VJ seeded third at Big 10s?
- Thread starter GogglesPaizano
- Start date
Love Cenzo, but lets not overlook AMar, he’s picked up his game too. Cant wait to see them scrap, Cenzo been waitin close to a year also.
It doesn't seem like click bait for flo it seems like they were bored with the discussions on bwi becuse they got four pages of their topic to read now.
I'm sorry but there is no argument that anyone can make that would convince me that the defending and undefeated national champion at 165 should be seeded behind not one but two other wrestlers including a guy who would have 2 losses on the season both to the same person. Cenzo has quality wins against Massa, White, Chance, Shields, and Campbell. Sorry but that is damn good and should outweigh any argument that he missed his matchup against Wick. Its pure nonsense.
Yea, I struggled with that word, but I meant it in a respectful way. What I meant was everytime he walks on the mat I think most fans simply expect him to win. Everytime Nolf or Bo step on the mat I think they expect them to not only win, but in a spectacular fashion.
Don't get me wrong, he and Hall are my favorites to watch because they always seem to have a variable plan for each match that focuses on a weakness they want to exploit in their opponents. IMO this is an essential skill at the next level where the playing field is more level physically.
This thread seems like it turned into 'grumpy old men' commenting (whoops, I probably qualify!). Nomad has a good point. Take it at that. Bigs will seed appropriately based on the coaches input. What's the uproar?
Flo does a great job. No one forces you to listen if you don't want to.
Flo does a great job. No one forces you to listen if you don't want to.
Buried on page one is a post from LemonPie, "I really don't think nomad is wrong.". He may be the calmest guy in this thread, lol.
Seems to me there's a lot of defensiveness. What's the harm in having a discussion? Some are trying, btw.
The concept/idea has merit, imo, though I'm not sure how it would be applied (it adds a level of criteria that is much, much bigger than just Cenzo at 165 this year, it's every wrestler at every weight class that would have to be analyzed).
Specifically about Cenzo in 2019...I'm in the camp that Cenzo should be a #1 Seed. There was no ducking vs Wick, and it's not his fault we don't wrestle Iowa this year. So one has to apply an ounce of thought, almost like is done with rankings, and ask if a wrestler would be favored to win or not. It's not scientific, granted, and I definitely like facts. Problem is, there are no Cenzo vs Wick or Cenzo vs Bull facts in 2018-19.
Seems to me there's a lot of defensiveness. What's the harm in having a discussion? Some are trying, btw.
The concept/idea has merit, imo, though I'm not sure how it would be applied (it adds a level of criteria that is much, much bigger than just Cenzo at 165 this year, it's every wrestler at every weight class that would have to be analyzed).
Specifically about Cenzo in 2019...I'm in the camp that Cenzo should be a #1 Seed. There was no ducking vs Wick, and it's not his fault we don't wrestle Iowa this year. So one has to apply an ounce of thought, almost like is done with rankings, and ask if a wrestler would be favored to win or not. It's not scientific, granted, and I definitely like facts. Problem is, there are no Cenzo vs Wick or Cenzo vs Bull facts in 2018-19.
From a purely “eyes on the prize” perspective, Cenzo at the 2 or 3 means he likely gets a feel for both guys headed into NCAAs—which probably cannot be over valued.
There's nothing wrong with the discussion except the timing.
Discuss in the offseason? No problem.
Now? Pure instigation. Rules don't change mid-season -- or, as someone here points out regularly, some rules can't be changed for 2 yrs at a time.
Plus incomplete data. If Marinelli loses before B10s, the Cenzo point is moot. Hold the discussion in the offseason when full data are available.
Bringing in the Cenzo situation is the only part of this that smells of bad timing. I'm past that, thinking that it's a worthwhile discussion anytime. Yes, I used Cenzo as an example, because I can't think of a better one to make a point.
Thinking out loud for a second...I don't see anything changing anytime soon.
this is what you get when you hire mom's basement type guys to act as journalists.
HEY!! Whats wrong with mom’s basement guys?!? Asking for a friend.
The article's title was about seeding Cenzo 3rd.
I get it, the article needs a hook. And that hook is instigation -- regardless if it's Cenzo 3, or RBY ahead of DeSanto, or any other unconventional result of that method.
