Foley's Friday Mailbag for 3/15/19

[Tom McAndrew]

Shak is mentioned in a Q, Penn State is given kudos in an A, a Q & A on PA wrestling success, a Q & A on Kerry McCoy

For those keeping track, this is week 128, and despite promises he tweeted, no response to Flo's article about Olympic reffing corruption from Foley.

Mike C is back in Foley's good graces, as he got 4 of the 8 questions.

You can access this week's Mailbag at THIS LINK

 

[rassling]

This post crack's me up every week.

 

[nerfstate]

Lotta love for Pitt's Thomas! Not that he doesn't deserve more attention, he's a stud. But a lock for a finalist on White's side? Smells like a classic Foley (ie wrong) folkstyle pick to me.

 

[jack66]

I'm not defending the selection committee, but does Foley ever criticize the ridiculous seedings at world events?

 

[jschrantz]

Tired of the seedings crying, if it was a mistake, it will be proven on the mat by the wrestlers. Has a way of figuring itself out, why wrestling is the best

 

[matter7172]

Lotta love for Pitt's Thomas! Not that he doesn't deserve more attention, he's a stud. But a lock for a finalist on White's side? Smells like a classic Foley (ie wrong) folkstyle pick to me.

I don't care, man. From his keyboard to God's ear.

 

[dunkej01]

I've read his intro 3xs and each time I think to myself....mmmmm this is great word salad. Heavy on the fluff, no real meat and I'm left hungry.

Typical Friday Foley meal

 

[matter7172]

Tired of the seedings crying, if it was a mistake, it will be proven on the mat by the wrestlers. Has a way of figuring itself out, why wrestling is the best

You and me, both. Does anyone think there is a seeding result that isn't going to chafe *someone*? They are all in the same room and the winner is usually the best wrestler at the weight class, which is why upsets are so spectacular.

 

[nerfstate]

I'm definitely a bigger fan of actual wrestling than the takes on seeding year in and year out. That said, I think there's legs to this concern over a diminished regular season and conference tourney the way things are going--and that that is very bad for the sport. MFF's specifically in a conference tourney should probably have more of a negative overall. No--last year, it wouldn't have been kind to anyone to put Jason lower than the 3--but Shak at the 2 this year, among others is objectively a bit dubious. Certainly the Dhesi scenario is weird too. I'm not as passionate about this as most--so that's all you'll get out me. What else am I going to do between now and Thursday?

 

[JBott]

Shak is in a unique situation. He has been hurt on and off all year. He is undefeated. Even if he had lost to #1 ranked Myles Martin he would still be the only other wrestler in the weight without multiple losses. It probably would not have changed his seed. Just like Moore losing to Bo again didn't hurt his seed.

 

[a_mshaffer]

I'm definitely a bigger fan of actual wrestling than the takes on seeding year in and year out. That said, I think there's legs to this concern over a diminished regular season and conference tourney the way things are going--and that that is very bad for the sport. MFF's specifically in a conference tourney should probably have more of a negative overall. No--last year, it wouldn't have been kind to anyone to put Jason lower than the 3--but Shak at the 2 this year, among others is objectively a bit dubious. Certainly the Dhesi scenario is weird too. I'm not as passionate about this as most--so that's all you'll get out me. What else am I going to do between now and Thursday?

I agree but there is some silly items. Carr at 141 is questionable. If you're going to seed then you should try and do it right. The q with Shaq isn't having one loss (had he lost to MyMar) it is based on him not wrestling the top tier wrestlers. Beating Bolen in the Scuffle was good since he beat the OkSt guy but that doesn't count because of his redshirt. We know it is not Shaq's fault he is injured or wanted to be safe, but coming up as #2 based on results is a reach. If we based it on what we think, then ok.

 

[jschrantz]

I'm definitely a bigger fan of actual wrestling than the takes on seeding year in and year out. That said, I think there's legs to this concern over a diminished regular season and conference tourney the way things are going--and that that is very bad for the sport. MFF's specifically in a conference tourney should probably have more of a negative overall. No--last year, it wouldn't have been kind to anyone to put Jason lower than the 3--but Shak at the 2 this year, among others is objectively a bit dubious. Certainly the Dhesi scenario is weird too. I'm not as passionate about this as most--so that's all you'll get out me. What else am I going to do between now and Thursday?

Yes,,that’s the thing, nothing else to do between now and Thursday, you got Conference Tourney Week, “B*tch Week, and then Nationals

 

[El-Jefe]

If seeds don't matter and they'll settle it on the mat, then why not put 1-16 in the top half and 17-33 in the bottom half?

Then within the top half, cluster 1-8 together and 9-16 together? Etc.

Open with 1-2 winner vs. 3-4 winner in Round 2. And their losers in first round consis.

Yes it's ridiculous, but if seeds don't matter then seeds don't matter.

