Final Coaches Rank and RPI

[pish69]

NCAA Releases Final Set of Coaches Rankings/RPI

With NCAA DI brackets slated to release tonight, the NCAA released their final set of coaches rankings and RPI; both important factors in determining at-large's and NCAA seeding. Final Coaches Rankings Weight Rank First NameLast Name Team League Points: 125 1 Luke Stanich Lehigh EIWA 388 125 2 Br...

intermatwrestle.com

 

[pish69]

Surprised Carter got moved down to 2 in coaches rank? Makes no sense (I understand he's not going to be 1 seed, but any coach in their right mind should be ranking him 1)

A little surprised Braeden came in at 2 (Flo and Intermat both have him 1). I'm not a matrix expert, but this may give Stanich 1 seed (I'm not complaining)

 

[Pennstate1985]

How does the coaches's poll trend to seeding historically?

O'toole has by far the biggest spread between 1st and 2nd. Is he really that much better than the rest than say Brooks is? Smallest gap was 125 by far.

I was okay for the most part. Can't really complain.

 

[pish69]

How does the coaches's poll trend to seeding historically?

O'toole has by far the biggest spread between 1st and 2nd. Is he really that much better than the rest than say Brooks is? Smallest gap was 125 by far.

I was okay for the most part. Can't really complain.

Coaches rank just one of the different things in the matrix. Could be difference in Stanich/Braeden 1 and 2

I believe its head to head 25%
Conference Placement 15%
Win % 10%
Coaches Rank 10%
RPI 10%
Quality Wins 20%

Someone else can correct me if wrong..not sure of the % on the others.

Then if it's super close, the commitee can move guys up or down a spot or two

For example..If Hidlay came out ahead in the matrix, they would put Brooks 1, same with Kerk and Younger, Mitchell and Keegan, I call it the common sense clause

 

[pish69]

Any guesses to where Carter falls? I'm thinking 6 seed. No RPI, No conference placement

 

[Dwayne_Johnson33]

Coaches rank just one of the different things in the matrix. Could be difference in Stanich/Braeden 1 and 2

I believe its head to head 25%
Conference Placement 15%
Win %
Coaches Rank 10%
RPI
Quality Wins

Someone else can correct me if wrong..not sure of the % on the others.

Then if it's super close, the commitee can move guys up or down a spot or two

For example..If Hidlay came out ahead in the matrix, they would put Brooks 1, same with Kerk and Younger, Mitchell and Keegan, I call it the common sense clause

Quality wins is 20% which definitely favors Davis
RPI is 10% favors Davis
Win % 10% also Davis

 

[RoarLions1]

125: Davis vs Stanich

HTH (25%): Did not wrestle
Quality Wins (20%): Davis with wins over McKee, Barnett, DeAugustino (x2), Kaylor. Stanich best win vs Barnett. Advantage Davis
Qualifying Event Placement (15%): Both won conference, 7.5% each.
Common Opponents (10%): Only Barnett matters, both won.
RPI (10%): Davis higher, gets the 10%
Coaches Ranking (10%): Stanich higher, he gets the 10%
Win % (10%): Davis higher by a smidgen, gets the 10%

Davis should be #1 seed. Losing to Ayala gives that 25% to Ayala. Ayala also gets RPI. Davis gets Quality Wins, Qualifying Event Placement, Common Opponents (DeAugustino and Kaylor beat Ayala), CR and Win %. Again, advantage Davis.

Discussion?

 

[pish69]

Quality wins is 20% which definitely favors Davis
RPI is 10% favors Davis
Win % 10% also Davis

RPI is a crazy calculation. I wont try to figure it out.

As far as quality wins? How is that defined?

 

[Dwayne_Johnson33]

RPI is a crazy calculation. I wont try to figure it out.

As far as quality wins? How is that defined?

