It is what it is, maybe they'll learn after this year that freshman coming off redshirts from Penn State are a different breed
Probably not though.
Probably not though.
Flow New D1 Ranking for next year
- Thread starter Thenightking
- Start date
That being said, Kerkvliet at 14 is VERY laughable .... have they ... um, watched his freestyle? Besides the actual losses to Cassar, the closest Gable has come to losing a folk match the last few years was a SV against Tanner Hall and his 3-2 match against Kerkvliet.
He's also training with Snyder, Cael, Varner, DT daily ....
He's also training with Snyder, Cael, Varner, DT daily ....
Without the huge effort put forth by society to distance, stay at home and do whatever to hold this thing at bay what is your guess as to how many would have been infected?
California has the fifth highest number of positives and 7th most deaths. They rank first in population, more than 1/3 greater than number two Texas, and they had one of the initial hottest spots in the country. Apparently they have stumbled and bumbled their way to a few correct decisions.
I really don't need to see their rankings. Ranking Brooks 6th after the season he just had causes their rankings to lose ALL credibility.
I have never figured out why people get so worked up over rankings. I mean, who cares really? The rankings do not mean ANYTHING. If you don't like Flo's or whomever just put out your own rankings and see how many people think yours are worthless. 
I don't get worked up about it. The wrestlers will essentially correct any errors through performance.
That said, I do think the rankings tell much more about the rankers than the rankees. These speak volumes about biases in the Flo staff.
That said, I do think the rankings tell much more about the rankers than the rankees. These speak volumes about biases in the Flo staff.
What biases are those?
Every fan base seems to be convinced that FLO is biased against them.
my biggest qualm with FLO's rankings is that, despite their rankings being based purely on college results (at least that's what they claim), they insist on including rankings for a hypothetical FUTURE tournament.
you can argue Kerk has the 14th best college resume going into the season. fine, rank him 14th. but i don't think there's any justification for allotting him round-of-16 tournament points.
you can argue Kerk has the 14th best college resume going into the season. fine, rank him 14th. but i don't think there's any justification for allotting him round-of-16 tournament points.
So with these flo rankings it seems like they are going with the rumors that Suriano is not returning to rutgers. Is this officially yet?
So any prediction on the fat gut from nj.com releasing his thoughts in writing on how this is despicable and all Cael's fault?
Also Hidlay, he put a whooping on Hidlay earlier last year.Bonaccorsi ahead of Brooks.
Allegedly the rumor has it that papa suriano got into a fight with the NJRTC for them bringing in NATO. So allegedly suriano isn’t wrestling for rutgers over this dispute. Just rumors no confirmation though
I guess I'm out of the loop on this one.
Most preseason sports rankings are foolish, IMO, no one should get a ranking till at least a quarter of seasons in, I'd prefer wait till half season in done.
Every time Flo puts out preseason rankings the exact same fans make the exact same complaints about how they rank freshmen. If you don't have any college results, you're not going to be ranked highly by flo. As soon as you notch a solid win, you shoot up the rankings to where you belong. That's how it's always been and it's applied across all teams. Kyle Snyder was unranked going in even though he was a popular pick to win it all. Same with Cox.
It's not disrespectful to the kids or the programs. They just have to participate before they get ranked. It's not crazy.
As for Brooks, they had him ranked about that at the end of last year and none of the guys ahead of him left. He never got the opportunity to wrestle a top 5 guy last year. His best wins are Caffey and Venz, both of whom he's ranked ahead of. I'm pretty sure all of the flo guys have stated they were picking Brooks to win it all if the tournament had happened, but their rankings are based on results only and Brooks doesn't have the same elite wins as the guys ahead of him because he never got the opportunity. It's not a slight.
It's not disrespectful to the kids or the programs. They just have to participate before they get ranked. It's not crazy.
As for Brooks, they had him ranked about that at the end of last year and none of the guys ahead of him left. He never got the opportunity to wrestle a top 5 guy last year. His best wins are Caffey and Venz, both of whom he's ranked ahead of. I'm pretty sure all of the flo guys have stated they were picking Brooks to win it all if the tournament had happened, but their rankings are based on results only and Brooks doesn't have the same elite wins as the guys ahead of him because he never got the opportunity. It's not a slight.
Starring Tom and Terry lolI had heard that Flo was a Cartoon Network Spinoff!
Ranker factoring in how badly Brands was going to hammer him after gassing him out.
Flo's "rankings based on results" is a mantra that they repeatedly utter, yet are inconsistent in it's application.
To have Brooks ranked 6th after his winning the Big 10 and being one of the 2 or 3 favorites going into the NCAA Championships is completely ludicrous.
The classic recent example of the inconsistency is jumping Nelson Brands way up the rankings to 10 after only his 2nd match - a TB victory against an overrated Sammy Colbray. It was ludicrous and proven so almost immediately when he lost to Stefanik.
The rankings got way worse last year with Spey doing them. At least in the past there seemed to be some solid rationale.
Spey "justified" the 184 rankings based on the following: (1) Bonaccorsi beat #2 Bolen twice; (2) NCAA seeds aren't rankings, which are based on results; and (3) Bonaccorsi had better results against tougher opponents. Problems are (1) Bonaccorsi did not beat Bolen twice, (2) NCAA seeds are almost entirely result based -- winning percentage, quality wins, head to head, conference placement and (3) Brooks was 5-1 in quality wins while Bonaccorsi was 2-5 and Brooks had more wins against NCAA qualifiers.
