Nature abhors a vacuum. Without Turk’s trolling, we’ve turned to self-trolling by latching onto Nomad’s article as if it were much worse trolling than it actually was.
VJ seeded third at Big 10s?
- Thread starter GogglesPaizano
- Start date
Then on page 70 surlyhawkX10 called that guy from page 69 a p*ssy and invited him to a fight under a bridge. Just in time a PSU fan questioned a Hawk lightweight's developement and the in- fighting stopped. 69 and 70 laid a GFY and a GTFO on him and called PSU guy a abuse supporting troll and united in their calls for a mod to ban the guy who only started following wrestling 10 years earlier
Reading from the book HR wrote long go....on page 69...... it says that when you have a great board, you have lots of different posters and you get diverse and sometimes combative exchanges. Its the price you pay for having the best board on the wrestling interwebs.
It took a long time to get here, but BWI is now one of the best places to talk college wrestling (with a PSU slant of course) on the interwebs.
#bookitdano
#iswhatitis
#embracethenewreality
#whereisTurk?
Both are wrestling message boards. They are similar that way.
You nailed it. The lunatics far out number the decent posters, on HR, and they are afraid to police their own and won’t.
In praise of subjectivity
I'd be fine w/ Nomad getting a seat on the committee--he can even use his plan with ruthless abandon. He gets one vote. The only thing I don't want is everyone else on the committee following arbitrary and binding rule set. I believe the goal of seeding is to put the wrestler most likely to win the tourney as the 1 seed, 2nd most likely the 2, and so on. A room full of experts with varying types of experience and opinions and perspectives is the only way to do this effectively, IMO. Should Kyle Snyder be treated the same way as Delgado? How about we ask some coaches who know an awful lot about the sport and the competitors in the conference to decide. If someone wants to use a formula--fine, I guess, though I would urge a reasonable application of the math to the real world. If it's a "gut feeling" also perfectly fine, IMO. Some structure may be necessary, but I am growing sick of this emerging blind faith in algorithms to do our work for us. The day may come when they machines are better than us, but wrestling will still be an "us" sport.
Now the "calculus" may be different where there is concern of corruption. I would hope the NCAA or B1G is not there at this point. UWW is a different animal.
I'd be fine w/ Nomad getting a seat on the committee--he can even use his plan with ruthless abandon. He gets one vote. The only thing I don't want is everyone else on the committee following arbitrary and binding rule set. I believe the goal of seeding is to put the wrestler most likely to win the tourney as the 1 seed, 2nd most likely the 2, and so on. A room full of experts with varying types of experience and opinions and perspectives is the only way to do this effectively, IMO. Should Kyle Snyder be treated the same way as Delgado? How about we ask some coaches who know an awful lot about the sport and the competitors in the conference to decide. If someone wants to use a formula--fine, I guess, though I would urge a reasonable application of the math to the real world. If it's a "gut feeling" also perfectly fine, IMO. Some structure may be necessary, but I am growing sick of this emerging blind faith in algorithms to do our work for us. The day may come when they machines are better than us, but wrestling will still be an "us" sport.
Now the "calculus" may be different where there is concern of corruption. I would hope the NCAA or B1G is not there at this point. UWW is a different animal.
Someone ask Nomad & Willie if Cenzo did enough this weekend to lock up a Top 7 seed for B1Gs.
I must be in the minority as I think White is a much tougher match for Joseph than is Wick. AM struggles with Wick because AM is terrible on bottom-Imar road the hell out of him and so did Campbell from tOSU last year. I have not noticed anybody riding Cenzo. I would rather Cenzo face Wick than the Massa/White winner if I were Cael. Where will Stoll be seeded between the losses and ducks? 8?
I definitely support the you must earn your seed with quality wins as a key objective.
Where Nomad lost me is tying Big10 seeding to only to Big10 competition. To both limit it only to in conference and ignore at-large matches vs top 10 guys makes no sense to me at all, and using this year as an example would inflate the seeding of the entire Iowa squad since their Big10 schedule was a joke. Terrible idea Nomad, otherwise I am on board.