Also, if nothing is changing now, then why not wait until the offseason when everyone is calmer? Unless of course emotions are the hook.
I wonder if a hook could induce clicks....I mean views. I wonder if a hook could induce views.......
Clicks apparently are no longer important as a function of an online business model. Funny I wonder if google and my marketing consultant pushing PPC and SEO optimization knows this.......
Just an attempt at moving it into discussion-worthy territory. No biggie at all to me...tabled. And Cenzo still deserves the #1 seed...
.i'm just joining the conversation so i'm not sure how much discussion there's been about a "better" seeding process, but here's my take.
seeds at conference tournaments should be based on the total team points each wrestler accrues during the conference dual season. every team has the same number of conference duals, right? so every wrestler should have the same potential points. if you duck an opponent, that's fine, they just probably accrue more points for conference seeding than if you wrestled them and lost by a smaller margin, and you get the same zero.
there would obviously need to be tiebreakers in place, head to head being first. after that maybe # of falls, then # of tech falls, then # of majors.
this definitely would punish legitimate injuries, and doesn't account of quality of opponent, but it would at least give an objective standing of wrestlers within the conference.
thoughts? suggestions?
seeds at conference tournaments should be based on the total team points each wrestler accrues during the conference dual season. every team has the same number of conference duals, right? so every wrestler should have the same potential points. if you duck an opponent, that's fine, they just probably accrue more points for conference seeding than if you wrestled them and lost by a smaller margin, and you get the same zero.
there would obviously need to be tiebreakers in place, head to head being first. after that maybe # of falls, then # of tech falls, then # of majors.
this definitely would punish legitimate injuries, and doesn't account of quality of opponent, but it would at least give an objective standing of wrestlers within the conference.
thoughts? suggestions?
Interesting. The biggest issue I see is a Pinner might be able to mask some loses and get the top seed over a steady Eddie who just keeps winning but with fewer bonus.
This is fair. I just have a couple issues with this coming from Flo. First of all, you can't make up rules 3/4 of the way through the season. If this is implementable, do it at the beginning of a season. Secondly, this rings really hollow from Flo, given that they had Gross and Stoll ranked number 1 until mid to late January (and yeah I know, rankings are different than conference seedings, it just seems like Flo plays these angles to suit their needs). Finally, the BIG schedule is ridiculously unbalanced and Iowa has been the major benefactor of that this year. Yet somehow, the cards line up right at one weight (165) for them as far as this argument goes.
And I'll just say that I completely disagree with the way Flo does rankings, so I don't need Willie to come back and school me on the difference between ranking and seeds.
Two time defending National Champ, who by the way, defeated an all-timer to get those titles. Not the #1 seed? Yeah, ok. I'll believe it when i see it.
so a 1 (by fall) and 1 record is as good as a 2 - 0 (by decision record).
I like it how it is and coaches should use discretion but consider the ducking element and I bet they do at Bigs but maybe not at Nats
With all this discussion of seeding, I am not sure I understand the actual goal. Are we trying to give credit to the wrestlers for the season, or are we trying to get the appropriate matchups. I thought the goal of the seeding committee is to insure that the two best wrestlers meet in the final, the four best in the semi finals, and that we try to not have the best matchups occur in other than the finals. I don't think we want the two best to meet in the quarter finals.
If that is true, than there has to be some subjective analysis, since we don't have a true round robin to set the seeds. If there is no subjective portion and we rely on a math formula, the random occurences of scheduling, weight issues, illness, and injury will skew the seasons results and the seeds would then not match the goals. If you add in the intentional manuevering, there is even more reason to not use a pure math formula.
I don't have a good answer, since all the methods have weak points, but I think that if the seeding committee has the right people on it, there probably isn't a better alternative to get the matchups right.
If that is true, than there has to be some subjective analysis, since we don't have a true round robin to set the seeds. If there is no subjective portion and we rely on a math formula, the random occurences of scheduling, weight issues, illness, and injury will skew the seasons results and the seeds would then not match the goals. If you add in the intentional manuevering, there is even more reason to not use a pure math formula.
I don't have a good answer, since all the methods have weak points, but I think that if the seeding committee has the right people on it, there probably isn't a better alternative to get the matchups right.
