FLO: What to do about 184
- Thread starter WideWorld
- Start date
FLO Last week, 165 & Cenzo gets 3 seed.
FLO This week, 184 & Rasheed is 8th.
Next week, FLO will review 133 & kick RBY out of the Top 20
Clickity-click
Clickity-click
Clickity-click
Clickity-click
FLO This week, 184 & Rasheed is 8th.
Next week, FLO will review 133 & kick RBY out of the Top 20
Clickity-click
Clickity-click
Clickity-click
Clickity-click
So, stop clicking and for god sakes, dont call out Willie, last weeks discussion was just what he wanted, why give them what they are trying for? Ignore them bozo’s.
I get it. Shak has wrestled only once in the past 6 weeks, and that was an admittedly lackluster win over Embree. But Flo has never ranked Shak that high anyway.
It all boils down to being on the opposite side of the bracket from Martin at NCAAs, at least as long as you can. So stay out of that 8/9 seed area. He would need an amazing run at B1Gs to get into the 2/3 slot, just to show he is healthy and deserving of the seed. If he isn't healthy, or even INJ defaults (ala Nolf) he won't deserve the seed and will have to fight from a low seed.
When healthy he is a top 3 seed in the weight. Let's hope he can get there.
It all boils down to being on the opposite side of the bracket from Martin at NCAAs, at least as long as you can. So stay out of that 8/9 seed area. He would need an amazing run at B1Gs to get into the 2/3 slot, just to show he is healthy and deserving of the seed. If he isn't healthy, or even INJ defaults (ala Nolf) he won't deserve the seed and will have to fight from a low seed.
When healthy he is a top 3 seed in the weight. Let's hope he can get there.
Forgive them father for they KNOW EXACTLY what they do.
Don't get worked up over it. Let Shak do what he needs to do in the tournaments. I don't mind what they do because at the end of the day it doesn't matter. It's nice conversation fodder. I think people like to get mad for the sake of it.
Didn't read the article, but 184 is a mess right now, similar to 133 and possibly 141. Shak has little to point to at this point to say he's deserving of much better than his placement last year (7th). Undefeated, yes, but virtually no "quality" wins. I just want him as healthy as possible--he gets there, and he'll be making some noise.
Flo messed up Shak from day 1 and never rectified it and now it's become what it is and Flo will never admit their error.
Flo had Shak ranked 5 pre season behind Martin, Parker, Venz, Zavatsky. Venz and ZZ lost multiple times earlier in the season. At that point Shak should have moved up to 3 (as every other outlet did). Instead Flo, moved Shak down behind the two guys that lost and even behind the guys that beat them. Then those guys kept taking L's and Shak keeps moving down in Flo's rankings.
When Parker lost to Venz, Shak should have moved up to 2 (as every other outlet did), but again, Flo kept moving him down and they point to the fact that he hasn't beaten anyone in top 10.
Bottom line..the preseason rank starts the equation..they felt Shak was better than everyone ranked behind him at that point (and Shak has done nothing to let them believe otherwise since he hasn't lost). So as the people in front kept taking losses, Shak should have moved up naturally. They didn't do it from the get go and it's created a mess for them.
So if you're looking for a true ranking of Shak, just check anywhere else than Flo. They messed this one up and I believe are to stubborn to admit their mistake.
It shouldn't be that hard to follow common sense logic..
Let's say you start off 1.Nolf, 2 Berger 3. Deaken.(just for example/arguments sake). Berger lossed to Parriot (outside top 10). Flo would then go, 1. Nolf 2 PArriot 3 Berger 4 Deaken...Does that make any sense?? No of course not but this is what they did with Shak and it kept getting worse. The common sense approach would be to move Deaken to 2 and then from there figure it out. Not penalize Deaken
Flo had Shak ranked 5 pre season behind Martin, Parker, Venz, Zavatsky. Venz and ZZ lost multiple times earlier in the season. At that point Shak should have moved up to 3 (as every other outlet did). Instead Flo, moved Shak down behind the two guys that lost and even behind the guys that beat them. Then those guys kept taking L's and Shak keeps moving down in Flo's rankings.
When Parker lost to Venz, Shak should have moved up to 2 (as every other outlet did), but again, Flo kept moving him down and they point to the fact that he hasn't beaten anyone in top 10.
Bottom line..the preseason rank starts the equation..they felt Shak was better than everyone ranked behind him at that point (and Shak has done nothing to let them believe otherwise since he hasn't lost). So as the people in front kept taking losses, Shak should have moved up naturally. They didn't do it from the get go and it's created a mess for them.
