More Stats -- PSU & tOSU
- Thread starter RoarLions1
- Start date
I agree coaches are better than administrators. that said, I would rather retired coaches be involved than coaches who are active in the sport let alone in the mix of a team race.
Having Tom Ryan on the seeding committee is a bad look. He should know better, the committee should know better. the fact they dont just raises eyebrows, that are unneeded.
Whats condi rice got going on besides a book tour. Sign her up.
Doubt that's possible, it's a committee not a board of directors. I understand the sentiment.
Who do you trust more?
A. D1 Wrestling Coaches
B. Detached administrators.
C. A bunch of BWI biased homers who think the wrestling world is out to see them knocked off their perch.
It should be obvious im guessing, but Im lost by what you mean. Are you saying that because its a committee, retired coaches can not be appointed to the committee? Is that because they are not on a payroll of a university in some form?
Interesting if thats what you mean. Correct me if i have it sideways.
worth noting again..... our top 5 scored 11.5 less bonus points than last year!! ....we won without our bonus point all-american
I noticed a lack of “pop” in a few guys. One of those guys was Nickal, but he rebounded pretty well.
I thought the guys who looked the most energetic and fresh were Lee and Nolf. Nolf’s path to a title was tough - he had some sneaky tough guys.
If the seeds indeed lined up with the Coaches' Poll, then how exactly did either coach affect seeding?
Regarding Missouri, I'd argue that they underperformed more than were overseeded -- any supposed "overseed" was a matter of poor or undefined seeding criteria. To look at actual data:
125, 165, HWT -- unseeded or DNQ
133 - Erneste 5, finished R12. Who should've been seeded higher? The 6-7-8 seeds finished 7-R12-8. He did lose to 8 Bridges in consis -- but Bridges had 4 more losses. His other loss was to Wilson, who majored Brock and Pletcher and took Gross to OT. Underperform more than overseed.
141 - Eierman 2, finished 4, lost to Yianni and McKenna. Beat Yianni in the regular season. Not unreasonable seed.
149 - Leeth 3, finished 6, lost to the 3-4-5 finishers (who were the 11-4-2 seeds). This is more a case of Kolodzik outperforming his seed to finish 3rd. Leeth beat 4 seed Heilmann in the regular season.
157 - Lavallee 2, finished R12. Bad loss to Monday in Round 1. Still would've placed except he got Kemerer in consis. We all agree Jason should've been higher. We all know Kemerer is better, but he got stuck at B10s and was injured, what to do about that? I would've seeded Shields higher based on quality wins. Pantaleo had 4 more losses including Crone, Heffernan, Brown.
Lavallee's only pre-nationals loss was to Hidlay in OT. I know past results aren't supposed to count in seeding, but I find it hard to believe the Coaches Poll doesn't say "returning national finalist" along with "only loss to an unbeaten guy in OT, best 2 guys are injured."
Bottom line to me is that seeding criteria (if any) do not emphasize quality wins strongly enough, if at all.
174 - Lewis 3, finished 4, lost to Hall and in OT to Amine. Third undefeated wrestler got seeded 3rd. Shocking.
184 - Marriott 15, finshed 1-2. Hard to get worked up over the 15 being overseeded.
197 - Miklus 6, finished 8th, lost to Haught, Holschlag, Rasheed. Who should've been seeded higher? The 7 and 8 seeds lost in Round 2; the 9-10-11-12 seeds all lost in Round 1.
I wonder if part of reason we got less bonus is our opponents style when they wrestle. If they don't open up its a lot harder to score big.
Mark Hall actually exceeded his bonus point production this year compared to 2017. Cenzo was 2 points off his 2017 total, but that's not a shock given his pin of IMar last year.
As the season went on, it seemed Zain was having less success turning people from top. Probably a combination of some wrestlers clamming up and also being even more familiar with his top game. Zain is incredible, so solid in every position, but dynamic is not a word I'd use to describe him, especially compared to Nolf.