This turned out alot longer than I intended. Reader beware, probably isn't worth it.
Again I sometimes wonder if people get confused about the difference between ranking and seeding. And certainly there are no clear definitions and I even confuse myself sometimes. And to me it is only ducking if it seems as if a guy might be sitting on an artificially inflated ranking and is worried about keeping it high against a guy with a similar ranking. It doesn't make much sense to me that Cenzo would "duck" Wick. Why would he think he couldn't beat him? If Cenzo was magically sick vs Bull maybe you could make the case.
Given all that, here is how I would do it if I was a ranking czar and then a seeding czar.
First, to me they don't have to be (and shouldn't be) the same. In my world, rankings would be based on what that wrestler accomplished this year. Of course you have to start somewhere, but I would reward wins and punish losses, and probably look askance at matches skipped and wonder about the reasoning. At the end of the day, though, I would rank based on quality wins less poor losses. With maybe 'quality losses' as a tiebreaker along with reputation. So I would not have Stoll very high this year (not enough quality wins), would debate myself on Cenzo/Bull (Bull w more quality wins this year, Cenzo with historic track record). Not sure what to do with Snyder last year because i am not sure of his wins before late in the season.
But at the end of the day, rankings don't mean squat.
Seedings, on the other hand, do matter. And I think the purpose of seedings is to generally reward guys / teams for what they have accomplished. And since obviously the "reward" should be a higher seed, you can't be too liberal with "penalizing" guys that on talent alone (assuming health) would be high seeds, because penalizing a stud will have a negative effect on other wrestlers. Look at DT at World's... his "reward" for earning a #2 seed was to catch a returning world champion in the first round, because that world champion was "penalized" for not wrestling. Had DT lost in Rd 1, that would have been a bitter pill. So related, a factor is seeding has to be to make sure the "favored" guys don't meet up in early rounds.
So if I am seeding, it is a combination of body of work, balanced a bit with any extenuating circumstances (injuries, Snyder last year, etc.). Last year Snyder had to be #1 or #2. Putting him anywhere else was penalizing the bracket too much. Stoll this year? Hard to really know how good/healthy he is, so you can't assume his missed matches were going to be wins, or that he comes through in post-season (might not be healthy). If Nolf comes down with a 4 week skin condition and doesn't wreslte BIGs... do we punish him (and really the rest of the field) fighting for 2d place? No, Nolf would be #1 seed. Same is Spencer was suspended for the rest of the year for stealing 3 inch binders. He'd be clear #2 anyway. Now if one of them missed the rest of the year for failing to make weight, different story, because that would call into question their effectiveness on the mat. But without having some kind of question about on mat effectiveness, they should be seeded where it logically seems they will most likely finish the tourney. That is fair to the entire bracket.
Now let's say next year Devin Schnupp starts out the season 14-0, makes the finals of the Scuffle without facing a ranked kid because the bracket falls apart for him, then spends the BIG season wrestling unranked guys but being "sick" for ranked guys. He stays unbeaten... and the Top 3 other 125ers all have losses to each other. Should Schnupp slide into the #1 seed? No way.
All of this to say it cannot be formulaic. It has to have judgment, and that is why seeds are done by coaches votes with a chance to debate even after preseeds are done.
Or I was just too bored this AM.
Again I sometimes wonder if people get confused about the difference between ranking and seeding. And certainly there are no clear definitions and I even confuse myself sometimes. And to me it is only ducking if it seems as if a guy might be sitting on an artificially inflated ranking and is worried about keeping it high against a guy with a similar ranking. It doesn't make much sense to me that Cenzo would "duck" Wick. Why would he think he couldn't beat him? If Cenzo was magically sick vs Bull maybe you could make the case.
Given all that, here is how I would do it if I was a ranking czar and then a seeding czar.
First, to me they don't have to be (and shouldn't be) the same. In my world, rankings would be based on what that wrestler accomplished this year. Of course you have to start somewhere, but I would reward wins and punish losses, and probably look askance at matches skipped and wonder about the reasoning. At the end of the day, though, I would rank based on quality wins less poor losses. With maybe 'quality losses' as a tiebreaker along with reputation. So I would not have Stoll very high this year (not enough quality wins), would debate myself on Cenzo/Bull (Bull w more quality wins this year, Cenzo with historic track record). Not sure what to do with Snyder last year because i am not sure of his wins before late in the season.