So if you're looking for a true ranking of Shak, just check anywhere else than Flo. They messed this one up and I believe are to stubborn to admit their mistake.
It shouldn't be that hard to follow common sense logic..
Let's say you start off 1.Nolf, 2 Berger 3. Deaken.(just for example/arguments sake). Berger lossed to Parriot (outside top 10). Flo would then go, 1. Nolf 2 PArriot 3 Berger 4 Deaken...Does that make any sense?? No of course not but this is what they did with Shak and it kept getting worse. The common sense approach would be to move Deaken to 2 and then from there figure it out. Not penalize Deaken
Last edited:
I disagree that any ranking should be slaves to initial rankings. That gives them some meaning when they are based on no current data. If Shak starts #1 and is undefeated via narrow wins vs unranked guys, while a few guys that started behind him only have 1 loss in a gauntlet of 5+ Top 20 opponents, I would have no issue dropping Shak down. I know my example is more extreme than the current ranking, but Shak hasn't wrestled much, and when he has his opponents haven't been great. Any ranking of him now is little better than a guess.
(1) Seeds ≠ rankings. Flo has Cenzo ranked #1 at 165 and has all year, even though they posted and have defended Nomad's argument that he should be seeded third at B1Gs.
(2) Rasheed has wrestled one match in the past five weeks. And the only one in the top 10 he has any history against (and it ain't good history) is Ryan Preisch. I don't know how anyone could rank him much higher than 8th. That said, the Flo rankings have him as the third highest ranked Big Ten wrestler. A third seed at B1Gs would be a good outcome for him.
I like Rasheed to finish as a high AA, and I thought Flo had him too low earlier in the season, but now that he's missed most of the past month (and six of the nine conference duals), he's probably right around where he belongs in the rankings.
(2) Rasheed has wrestled one match in the past five weeks. And the only one in the top 10 he has any history against (and it ain't good history) is Ryan Preisch. I don't know how anyone could rank him much higher than 8th. That said, the Flo rankings have him as the third highest ranked Big Ten wrestler. A third seed at B1Gs would be a good outcome for him.
I like Rasheed to finish as a high AA, and I thought Flo had him too low earlier in the season, but now that he's missed most of the past month (and six of the nine conference duals), he's probably right around where he belongs in the rankings.
Evil prevails when good men do nothing -
I would counter your argument by saying I can't recall a #1 (in your scenario) ever moving down when he hasn't taken a loss. Only time a #1 moves down is if he loses or doesn't wrestle for extended period of time (see Stoll).
At the end of the day, you shouldn't move down 3 spots from where you started without taking a L and I can't recall one other instance where this has happened. Also he has been dominant (not that that matters too much).
The coaches latest ranking, Intermat, Win, Track all have him at 2 because they didn't punish him for other guys taking L's
Flo's pretty open about their liking to award wins, which is what happened to Shak this year. Doesn't mean I always agree with it, but they more than all the other rankers seem to lift the veil on their process.
I think Flo does a great job with their rankings and I agree they explain themselves. I just believe they messed up this weight big time. And it shows since it's so much of an outlier than everyone else. At this point in time, most of the rankings are pretty much the same give or take a spot or 2. 6 spots is a big gap and an outlier
That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Or shouldn't happen to someone who starts our ranked 5th. Even better case for someone who starts out 5th... didn't think he was unbeatable at the beginning of the year, hasn't proven much, why make him #2? Especially if he might not even be healthy?
I'd agree with you if he started out unranked or pre season #20. To move up you need to beat people ahead of you. He started at 5 (based on last years results which is the starting point).
You think he wasn't "unbeatable" that's fine, I don't either but he hasn't been beaten and when a bunch of guys ranked ahead of him have on average 3-4 losses, I don't think that proves they should be ranked ahead of him.
At the end of the day..it's all going to play itself out anyway..this is purely ranking discussion..nothing more, nothing less.
I agree with all the outlets that have him at at #2. You and Flo think he should be 8..that's fine..just giving my thoughts
I don't think that is true (in all ranking services at least). If I remember correctly Hall was still ranked number 1 for a portion of the season until the rankers claimed that Zahid's wins were better than Mark's and that was enough to bump him up to the 1 seed. This was widely discussed because the claim was that the all star match wasn't supposed to impact ranking.