Last edited:
the more i think about seeding, the more i believe objectivity is needed. it seems so wrong that wrestlers can benefit by not wrestling certain opponents. in my opinion there needs to be a set way of seeding that is known beforehand. yes, with every rule set, there will be ways to exploit it, but there are also ways to exploit the subjective biases that exist now.
and the more that i think about objective seeding criteria, the more i think that random draw is the most fair. this does make it so that there's a roughly 50/50 shot that the real two best guys will be on the same side of the bracket. i don't have the numbers, but i'd imagine that both of the top 2 make to the finals under 50% of the time anyway.
and the more that i think about objective seeding criteria, the more i think that random draw is the most fair. this does make it so that there's a roughly 50/50 shot that the real two best guys will be on the same side of the bracket. i don't have the numbers, but i'd imagine that both of the top 2 make to the finals under 50% of the time anyway.
Can you elaborate on how you see an objective method helps prevent the wrong you’ve identified? I would argue that only subjective methods can mitigate that type of scenario.
Hot take before reading the article and weak sauce after the content is read.
the one i presented earlier in the thread where your seed is determined solely by dual points accrued in big ten matches would prevent this. you sit, other guy gets points. seems like that would encourage not sitting.
Thanks, I guess that directly addresses the ducking issue, but as we've noted, means you're also punishing kids for being injured or sick. Also, Kyle Snyder would've been a complete bracket buster in his last 3 B1G tourneys.
I still contend a bunch of knowledgeable human beings, aware of all the factors, but not bound by any of them, offer the best chance at a "fair shake."
Last edited:
A different seeding topic but not worth its own thread so I will dump it here...
What would/should you do as a coach if you knew your guy was going to throw in the towel after .01 second to protect an injury (think Nolf last year, if he would have bowed out of Rd 1). Would you go into the meeting and say "my guy isn't going to wrestle, to be fair to the bracket, put him 14th". Should you do that? Any downside or gamesmanship possible (i cant see any reason that a coach would lie about it).... thoughts?
What would/should you do as a coach if you knew your guy was going to throw in the towel after .01 second to protect an injury (think Nolf last year, if he would have bowed out of Rd 1). Would you go into the meeting and say "my guy isn't going to wrestle, to be fair to the bracket, put him 14th". Should you do that? Any downside or gamesmanship possible (i cant see any reason that a coach would lie about it).... thoughts?
I would say timing of the seeding meeting and the time to wrestle. Could be hopeful you're guy will be healthier, etc...
but what does a "fair shake" look like? so if we can say the best wrestler gets that #1 seed, then the #4 seed would need to wrestle him in the semifinals rather whereas the #7 wouldn't wrestle him until the finals. is this more "fair"?
i'm not saying that my proposed system is perfect, i don't think any system is. but it at least the criteria for seeding would be known beforehand. it wouldn't be subjective, with inherently biased humans deciding the best criteria to benefit themselves at that point in time.
I feel like criteria have a greater chance of biased results that a committee of humans with varied perspectives.
I'm making an assumption, when we're talking about assigning seeds within the current seeding system, that the goal is to put the person most likely to win as the 1 seed, on down to the last seed. Maybe that's what you don't like though.
In general, I feel informed subjectivity gets a bad rap these days. The tools of objectivity are accessible to all, and it's mostly great. I love a good spreadsheet. But they have a time and place, and so does old fashioned critical thinking and common sense. Mostly, the wrestlers figure it out themselves on the mat.
i think your last sentence is the reason i'm for removing subjectivity. since they're going to wrestle anyway to determine the best wrestler/team, it's my opinion that we shouldn't be adding subjectivity that may or may not be better than objective alternatives. and since i like seeing great wrestlers wrestle, anything that penalizes ducking is a good thing.
ooo if we're doing philosophy i think we can all agree that nihilism makes a lot of sense.
“Outrage culture” of phone-ins and social media betrays most fans’ experiences
When Saturday Comes
Feb 11, 2019
When Saturday Comes
Feb 11, 2019
"The invitation to be outraged is in no way surprising in the social media age of journalism, where every complex issue is watered down to a series of polar viewpoints."
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Running Recruit Visitors List (2025 Spring Edition)- Latest: NittanyNation51
