FLO: What to do about 184
- Thread starter WideWorld
- Start date
And my question would be, do you actually believe he's 9th best and Shak is 8th best? If so that speaks volumes. You know, like Nolf not being number one was absurd or Cenzo number three. So your saying a schedule of a yet undefended wrestler matters more than being undefeated and a two time returning National Champion. Me thinks this is nothing but bs and click bait material. I know of no other sport that lowers a ranking of an athlete unless defeated or taking a prolonged time off. Shak at 8 is absurd and has no common sense whatsoever.
I believe a healthy Shak is somewhere around #2 or #3. I understand dropping injured guys because an injured Shak is not nearly as good. The Shak we saw against Michigan was not the healthy version, and rankers are fair to question if he will ever be fully healthy this year. Shak is an example of a guy who just needs health and he will be fine. A healthy Shak places 3/rd or better at BIG no matter where he is seeded and turns around and does the same thing at the NCAA. A hurt Shak limps in around 5/th at BIG and ends up fighting for a 7/8 place or no place at the dance. I think PSU wins with or without his points, but I want to see a healthy Shak out there fighting for a title.
@Jaroslav Hasek or anyone know if Stoll stayed high in the rankings while undefeated and not wrestling much? I know he dropped once he started losing but before that Im unsure if that has relevance to how Sugar was treated from a ranking perspective.
Cenzo at 3 is a seeding thing, not a ranking thing.
Cenzo at 3 is a seeding thing, not a ranking thing.
it's irrelevant if I think Rasheed is actually the 8th or 9th best wrestler. We're not going to make exceptions to the way we do the rankings for Rasheed or anyone else. Emery Parker is getting the same treatment in the same weight class with very similar circumstances.
You also make it sound like Rasheed started the year #1. He started #5, and is now #8. In team sport rankings, sometimes teams do get passed by other teams despite not losing when other teams notch big wins. Also in team sports, usually a team does not miss 1/3 to 1/2 of their scheduled competitions. Typically.
Anyway, I do know I'm on a team specific message board so I apologize for the lecture, but you quoted me so I felt the need to respond.
Stoll dropped when he sat out the match against Gable Steveson. That was when Steveson got ranked #1 and Stoll dropped to #5, despite being undefeated and having finished 5th last season.
And thank you for pointing out that no one ever ranked Cenzo #3. that was a totally separate article Nomad did where he proposed an objective seeding criteria for big tens and then applied it to several weight classes that produced interesting results.
You're free to your opinion here. I just disagree with the way rankings or in this case I guess seedings are done.
I'll also add. If we're going to start using the looks test, then how does Mark Hall look at times? Certainly not dominating like Bo or Jason. The thing is, he wins and that's what matters. IMAR looked unbeatable until Cenzo decked him and dominated him. Cenzo is the 2 time defending National Champion, undefeated this year, and a 3rd seed is proper? That's laughable.
To clarify, the Cenzo article by Nomad was an “opinion” piece by Nomad on how he thinks the B1G seeding committee should think. The Shak article explains the weekly “official” flo rankings Spey & Pyles do. Flo periodically also does “prediction” pieces that explain how the author thinks NCAAs will play out—these often differ dramatically from their rankings, which is more formulaic vs. a gut feeling—even if it’s the same author(s).
It sounds like you want the rankers to insert their personal opinions into their rankings rather than rely solely on results. Rankings aren’t a prediction but it seems like that is what you want them to be.
It is not likely to have rankings without personal opinions being involved. I can make a set that go simply by set criteria, but what criteria I choose would be my personal opinion.
I think I would like to see Flo do the rankings an NCAA floating prediction list. Place wrestlers according to how they feel they will finish based on current stats as well as predicted finishes. 133 would come into play for me- I watched DeSanto beat NS, but would still predict NS to outplace DeSanto.
I think I would like to see Flo do the rankings an NCAA floating prediction list. Place wrestlers according to how they feel they will finish based on current stats as well as predicted finishes. 133 would come into play for me- I watched DeSanto beat NS, but would still predict NS to outplace DeSanto.
Yeah--the rankings aren't pure math--but there are certain criterea they will always use (quality of wins/losses) and other they would only use in a tie breaker (gut). It would sort of be cool to have the rankings and predictions alongside eachother week to week.
No, I believe you should however take the whole picture into consideration. Rankings at the beginning of the year are based on what? A prediction. I simply believe a little common sense needs to go into the equation. If you want numbers and formulas, Cenzo is undefeated and 2 time defending National Champion. Name one wrestler that tops that at 165? And yes I know it was an opinion piece.
Was Flo putting Weigel at 6 after he hasn't wrestled anyone and just came back objective or subjective?
A lot of this stuff is subjective even if you don't want it to be
No, preseason rankings are based on the prior years results which is why true freshman are generally ranked very low. Gable was the exception because of he competed in an open tournament against college guys. Nobody tops that at 165 which is why Cenzo is #1.
There is some subjectiveness but good rankers try to reduce it as much as possible.
My final thoughts..because I don't want to go round and round..I think Shak should be ranked 2 because of the reasons I described in my first post on page 1.
Now heres the crazy part..I don't believe he should be seeded 2nd for B1Gs because he did miss Myles, Venz, Parker. I'll defer to Roar when he does his B1G seeding and see what he says.
I do understand the difference between rankings and seedings. IMO you shouldn't get moved down in rank unless you lose or sit out too much time. But for seedings in conference I think it should penalize you if you miss multiple big opponents
Now heres the crazy part..I don't believe he should be seeded 2nd for B1Gs because he did miss Myles, Venz, Parker. I'll defer to Roar when he does his B1G seeding and see what he says.
I do understand the difference between rankings and seedings. IMO you shouldn't get moved down in rank unless you lose or sit out too much time. But for seedings in conference I think it should penalize you if you miss multiple big opponents
Just saw this thread.
what you guys have to understand is that we're trying to get pageviews. pageviews pay like 1 cent per million hits. we need a lot of hits.
therefore, as i'm sure you'll understand, i instructed the boys to 'mix it up'.
no harm, no foul. we'll correct right b4 conferences and we'll still get our pageviews.
as fellow pennsylvanians help me stay in business.
what you guys have to understand is that we're trying to get pageviews. pageviews pay like 1 cent per million hits. we need a lot of hits.
therefore, as i'm sure you'll understand, i instructed the boys to 'mix it up'.
no harm, no foul. we'll correct right b4 conferences and we'll still get our pageviews.
as fellow pennsylvanians help me stay in business.
Similar threads