Nope..he started the year #2 and stayed that way. He was never number 1 last year (many including me didn't agree the all-star result should hold any weight) but that's besides the point
This one can be a bit polarizing, as multiple arguments (positions) have merit. Everyone is right .
.
1) Indeed all star results should not count towards rankings
2) Zahid backed it up
3) Marky righted the ship
4) Cenzo and I dont care
seems like we'd get more clicks if we ranked Rasheed and PSU guys higher rather than lower but we'll get accused of click bait no matter what so it's all good.
for Rasheed its pretty simple, he doesn't have the wins of the guys ahead of him in the rankings. that doesn't mean he can't beat those guys, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but that's how we do rankings. we're treating Emery Parker the same way. nothing personal!
for Rasheed its pretty simple, he doesn't have the wins of the guys ahead of him in the rankings. that doesn't mean he can't beat those guys, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but that's how we do rankings. we're treating Emery Parker the same way. nothing personal!
You guys do a good job.I just have a hard time with this one. I've never seen you guys treat someone like Shakur and that's what's perplexing to me (I know it's not personal).
If you (Spey), ranked 1. Nolf, 2. Berger 3 Deakin 4 Panteo and 5 Early (just for example)
Someone outside top10 (Parriot) beats Berger. Would you bring Deakin to #2 or would you putt Parriot at 2, Berger 3 and move Deakin to 4? I think in the past you guys would always move Deakin up NOT down in this situation. And this is basically what's happened to Shakur..and it keeps getting worse because the guys you keep putting ahead (when they shouldnt be) have multiple losses. Just weird because I've never seen you guys keep bringing a guy down when he hasn't lost
How long till Smalls arrives and goes off? I’m guessing about 4 Budweisers in and 9:30 pm
we're doing the same thing with Emery Parker at the same weight this season. both Parker and Rasheed have wrestled a limited schedule (less than 17 D1 matches so far). Parker started preseason #2 and only has losses to preseason #1 and #3. He's now #9.
It is unusual circumstances but what are they supposed to do when a guy doesn’t have any top 15 wins? He’s injured, we all get it but it doesn’t make sense to bump him up just because guys ranked 2-10 are beating up on each other. They would just be rewarding guys for missing matches.
Sam Stoll was ranked 1 to start the year. If Stoll wrestled day 1 like Shak, was 16-0 at this point with equal comp as Shak, he'd still be #1, even if Gable or Cassar had better wins. That's my point..they wouldn't knock him down
As far as wins..he beat Bolen who beat both Smith and DePerez who are top 15. He beat Colbray and Embree, both top 20..not top 10 guys but...
They actually did knock him down after he missed the Minnesota match. He was down to 5 before he even lost a match.
Exactly, so it’s not apples to apples but i think it shows consistency on their part. He was the highest returning AA so he was #1 but once guys like Steveson and Cassar built their own merit he was passed by. IMO, Rasheed simply hasn’t built his own resume enough to move up at this point. Agree to disagree on that part I guess.
Blind resume says that 184 from 2-9 is a crap shoot, so using empirical data is the safest way to rank without bias. ... ohhh, and OT>Criteria
“Outrage culture” of phone-ins and social media betrays most fans’ experiences
When Saturday Comes
Feb 11, 2019
When Saturday Comes
Feb 11, 2019
"The invitation to be outraged is in no way surprising in the social media age of journalism, where every complex issue is watered down to a series of polar viewpoints."
I don't understand why so many people get worked up about rankings. It will all get settled on the mat.
While it's true that Shak is undefeated, he's also been injured and had a very weak schedule. What's his best win? Sam Colbray? Hunter Bolen? A healthy Shak is probably a top 5 wrestler at this weight, true, but rankings can't be a projection of future results. They can only be used in a historical context. Shak's wins just aren't very good! Not his fault that he's been injured, of course, but he will have a chance to show what he can do in a few weeks.
I can also appreciate that Flo is one of the few outlets that explain their rankings rationale.
While it's true that Shak is undefeated, he's also been injured and had a very weak schedule. What's his best win? Sam Colbray? Hunter Bolen? A healthy Shak is probably a top 5 wrestler at this weight, true, but rankings can't be a projection of future results. They can only be used in a historical context. Shak's wins just aren't very good! Not his fault that he's been injured, of course, but he will have a chance to show what he can do in a few weeks.
I can also appreciate that Flo is one of the few outlets that explain their rankings rationale.
Let’s go to the tape (note the time stamp):
Obviously Mr. Saylor has better things to do than yell at us under the influence.
Similar threads