Tier 1 .900 Win% Top 5 Coaches Rank Top 5 RPI 6pts
Tier 2 .800 Top 10 Top 10 4.5pts
Tier 3 .700 Top 15 Top 15 3pts
Tier 4 .620 Top 20 Top 20 2 pts
Tier 5 .550 Top 25 Top 25 1pt
Tier 6 .000 Top 77 Top 77 .5pt

 

[pish69]

Tier 1 .900 Win% Top 5 Coaches Rank Top 5 RPI 6pts
Tier 2 .800 Top 10 Top 10 4.5pts
Tier 3 .700 Top 15 Top 15 3pts
Tier 4 .620 Top 20 Top 20 2 pts
Tier 5 .550 Top 25 Top 25 1pt
Tier 6 .000 Top 77 Top 77 .5pt

Does a wrestler have to have all 3 (win%, top 5 coach, top 5 RPI) to get top tier quality win or any of them 3?

 

[Dwayne_Johnson33]

Does a wrestler have to have all 3 (win%, top 5 coach, top 5 RPI) to get top tier quality win or any of them 3?

All 3

 

[pish69]

All 3

So if someone beat a guy like Carter (no RPI), that wouldnt be a tier 1 win? What would it be?

 

[Dwayne_Johnson33]

So if someone beat a guy like Carter (no RPI), that wouldnt be a tier 1 win? What would it be?

Great question I’m not sure. Maybe Roar would have the answer.

 

[Random4598375]

RPI is a crazy calculation. I wont try to figure it out.

As far as quality wins? How is that defined?

Quality wins is almost as hard to figure out as RPI. There are tiers to the quality of the opponent for quality wins and points assigned by tier.

 

[El-Jefe]

RPI is a crazy calculation. I wont try to figure it out.

As far as quality wins? How is that defined?

The one part of Quality Wins that is not well defined is: how they determine which points split to use.

 

[RoarLions1]

Great question I’m not sure. Maybe Roar would have the answer.

Not sure tbh. I was told that it was two of the three criteria met for tiering of opponents, which may or may not be true. It does align with the Gold/Silver Standard thinking, but who knows. And I'm not talking about the COVID year where RPI was removed from the tiering.

 

[Fink]

My understanding is 2 out of 3 to set what category for quality wins.
Kerk and Brooks are first in RPI, which gives them the 1 seed per the matrix.
Davis over Stanich based on QW and RPI. Should be Davis, Stanich, Ayala.

 

[Cowbell Man]

Surprised Carter got moved down to 2 in coaches rank? Makes no sense (I understand he's not going to be 1 seed, but any coach in their right mind should be ranking him 1)

A little surprised Braeden came in at 2 (Flo and Intermat both have him 1). I'm not a matrix expert, but this may give Stanich 1 seed (I'm not complaining)

Manning rallied some friends.

 

[jmadden1998]

The one part of Quality Wins that is not well defined is: how they determine which points split to use.

 

[eddy line]

Surprised Carter got moved down to 2 in coaches rank? Makes no sense (I understand he's not going to be 1 seed, but any coach in their right mind should be ranking him 1)

A little surprised Braeden came in at 2 (Flo and Intermat both have him 1). I'm not a matrix expert, but this may give Stanich 1 seed (I'm not complaining)

 

[RoarLions1]

My understanding is 2 out of 3 to set what category for quality wins.
Kerk and Brooks are first in RPI, which gives them the 1 seed per the matrix.
Davis over Stanich based on QW and RPI. Should be Davis, Stanich, Ayala.

My post above states the same thing (2 out of 3). May have been you I had the forum convo with last year?

 

[El-Jefe]

How does the coaches's poll trend to seeding historically?

O'toole has by far the biggest spread between 1st and 2nd. Is he really that much better than the rest than say Brooks is? Smallest gap was 125 by far.

I was okay for the most part. Can't really complain.

Final Coaches' Rank usually correlates decently to seeding. Offhand, most guys are likely seeded within +/- 2 spots of their coaches rank. Obviously some outliers each year (notably Carter) -- but if you need to guesstimate quickly, that's the way to go.

Coaches' Rank often correlates very well with Win %, and with Win % augmented by conference finish. That covers about 1/3 of the seeding criteria.

Also: only pay attention to the rankings and not the voting points, which do not matter at all.