Nolf was obviously wrestling at some level less than 100%. Feel pretty confident that he would have matched his 2017 total if letting it fly. I'm sure in the back of his mind he was thinking bonus is nice, but more important to survive and advance given his knee.
Nickal's another one where I think it's a combination of lesser wrestlers clamming up, not even wanting to engage him, and an overall increase in quality at the top of the weight class. Myles is improved from last year and certainly went after him. Dean was better than I expected, and Abounader proved tough as well.
I'm way over my head in this one. Here's what I know, with an opinion or two along the way;
-- The NCAA D1 Wrestling Committee requires 6 members. Right now it's 3 Head Wrestling Coaches, and 3 AD/Associate AD types.
-- The Wrestling Rules Committee is a different group of individuals, numbering 9 members. Currently there are 5 Head Coaches, and 3 AD/Associate AD types, with one opening. 4 members shall be from D1, 2 from D2, 2 from D3, and an additional member as secretary-rules editor.
-- This whole committee structure thing is so much bigger than wrestling. Every sport is structured the same. It's an enormous system.
-- The Division 1 Committee Appointment Process is attached below.
-- The 2014 D1 Wrestling Committee Meeting Report is the only minutes I could find, but shows the variety of discussed material. It's so much bigger than seeding, and is attached below. The agenda changes significantly each year based on what's hot at the time, so this shouldn't be used to pass judgment on standing topics or discussions. They cover soup-to-nuts it appears.
I'm still trying to understand what problem we're discussing. It it's the perception that one coach may affect seeding by being on the D1 Wrestling Committee, I sorta kinda understand, but there's no proof, just speculation and conspiracy stuff. It's important to have current coaches on the committee, imo, given the magnitude of stuff that's covered, and their perspective.
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Jun2017DI_Process_20170629.pdf
Can't find the 2014 Minutes right now...
Since this thread is PSU & anOSU stats, as good a place as any for this:
PS, maybe Young Guns would've won if they had 8 scoring wrestlers.
PS, maybe Young Guns would've won if they had 8 scoring wrestlers.
And this excludes Kemerer! And Shields.
Incredible. Only rival may be Apple Valley HS next year....
It was 2-1 after the first period and then milholf got hurt. Could've been a regular decision
Nolf had to wrestle and beat some tough as nails kids. But holy cow, with the way he completely shut everybody down and just ground them down it was tough as hell to tell.
could one also equate the higher seed enabled the higher finish? Meaning being seeded 7th enables an easier route to the finals then being seeded 8th (provided that one seed is tougher than two, and so forth)..
I think they simply wrestled smart without taking unnecessary chances. Why should Zain go all out getting another takedown vs. simply staying in the center waiting for a great opening. Nolf simply reeled it in to keep from opening himself up. I strongly assume that if the score was tied in the 3rd, then these guys would have been more aggressive.
Only marginally at most. If you're the 7 instead of the 8, you're still the favorite for the same number of rounds. If everybody wrestles to the best of their ability, 1 beats 8 and 2 beats 7 at about the same rate -- barring bad style matchups or the 2 is on a hot streak and wrestling much better than the 1, or the the 1 is injured.
Could make the other argument: if you're the 7, your path = 2-3. If you're the 8, your path = 1-4. If the 1 is harder than the 2, then the 4 is easier than the 3.
In the case of Missouri, the guys who underperformed did so enough you'd have to dock them several seeds to equate -- basically you'd have to underseed them as bad or worse than they were supposedly overseeded.
Bo's two losses were when he tried to go chest to chest for a throw. He learned his lesson and does not seek that situation.
We saw Taylor be a bit more conservative in his last final too. I think the weight of the end of an incredible career inevitably takes its toll--how could it not. What a great time to be into PSU wrestling--seems more gratifying to me than being a Yankees fan (because who on earth would support that rubbish team? ;-) )
Nolf said in his post-match interview (after being carefully given leading questions), that he did short of shut down his offense to the "basics", and that he wanted to protect his knee from further injury. He certainly would have been more wide open and scoring more points if it hadn't been for his knee. (Nothing novel about that statement!)
Similar threads
