 

[Psugo823]

So it's Schriever not Teske then? Lol nobody wants to answer thar question. Bizarre

 

[mcpat]

So it's Schriever not Teske then? Lol nobody wants to answer thar question. Bizarre

From what I gather, Schriever was submitted for the ranking but Teske was submitted for B1G seeding. It *sounds* like they didn’t give the former any thought because they thought neither were qualified to receive a ranking. Hopefully we learn more next week when Willie does his next TFW.

 

[slushhead]

If someone other than one of 10 B1G wrestlers at 133 that earned or should have earned an allocation loses in the 9th place match, then the B1G lost a qualifier. That’s my beef.

Also - a 10th place Teske might be 8-5, right? Are you sure he gets an AL?

That “lost” qualifier can be “made up” with an at-large berth. That’s the tool the system has at its disposal to remedy something having otherwise fallen through the cracks.

Let’s hypothetically put you on the NCAA Selection Committee. If the majority of the committee shares your opinion that the B1G is entitled to 10 spots because 10
wrestlers indisputably earned it on the mat, then you remedy the “error” (regardless of who is at fault for it) by deciding automatically to give an at-large berth to the 10th-place finisher at B1Gs (provided he is one of the aforementioned 10 wrestlers that had technically earned a pre-allocation bid for the conference).

If a wrestler technically — by his regular season performance on the mat — met criteria to earn an AQ spot for the conference, it is hard to argue that he hasn’t done enough to earn an at-large.

There is a lot of wiggle room in the “criteria” for an at-large selection. From a 2021 NCAA release:

The at-large selections were made by the NCAA Division I Wrestling Committee using the following selection criteria: head-to-head competition, quality wins (defined as wins against wrestlers already in the field), coaches ranking, results against common opponents, conference tournament placement and winning percentage. The committee was also able to use subjective criteria such as, but not limited to, historical performance.
(emphasis mine)

They can pretty much do what they want.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

I just can't get worked up over something like this. Mistakes happen every single day, in every walk of life. The at large process may or may not correct the mistake. If not some kid will get a trip to the NCAAs that wouldn't have otherwise, and his dream will have been realized, while another's is dashed. Wheither he comes from the Big 10 or not, he will more than likely go 0-2, maybe 1-2 at best. Shit happens!

 

[slushhead]

I keep coming back to folks would maybe feel differently if this was 125 and Steen placed 9th but couldn’t go because another B1G coach didn’t submit their AQ guy.

(Under that scenario, they wouldn’t wrestle for 9th. But the point being if you eliminated a chance for Steen to make it…)

C’mon, man — Steen didn’t even come close to earning a bid for the conference. Your earlier post indicated your beef was based on a guy who earned (or should have earned) a bid for the conference being left out of Nationals. Steen does not fit that scenario.

Therefore, if he placed one spot out and was a bad candidate for an at-large, I’d have no problem with him not getting an at-large. There is no beef to be had about unfairness to the B1G wrestlers at 133 unless and until the 10th-place finisher does not get the extra at-large berth that was, in fact. created by the Iowa/system “error”.

Just let it play out, and then see if there is truly an injustice to be upset about.

 

[Cstroke]

 

[HawkFan1986]

why does that matter?

if, on selection sunday, Duke was not in the brackets b/c they forgot click a box, all hell would break lose.

the difference is, NCAA BB and Football are run professional and wrestling is still in the dark ages. This would never happen in a major sport.

To me this isn’t the same thing, and it’s the precise reason why wildcard entries exist. I believe the 33 best wrestlers will still be wrestling 133 come NCAA’s.

I believe this was an oversight by the Iowa coaching staff, but it’s minimal in the grand scheme of things. If the 10th place wrestler doesn’t get a wildcard selection, I would argue he doesn’t deserve one.