 

[kingslayer_85]

Tired of the seedings crying, if it was a mistake, it will be proven on the mat by the wrestlers. Has a way of figuring itself out, why wrestling is the best

That is easy to say given where PSU seeding landed. But would you say the same thing if PSU and TOSU were expected to be in a tight race with the only way we are to win was by bonus points. In addition let's say that our number 1 seed guy who we are counting on to get bonus for the first two rounds draws a two time AA. Now getting bonus against that guy is now very remote compared to typical 33rd or 32nd seed.
All that being said not going to matter this year in the team race but does that mean we shouldn't try to seed accurately. We can go back to what PA high school used to do with no seeds and then get the 1 and 2 in the quarters or something like that. I suspect that once we are on the receiving side maybe your view changes

 

[jschrantz]

That is easy to say given where PSU seeding landed. But would you say the same thing if PSU and TOSU were expected to be in a tight race with the only way we are to win was by bonus points. In addition let's say that our number 1 seed guy who we are counting on to get bonus for the first two rounds draws a two time AA. Now getting bonus against that guy is now very remote compared to typical 33rd or 32nd seed.
All that being said not going to matter this year in the team race but does that mean we shouldn't try to seed accurately. We can go back to what PA high school used to do with no seeds and then get the 1 and 2 in the quarters or something like that. I suspect that once we are on the receiving side maybe your view changes

There are going to be some differences of opinion when seeding, can’t be fixed. Happens every year , what’s the solution? Go PIAA style and just say Big 10-#4 gets ACC-#2??? I suppose it needs to be that concrete, otherwise someone always butt hurt.

 

[lobo lion]

Yes,,that’s the thing, nothing else to do between now and Thursday, you got Conference Tourney Week, “B*tch Week, and then Nationals

Bitch week. I like it.

 

[jschrantz]

If seeds don't matter and they'll settle it on the mat, then why not put 1-16 in the top half and 17-33 in the bottom half?

Then within the top half, cluster 1-8 together and 9-16 together? Etc.

Open with 1-2 winner vs. 3-4 winner in Round 2. And their losers in first round consis.

Yes it's ridiculous, but if seeds don't matter then seeds don't matter.

Yes, they matter. Let’s not overreact though, some years u win, others you don’t. Legends don’t care about their draw

 

[Chickenman Testa]

That is easy to say given where PSU seeding landed. But would you say the same thing if PSU and TOSU were expected to be in a tight race with the only way we are to win was by bonus points. In addition let's say that our number 1 seed guy who we are counting on to get bonus for the first two rounds draws a two time AA. Now getting bonus against that guy is now very remote compared to typical 33rd or 32nd seed.
All that being said not going to matter this year in the team race but does that mean we shouldn't try to seed accurately. We can go back to what PA high school used to do with no seeds and then get the 1 and 2 in the quarters or something like that. I suspect that once we are on the receiving side maybe your view changes

This. Seeding definitely matters when it comes to bonus opportunities.

 

[El-Jefe]

There are going to be some differences of opinion when seeding, can’t be fixed. Happens every year , what’s the solution? Go PIAA style and just say Big 10-#4 gets ACC-#2??? I suppose it needs to be that concrete, otherwise someone always butt hurt.

That's how we got the Pletcher-Sasso quarters -- also no longer how PIAA operates.

PIAA now seeds the regional champs, and separates them from the regional 2 and 3 placers.

For its faults (particularly weighting placement points against freshmen), that might be a worthwhile model for NCAAs.

 

[jschrantz]

This. Seeding definitely matters when it comes to bonus opportunities.

That was a tough situation there to protect against with Smith making such huge late changes. I don’t know how you seed around that. What did Joe Smith do again at 165 in Big 12 tourney? The Bull should roll. They (HR) gotta get over it

 

[jschrantz]

That's how we got the Pletcher-Sasso quarters -- also no longer how PIAA operates.

PIAA now seeds the regional champs, and separates them from the regional 2 and 3 placers.

For its faults (particularly weighting placement points against freshmen), that might be a worthwhile model for NCAAs.

I agree , almost the only thing you could do to prevent people being upset about their seeds I suppose

 

[El-Jefe]

I agree , almost the only thing you could do to prevent people being upset about their seeds I suppose

It does have the downside of giving the seeding committee a lot less ability to monkey around and steer seeds toward their teams' benefit.

An unintended benefit would be the smaller conference champs being guaranteed a top 8 seed. It's a clear incentive for recruits to go to those schools, which might help make those schools long term more viable.

 

[jschrantz]

It does have the downside of giving the seeding committee a lot less ability to monkey around and steer seeds toward their teams' benefit.

An unintended benefit would be the smaller conference champs being guaranteed a top 8 seed. It's a clear incentive for recruits to go to those schools, which might help make those schools long term more viable.

I like it, also I hate hearing the complaints every year as it’s currently set up when it’s impossible to seed an entire NCAA tournament without issues. But again it’s conversation which is also good and a few dramatic early matchups.

 

[El-Jefe]

I like it, also I hate hearing the complaints every year as it’s currently set up when it’s impossible to seed an entire NCAA tournament without issues. But again it’s conversation which is also good and a few dramatic early matchups.

Don't fool yourself, there will ALWAYS be complaints.

Just wait until Tan Tom has his B10 runner-up get the equivalent of the 14 seed on the bracket.

 

[El-Jefe]

I took a whack at applying PIAA rules to the NCAA brackets (seed the champs; separate the conference 2s and 3s from the champs; everyone else fills in the gaps). It produces some bizarre brackets.

Too many conferences and too much disparity between them. Shoehorning current low seeds into the 6-8 spots blows up the brackets.

Probably better to lump all the conference 1-2-3 guys into one pool, seed them together, separate the 1s from the 2s and 3s, then fill in the gaps with everyone else. Though not sure I'll have time to try that.