But at the end of the day, rankings don't mean squat.
Seedings, on the other hand, do matter. And I think the purpose of seedings is to generally reward guys / teams for what they have accomplished. And since obviously the "reward" should be a higher seed, you can't be too liberal with "penalizing" guys that on talent alone (assuming health) would be high seeds, because penalizing a stud will have a negative effect on other wrestlers. Look at DT at World's... his "reward" for earning a #2 seed was to catch a returning world champion in the first round, because that world champion was "penalized" for not wrestling. Had DT lost in Rd 1, that would have been a bitter pill. So related, a factor is seeding has to be to make sure the "favored" guys don't meet up in early rounds.
So if I am seeding, it is a combination of body of work, balanced a bit with any extenuating circumstances (injuries, Snyder last year, etc.). Last year Snyder had to be #1 or #2. Putting him anywhere else was penalizing the bracket too much. Stoll this year? Hard to really know how good/healthy he is, so you can't assume his missed matches were going to be wins, or that he comes through in post-season (might not be healthy). If Nolf comes down with a 4 week skin condition and doesn't wreslte BIGs... do we punish him (and really the rest of the field) fighting for 2d place? No, Nolf would be #1 seed. Same is Spencer was suspended for the rest of the year for stealing 3 inch binders. He'd be clear #2 anyway. Now if one of them missed the rest of the year for failing to make weight, different story, because that would call into question their effectiveness on the mat. But without having some kind of question about on mat effectiveness, they should be seeded where it logically seems they will most likely finish the tourney. That is fair to the entire bracket.
Now let's say next year Devin Schnupp starts out the season 14-0, makes the finals of the Scuffle without facing a ranked kid because the bracket falls apart for him, then spends the BIG season wrestling unranked guys but being "sick" for ranked guys. He stays unbeaten... and the Top 3 other 125ers all have losses to each other. Should Schnupp slide into the #1 seed? No way.
All of this to say it cannot be formulaic. It has to have judgment, and that is why seeds are done by coaches votes with a chance to debate even after preseeds are done.
Or I was just too bored this AM.
What the 2 previous takes said. 100x
I don't get the ire about Flo posting an article questioning the seeding process. They aren't on the seeding committee, they aren't coaches. They aren't much different than any of us drumming up a conversation to distract us from our real jobs (except, they found a way to make it their real jobs, lol). Let them share all of their hot takes--it enriches the conversation, IMO. Sure--it might influence thought on the actual committee, but that's just an example of free speech doing its thang.
I don't get the ire about Flo posting an article questioning the seeding process. They aren't on the seeding committee, they aren't coaches. They aren't much different than any of us drumming up a conversation to distract us from our real jobs (except, they found a way to make it their real jobs, lol). Let them share all of their hot takes--it enriches the conversation, IMO. Sure--it might influence thought on the actual committee, but that's just an example of free speech doing its thang.
true story: when I graduated college in 2003 I had to decide between taking a main stream media job or a commercial real estate job. the media job would have meant living with my parents. the real estate job would allow me to move out and get my own place. I took the real estate job, and it wasn't until 14 years later that I was able to find full time employment as a blogger and fake journalist
Metashade. C'mon Nomad, sign up for an account. We won't bite (hard).
Nomad looks more suited for a comic con convention or a Star Wars movie than a wrestling mat. Kid looks like the guy sitting alone in my high school cafeteria that seemed “troubled”, I was always extra nice to that guy though
After he wins something I’ll think of him as Amar. Right now, he’s just a guy named Marinelli.
What about Pyles? Which table did he sit at in high school?
Marching Band for sure
So posting during work hours doesn't mean it's our real job? Fooled me.
Ok DWeldAfter he wins something I’ll think of him as Amar. Right now, he’s just a guy named Marinelli.
After he wins something I’ll think of him as Amar. Right now, he’s just a guy named Marinelli.
WOW. I had no idea who anyone was talking about until you said Marinelli. As for Cenzo in the 3 seed at B1G's, it smells strongly of tin foil hat material. Personally, I don't care. B1G's aint NCAA's. And even then, the only number by your name that matters is the one Saturday night.
