No Bid For Hammond...
- Thread starter androcles
- Start date
He had three chances to earn a spot at the conference tournament and
failed to capitalize. I feel bad for the kid, but again, he had plenty of chances to qualify and should have taken advantage of them instead of relying on the committee.
It's really a shame because he is one of those guys on the team that seemed to be making progress and was looking really good on his offense. I was actually excited to see what he could do in the postseason.
He just never seemed to recover mentally from that defensive pin against Walsh.
failed to capitalize. I feel bad for the kid, but again, he had plenty of chances to qualify and should have taken advantage of them instead of relying on the committee.
It's really a shame because he is one of those guys on the team that seemed to be making progress and was looking really good on his offense. I was actually excited to see what he could do in the postseason.
He just never seemed to recover mentally from that defensive pin against Walsh.
think I heard the Flo boys say he was the highest rank guy not to make it... only #20 excluded. They had some interesting comments on their radio show this morning regarding brackets...
I think no question...
it would have made Hammond 2-0 against Moore this year. Hard to not pick Hammond over him if that had happened.
it would have made Hammond 2-0 against Moore this year. Hard to not pick Hammond over him if that had happened.
Turns out losses are not even a part of the seeding methadology.
NCAA's Seeding Criteria
1. Head-to-Head Competition 25%
2. Quality Wins 20
3. Common Opponents 10%
4. RPI 10%
5. Coaches Rank 10%
6. Qualifying tournament placement 10%
7. Winning Percentage 10%
8. No. of matches at weight class 5%
Wanzek (rpi 18, cr 20) may have had a stronger case than Hammond (rpi 15, cr 19) with the head-to-head win.
NCAA's Seeding Criteria
1. Head-to-Head Competition 25%
2. Quality Wins 20
3. Common Opponents 10%
4. RPI 10%
5. Coaches Rank 10%
6. Qualifying tournament placement 10%
7. Winning Percentage 10%
8. No. of matches at weight class 5%
Wanzek (rpi 18, cr 20) may have had a stronger case than Hammond (rpi 15, cr 19) with the head-to-head win.
And Hammond had zero quality wins for the at large process. Moore did not AQ so according to seeding committee member Jason Borrelli, if an AQ earner does not then win the AQ in the qualifying tournament, beating him will not be a quality win for an at large pool wrestler. If Moore had AQ'ed that might have helped Hammond, but not nearly as much as wrestling to his seed, of course.
To an above poster, the Big Ten had 8 at 165. Moore got in as At Large, not AQ.
To an above poster, the Big Ten had 8 at 165. Moore got in as At Large, not AQ.
Listen to Borelli. Bad losses are not considered part of the criteria. So Boyle's bad losses didn't impact his seeding score at all and explains why he is ranked above Gilman. And Wanzek's head-to-head victory over Hammond counts for more than Hammonds Coaches Ranking and Winning Percentage combined.
Hammond gets RPI, CR, and Winning Percentage for 30% of his score.
Wanzek's head-to-head win gives him 25%.
That leaves:
Quality Wins 20%.............................................................Wanzek (Thomas, Friesth, Stafford), Hammond( Moore, Robinson)
They each get some percentage, it's not winner take all
Common Opponents 10%................................................................?
Qualifying Tourny Placement 10%......................................................neither
# matches at weight class 5% ......................................................Hammond
Hammond gets RPI, CR, and Winning Percentage for 30% of his score.
Wanzek's head-to-head win gives him 25%.
That leaves:
Quality Wins 20%.............................................................Wanzek (Thomas, Friesth, Stafford), Hammond( Moore, Robinson)
They each get some percentage, it's not winner take all
Common Opponents 10%................................................................?
Qualifying Tourny Placement 10%......................................................neither
# matches at weight class 5% ......................................................Hammond
I gave 25% to Wanzek for beating Hammond and 20% (all of it) to Wanzek for quality wins.
Hammond gets RPI, CR, and Winning Percentage for 30% of his score.
So it's 45% Wanzek and 30% Hammond
Common opponenets Hammond has wins over Moore and Robinson, Wanzek lost to both. 10% to Hammond.
Qualifying Tournament (Big Tens) placement. Hammond placed 10th, Wanzek 11/12. 10% to Hammond.
# Matches at weight class. 5% to Hammond.
Hammond 55% to Wanzek 45%.
it comes down to Hammond lost to Wanzek and Glass beat Wanzek so as their only common oppoenent that 10% put Glass in over Hammond.
Hammond gets RPI, CR, and Winning Percentage for 30% of his score.
So it's 45% Wanzek and 30% Hammond
Common opponenets Hammond has wins over Moore and Robinson, Wanzek lost to both. 10% to Hammond.
Qualifying Tournament (Big Tens) placement. Hammond placed 10th, Wanzek 11/12. 10% to Hammond.
# Matches at weight class. 5% to Hammond.
Hammond 55% to Wanzek 45%.
it comes down to Hammond lost to Wanzek and Glass beat Wanzek so as their only common oppoenent that 10% put Glass in over Hammond.
That makes no sense. When determining an at large bid why would you have to be auto qualified? I think it's just "qualifying tournament placement". Hammond finished higher. Doesn't matter anyway. Neither did enough to get in.
This post was edited on 3/14 5:53 PM by JOESTROSSER
This post was edited on 3/14 5:53 PM by JOESTROSSER
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Podcast Reaction to Stan Drayton Hiring + Is He An Upgrade over Ja'Juan Seider?
- Latest: bigbopper1985
-