Flo starts its entire process with the "rule" that only those with past NCAA results can be ranked -- thus Freshman have to move up from 26+ and they can only do that by wins over those placed higher to begin with and also ranks people at the start of the year based on prior results. There is a fundamental flaw in claiming to have a system that is totally result based and yet creating a starting point prior to any results. Preseason rankings cannot be earned. Thus, this starting point distorts the entire process especially where, as here, there was no National Championships to "rank" last year's performance. The closest thing would be NCAA seeding but Flo has chosen to ignore that in favor of its own rankings.
Ironically, Flo doesn't have a problem ranking people at new weights despite never having wrestled at that weight but claims you cannot consider HS results. Not sure why a HS head to head result would be any less valuable than a college result from two years ago.
Flo starts its entire process with the "rule" that only those with past NCAA results can be ranked -- thus Freshman have to move up from 26+ and they can only do that by wins over those placed higher to begin with and also ranks people at the start of the year based on prior results. There is a fundamental flaw in claiming to have a system that is totally result based and yet creating a starting point prior to any results. Preseason rankings cannot be earned. Thus, this starting point distorts the entire process especially where, as here, there was no National Championships to "rank" last year's performance. The closest thing would be NCAA seeding but Flo has chosen to ignore that in favor of its own rankings.
Ironically, Flo doesn't have a problem ranking people at new weights despite never having wrestled at that weight but claims you cannot consider HS results. Not sure why a HS head to head result would be any less valuable than a college result from two years ago.
He ended up as BIG Champ and the #3 seed at NCAAs. Does that answer your question? Personally I don;t care about rankings at all but Flo's ranking of Brooks makes no sense.
I've said this a number of times. The "metrics" that they discussed are applied inconsistently. They did the same thing with Alvarez early on last year and a few others. Splashy rankings. They got it right with Alvarez, eventually, but in the beginning when they stuck him in the top 15, they did it on a win over DJ Fehlman and a loss to Nick Farro in about six matches.
They've got their guys that just stick out like sore thumbs. I have not looked at their rankings yet, but I can almost guarantee that they will have Ridge Lovett up there pretty high in the top 20 with 0 ranked wins. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Lovett beat Mosha Schwartz, Taylor Lamont, Todd Small and Louie Hayes, all ranked last season. His only losses to guys ranked below him were to Devan Turner and Jack Skudlarczyk. he has no unranked losses.
the 2nd or 3rd tier (depending on how you divide the weight class) is tightly packed, so Lovett and everyone else in that group don't have a lot of margin for error, and I can understand some arguments for moving some of the guys around in that tier, but I don't see how that is an unreasonable ranking. Everyone below Ridge has either been beaten by Ridge or has much worse losses.
FWIW I looked up Intermat and OpenMat's end of the year ranking and they both had Lovett ranked 12th, the same us Flo. So I guess we all share Ridge as one of our guys!
Anyway, not trying to sound sore about criticism about the rankings. It's all good and I appreciate anyone who reads them and provides feedback of any kind, just puzzled about why the Lovett ranking is bad.
the 2nd or 3rd tier (depending on how you divide the weight class) is tightly packed, so Lovett and everyone else in that group don't have a lot of margin for error, and I can understand some arguments for moving some of the guys around in that tier, but I don't see how that is an unreasonable ranking. Everyone below Ridge has either been beaten by Ridge or has much worse losses.
FWIW I looked up Intermat and OpenMat's end of the year ranking and they both had Lovett ranked 12th, the same us Flo. So I guess we all share Ridge as one of our guys!
Anyway, not trying to sound sore about criticism about the rankings. It's all good and I appreciate anyone who reads them and provides feedback of any kind, just puzzled about why the Lovett ranking is bad.
Appreciate you responding here.
I don't believe any of those wrestlers were ranked when Lovett defeated them at Cliff Keen except Lamont - who started off high because of his 125 results. I did miss him. I could be wrong though as I don't have archives on your rankings. The other 3 guys may have briefly touched the rankings during the year, but are certainly in a group that could stretch as low as 40.
To be fair, I agree with you that the weight is a mess outside of the clear cut very top guys. But IMO there are a couple of guys there - Lovett is the one example - that always seem to get the FLO benefit of the doubt.
He may well end up a top 10 guy but his wins in his career haven't justified that. Similar to Alvarez - whose early top 10 ranking was ALL projection and then began to round into form at the end of the year. If that's the case with some, I find it hard to justify Brooks at 6 with only 1 loss in his career to a very top guy that he subsequently reversed.
Based on attrition, Lovett 10th is perhaps about right, plus or minus.
He was seeded 14th at nationals, which is supposed to reflect his season including quality wins.
6 guys above him are out of eligibility (Gross, Tucker, Piotrowski, Gonser, Sykora, Rooney). Now add back in Micic, Suriano, and Fix, who despite rumors are all returning until officially otherwise. (And if Fix doesn't return, add Brock.)
Assuming no weight changes or other shirts/true freshman supplanting him, that puts him at 11th. (Though that's a tenuous 11th, and he could well be supplanted during the year.)
Then again, that same methodology would put Brooks 4th (as the 3rd seed with a shirting finalist returning).
He was seeded 14th at nationals, which is supposed to reflect his season including quality wins.
6 guys above him are out of eligibility (Gross, Tucker, Piotrowski, Gonser, Sykora, Rooney). Now add back in Micic, Suriano, and Fix, who despite rumors are all returning until officially otherwise. (And if Fix doesn't return, add Brock.)
Assuming no weight changes or other shirts/true freshman supplanting him, that puts him at 11th. (Though that's a tenuous 11th, and he could well be supplanted during the year.)
Then again, that same methodology would put Brooks 4th (as the 3rd seed with a shirting finalist returning).
Similar threads
