RANKINGS - Oh, the Conundrum

[RoarLions1]

Just one person's musings...after reading several recent threads...

They are a riddle, wrapped in a perplex quandary. A dilemma, if you will…when wrestler A beats wrestler B, wrestler B beats wrestler C, and wrestler C beats wrestler A, multiplied many times when evaluating 76 guys…or just trying to figure out the top 20!

They earn clicks, have only moderate consensus (except for some top guys), and create the kind of discussion that is fun for most, and yet angers a few (very few). Chest-pounders troll the opposition with little more than these in hand.

What are they? They are RANKINGS!! Worth doing, worth talking about, and worth the fan banter, but certainly not worth treating as gospel, betting the house (or the farm!), or getting the least bit upset about. WHY? Because it’ll be settled on the MAT, where it should be. Not at the water cooler, not in the restroom, and not on a forum. Not saying that to stymy discussion, quite the contrary.

I LOVE RANKINGS!! Even do them myself…to the delight of most, if the feedback is indicative. They are FUN, FUN, FUN, FUN, FUN, FUN, FUN. But there are traps, so, for me…it’s all about the FUN, the intrigue, and the banter.

The Suriano discussion is FUN. What I’ve read encompasses several aspects of the dilemma of ranking. Should TRUE FRESHMEN be ranked pre-season? Where should he be ranked 2 bouts in, after beating the #4 guy? Why is an established AA still in front of him after a loss to young Mr. Suriano? No real right answer, though there are opinions galore, as many as there are fans, in fact…and we’re only 2 weeks into the season. Gotta love it.

Yet, there is a bigger picture. Most rankings go to 20, for 10 weight classes, so to me, it’s more than Suriano vs Schram. As the season progresses, the picture brightens, and the view gets clearer, yet it remains complicated overall. There is nothing indisputable, doubtless, certain, irrefutable, or unquestionable, even with a whole season behind us…though Zain and Jason and Kyle are as close as it gets, at least for #1.

So here’s some data for you. Even after a completed season, with the best minds (??), and the best information heading into the National Tournament, here’s how wrestlers have fared. Just facts, no judging …

• In the past 38 years, 54% of #1 Seeds ended as National Champs
• In the past 38 years, 90% of National Champs came from a top-4 Seed
  
• In the past 38 years, 7 National Champs (1.8%) came from outside the top-8 Seeds, including 2 Unseeded Wrestlers
• From 2011 to 2016, only twice have the top-8 seeds all earned AA, 174 in 2011, and 133 in 2013. That’s 2 out of 60 (10 weight classes, 6 years), though there were several other weight classes that were close
• From 2011 to 2016, the two weight classes where the seeding’s were the most “off” (based on my special, super-duper statistical methods) were 174 in 2016, and 149 in 2014.
• Over the past 6 years, arguably (again, based on my calculations) the weight classes that held truest to seed overall were 133 and 197. The weight classes least true to seed overall were 125 and 184.
• In the past 6 years, 41 Unseeded Wrestlers (not ranked top 12 prior to 2014, or top-16 2014 and after). No weight class escaped, though 133 only had 1 (Jake Rauser in 2016).

 

[JasonBryant]

Having spent a large swath of my career doing rankings at either the high school state and national level and rankings on the college and senior level, I've basically come to the thought that rankings are there because they are there. We have too many. "Good" rankings are in the eye of the beholder, but bad rankings are immediately recognizable.

I held the belief that the rankings I coordinated on the college level were the most complete, fair, concise and well-researched. When I was at InterMat from 2005-2008, I was the first to insert full-season records as well as the "previous" column we see in the AP-style polls. This was the first step in trying to standardize how wrestling rankings were viewed -- make them mirror the rankings the major papers ran with the same things they're used to seeing.

My last run into the rankings was during my stint with AWN/TOM. Again, the only outlet providing records, and then I'd added the streaks to the equation, further justifying how wrestlers can slide up or slide down at a glance. Why is this guy #20, he beat so-and-so in December. Well, #20 has lost three straight. Much like the other sports, the individual rankings I coordinated were based on recent results, too. You can beat #2 in November, but if you lose to three "scrubs" in February, you're not going to be in the Top 10.

The InterMat rankings during the NWCA era were using the knowledge of members of the media association. We had a panel of 6-7 wrestling-centric people who followed this stuff from coast to coast. At AWN/TOM, it was smaller, but ultimately, it was 4-5 people having a discussion and making the call.

During those last years of rankings, I noticed no matter how complete our rankings were, people were going to use the rankings they wanted to use. Penn State has used InterMat's rankings as a standard since I was running that ship 11 years ago. No matter how good another set of rankings is perceived to be, Penn State will use InterMat because that's their policy. Same with the team rankings.

The Coaches Poll is in line with USA Today's standards (formerly UPI standards) of a poll. The AP works in the same manner with actual votes being calculated and tallied. In fact, I dare say most individual rankings aren't remotely close to being a poll, since they're not voted on, rather discussed. This is more of a semantics issue than it is one to have a conniption about.

If Jimmy Blow Joe starts a wrestling website and the rankings are absolutely amazing, that means what? Nothing except for those who want to argue the ranking. I love looking at the rankings now that I don't have to spend hours and hours on them each week. Sometimes I'll look at one set of rankings and laugh, other times I'll be like "wait, did I miss something?"

Rankings are for you guys, they're not for "us" media types. Some outlets take great pride in their rankings -- as they should -- a lot of work goes into them, but where I stop and say "pump the brakes" is when we get to the discussion about what rankings are "the best."

Long story short -- having the "best" rankings is like being the skinniest kid at fat camp. It's a "good job" and nothing more. Every single ranking out there right now has flaws. My rankings had flaws. It's unavoidable.

I think our Sports Information offices are getting carried away because we have about 10 rankings for 77 schools. That's a bit much. In other sports, it's the AP, USA Today and in football, those two go away and everything comes together on the CFP rankings.

What's also of note is there are a handful of rankings that refuse to come together to create a true "AP style" media poll. They don't want their rankings combined with any composite ranking. Understandable because rankings ARE A DRAW! No matter how good or bad they may be, as the OP said, they get CLICKS!

I'm rambling. Rankings are about preference. Personal preference. That isn't always based on quality or completeness.

 

[a_mshaffer]

rankings, ratings, and predictions are three different things and logic behind making such should be consistent, even if it is opinion.

 

[andegre]

Couldn't agree more on all of this.

My site was originally developed for just the common opponents functionality, but I added in the rankings because I thought it would be fun (and because I wanted to see what the rankings would be for redshirt wrestlers/non-starters).

- Jimmy Blow Joe

 

[JasonBryant]

andegre,
I love computer rankings because there, in theory, is no subjectivity.

 

[slushhead]

. . . I'm rambling. Rankings are about preference. Personal preference. That isn't always based on quality or completeness.

I can identify with that. Intermat has been my one-and-only rankings source. I'm one of those personalities that tends to stick with something for as long as it isn't broken. I liked the Intermat version when I first started following closely (circa 2007) and never bothered to follow others. Congrats, Mr. Bryant, for reeling in this fish!

 

[nitlion6]

andegre,
I love computer rankings because there, in theory, is no subjectivity.

In theory since the objective calculation is determined by the subjectively weighted parameters.
Rankings are there for a singular purpose - entertainment.

 

[androcles]

...the only ranking that counts is the final day result of the NCAA tournament...

...but thas jes my opinion...