It was a surprise. IMO, the probability of all 4 winning was less than 10%. Here's my SWAG: Brooks @ 70% x RBY @ 45% x Lee @ 50% x Carter @ 40% = 6%. YMMV.
Intermat's Top 50 list
- Thread starter pish69
- Start date
i think you even gave the PSU guys more of a chance than most people.
going in to the bouts, i wouldn't say Daton-RBY was 55-45 or Lee 50/50 or Carter 60/40.
which, of course, makes your overall point even more valid imo.
I think most college wrestling fans were shocked at what Carter did to Kemmerer. Maybe not PSU fans, but most fans. I think most people would have put his chances at about 10% before that match.
Pish69, you have me hoping that Willie keeps adding to the list. Each day add a wrestler but keep it titled as the Top 50. Just like say the Big 10.
what # will the following have:
Cstar
Aaron
RBY
Beard/
NLee
JLee
Bartlett
KirkV
assume rookies won't be ranked...
Cstar
Aaron
RBY
Beard/
NLee
JLee
Bartlett
KirkV
assume rookies won't be ranked...
I dont think Beard, Bartlett or Joe Lee will get a number.
NLee 6
RBY 7
Brooks 10
Cstar 11
Very tough to split hairs in the top 10/11
RBY 7
Brooks 10
Cstar 11
Very tough to split hairs in the top 10/11
Interesting — who do you predict for #4 and #5? I think it is a tough sell to have Lee as low as 6.
Suriano and Carr. Carr an admittedly bias choice, but he’s been damn good in his 2 years.
I thought Carr might have been one of those. I like him and believe a case could be made for younger guys who have the “it factor”, but one would then need to be consistent in that application. I would have trouble with Carr and Brooks being so far apart. I’d probably have them separated by no more than 1 or 2 slots.
Going on more objective criteria (e.g., career accomplishments), I could see the case for Suriano, but only when he actually appears on a roster. Right now, he is not a NCAA wrestler.
Mekhi and Griffith. Could easily convince me Brooks should be up as high as 4th though. I think he’s the best of the group outside the top 3 in terms of potential and skill. Just has not had the tough NCAA competition for me to put him higher yet.
I think it makes sense, but basically in 4-12 you’re trying to separate 1x champs. Brooks, not by his fault, probably had the weakest competition out of all of them.
Fair point, and I agree on the dilemma of separating 1x champs. That’s what makes me lean toward career resume being the first criterion for separation. Quality of competition would be my second criterion, followed by “eye test”.
Hopefully that would get it done, and “heart” or “character” wouldn’t be needed as additional tiebreaking criteria. 😉
Maybe this is my blue-and-white bias at work, but the only way Griffith is ranked ahead of Brooks is by getting extra credit for "saving" Stanford wrestling.
Did he though? Brooks and Griffith each beat 1 prior AA in their run to the title.
For me, Brooks ahead of Griffith has a lot more to do with 2 B1G titles vs 1 PAC12 title.
Sure, but I wouldn't say PAC12 165 was exactly a Murderer's Row the past 2 seasons, either.
Brooks doesn't need extra credit, just regular credit. Each has 1 NCAA title. Brooks has 2 conference titles and Griffith has 1 conference title.
As far as whose weight was tougher at NCAAs, when I look at the wins each had, they look pretty similar. Each one beat 1 guy that had previously AA'd on his way to the title. Maybe this is unfair, but it's hard for me to dismiss the fact that the two top seeds on Griffith's side of the bracket (Marinelli and Lewis) were unable to finish the tournament due to injury. For me, that really diminishes the "Griffith won a harder bracket" argument.
I am not trying to say Shane Griffith is anything less than a great wrestler. I'm just saying I'm not going to rank him ahead of Brooks, a guy who still hasn't lost a postseason match.
Sounds good. This is complete fantasy so there is no right or wrong answer. Both guys have similar credentials 1 loss careers and 1 NCAA championship. I happen to value the Marinelli win pretty highly as he’s the best guy that either has wrestled IMO.
Either way, I have Griffith one spot higher than Brooks, and if someone has it the other way it’s certainly not crazy.
Some might consider that generous. With 11 returning champs (12 if Suriano returns), #33 puts him among the returning 3rd placers -- even though his career high is 4th and he hasn't wrestled folk in 2 yrs.
And HR has Spencer Lee 1 thru 10. So Vito is really 23. Not bad.
That’s a interesting way to view it… 100% or 50%… lol… usually the wrestler with more credentials get ranked higher? By your logic David Taylor (2 titles out of 4 finals) is a mere 50% compared to Carter/Aaron’s 100% lol
Similar threads