Last edited:
I won't bite, but I'll eye gouge and choke out from a front headlock.
Nomad penalizes injury, even though it is not the fault of the wrestler. Nomad does NOT penalize schedule, because it is not the fault of the wrestler.
That's logically inconsistent. Some less considerate folks might call it stupid.
"But you can't always distinguish injury from ducking". Exactly. Which is why that's the actual problem to solve.
I don't have an answer. I like Willie's "best wins" idea, as that encourages taking risks in scheduling, and rewards gutting out tough regular season matches. "Injury Reports" couldn't hurt, though most football coaches make a mockery of them. I wouldn't mind borrowing baseball's "15-day DL", so it wouldn't be so easy for coaches to pick and choose matchups - i.e., wrestle Friday, skip Sunday, need you again next Friday, etc.
But penalizing injury while ignoring scheduling - and ignoring quality non-conference wins, in an attempt to explain a 1-loss or 2-loss Wick getting seeded ahead of 0-loss Cenzo - I don't care for that idea at all.
Also, guess what Jason Bryant, I'm not gonna buy your media guide for $20 when I can get it on wrestlestat.com for free!
What I find really funny is to me, it was the Flo guys who were not "calm" about someone disagreeing with them. I don't think most of us here really care either way where guys are ranked. March is what matters.
They jumped all over people who honestly disagreed with them and who took a logically majority view. I just don't see the "outrage" they talk about, especially considering their view is a real leap, and very few agree with them....and they knew it would be that way. This whole thing seems a bit contrived to me (oh wait, that is stupidity to think that).
The funniest was Smalls saying "lazy people that can't think critically". That one is a classic, considering what we read regularly. I've enjoyed the discussion though.
They jumped all over people who honestly disagreed with them and who took a logically majority view. I just don't see the "outrage" they talk about, especially considering their view is a real leap, and very few agree with them....and they knew it would be that way. This whole thing seems a bit contrived to me (oh wait, that is stupidity to think that).
The funniest was Smalls saying "lazy people that can't think critically". That one is a classic, considering what we read regularly. I've enjoyed the discussion though.
guys, you're better than making fun of appearances...it takes the discussion no where.
debate the merits of the article. it's not about Cenzo. it's about moving to a system that rewards participation and scheduling and not past year's performance (which gives wrestlers and coaches an 'out' under the current system)
there a several things I disagree with in Nomad's article - first and foremost that a 2-loss Wick should be seeded ahead of Cenzo.
but - as i asserted last year w/ IMar - the best W/L ledger THIS SEASON should get priority.
unless i missed it, no where in the 4 pages of this thread has the W/L record been discussed, which should be the first thing brought up.
Bull - 0 losses; W's - Wick, White, Shields, Wick TBD
Cenzo - 0 losses; W's - Marsteller, Massa, White, Shields
Wick - 1 loss to Bull; W's Steiert, Steiert, White, Shields
that should be the argument
debate the merits of the article. it's not about Cenzo. it's about moving to a system that rewards participation and scheduling and not past year's performance (which gives wrestlers and coaches an 'out' under the current system)
there a several things I disagree with in Nomad's article - first and foremost that a 2-loss Wick should be seeded ahead of Cenzo.
but - as i asserted last year w/ IMar - the best W/L ledger THIS SEASON should get priority.
unless i missed it, no where in the 4 pages of this thread has the W/L record been discussed, which should be the first thing brought up.
Bull - 0 losses; W's - Wick, White, Shields, Wick TBD
Cenzo - 0 losses; W's - Marsteller, Massa, White, Shields
Wick - 1 loss to Bull; W's Steiert, Steiert, White, Shields
that should be the argument
some hooks simply havent been reeled in yet
So its not about Cenzo but it is about Cenzo?
ball busting aside....
Are you suggesting this only applies to the top 3? Why not apply it to the podium and the top 8? The reason why is because the further out you run this idea the more convoluted it gets. Right?
Jefe already gave you another weight where this is an issue, wheres the blog and analysis on that?
or
is this just about 165? Maybe, hype for a big match this weekend on flo which affects 2 of the biggest fan bases in the sport.
Similar threads
