Weekly Review of Rankings, for 11/15/16

[Tom McAndrew]

Many of these have not yet been posted. I'll update this post as the rankings appear on the various web sites, and then make a post when all have been posted/updated.


InterMat
125: Suriano - 6th (12th)
133: Cortez - 9th (9th)
141: Gulibon - 11th (12th)
149: Zain - 1st (1st)
157: Nolf - 1st (1st)
165: Joseph - 12th (8th)
174: Morelli - 13th (Rasheed - 20th)
184: Nickal - 3rd (3rd)
197: Cutch - 14th (16th)
285: Nevills - 13th (13th)
Tournament - 4th (4th)
Dual - 4th (4th)

FloWrestling
125: Suriano - 10th (not ranked)
133: Cortez - 8th (8th)
141: Gulibon - 11th (11th)
149: Zain - 1st (1st)
157: Nolf - 1st (1st)
165: No PSUer (no PSUer)
174: Morelli - 12th (Rasheed - 20th)
184: Nickal - 3rd (same)
197: Cutch - 9th (same)
285: Nevills - 10th (15th)
P4P:
Zain - 2nd (same)
Nolf - 4th (same)
Nickal - 13th (14th)
Team - 4th (5th)

The Open Mat
125: Suriano - 9th (no PSUer)
133: Cortez - 9th (10th)
141: Gulibon - 11th (15th)
149: Zain - 1st (1st)
157: Nolf - 1st (1st)
165: No PSUer (same)
174: Morelli - 14th (no PSUer)
184: Nickal - 3rd (3rd)
197: Cutch - 12th (no PSUer)
285: Nevills - 11th (no PSUer)

Wrestling Report (have not yet posted rankings this season)

USA Today/NWCA Division I Coaches Poll
PSU - 2nd (2nd)

WIN Magazine (pretty sure the previous rankings were preseason)
125: Suriano - 9th (No PSUer)
133: Cortez - 9th (10th)
141: Gulibon - 10th (10th)
149: Zain - 1st (1st)
157: Nolf - 1st (1st)
165: Joseph - 15th (Morelli - 10th)
174: Morelli - 10th
184: Nickal - 4th (4th)
197: Cutch - 15th (no PSUer)
285: Nevills - 8th (13th)
Team - 5th

Amateur Wrestling News (have only posted Preseason rankings this season)

Associated Wrestling Press
This is their 1st ranking this year. In prior seasons, they have a tendency to go weeks between rankings. I'll drop them from the Weekly Review if that occurs this season
125: Suriano - 12th
133: no PSUer
141: Gulibon - 8th
149: Zain - 1st
157: Nolf - 1st
165: Joseph - 17th
174: no PSUer
184: Nickal - 3rd
197: Cutch - 7th
285: Nevills - 12th
P4P
Zain - 4th
Nolf - 6th
Nickal - 8th
Team - 3rd

WrestleStat
125: Nick Suriano - 42nd (136th), K. Yanovich - 91st (73rd), Devin Schnupp - 215th (227th), Patrick Higgins - 229th (241st), Justin Lopez - 239th (136th), Scott Stossel - 254th (221st @ 133)
133: Cortez - 5th (5th), T. Law - 56th (54th), Mason Lindemuth - 117th (142nd), George Carpenter - 194th (133rd) (Note: Lindemuth is ranked as 117th and as 154th)
141: Gulibon - 12th (12th), Kade Moss - 30th (36th), Bo Pipher - 144th (120th), Dom Giannangeli - 280th (was 2?? @ 133), Brian Friery - 288th (260th)
149: Zain - 1st, Gary Dinmore - 69th (117th @ 141), Luke Gardner - 197th (196th)
157: Nolf - 1st
165: Joseph - 10th (10th), Byran Brill - 18th (17th)
174: Rasheed - 23rd (25th), Geno Morelli - 36th (19th @ 165), Mark Hall - 46th (135th), Francisco Bisono - 87th (87th @ 165) ,
184: Nickal - 2nd (2nd), Devon Van Cura - 63rd (66th @ 174)
197: Cutch - 3rd (12th @ 184), Kellan Stout - 33rd (30th @ 184), Cassar - 72nd (55th)
285: Nevills - 49th (48th), Alex Nicholas - 138th (107th), Jan Johnson - 228th (217th)
Tournament - 1st (6th)
Dual - 2nd (4th)



InterMat's 11/15 Rankings

FloWrestling's 11/14 Rankings

TOM's 11/15 Rankings

USA Today/NWCA Division I Coaches Poll

WIN Magazine's 11/14 Rankings

Associated Wrestling Press's 11/15 Rankings

WrestleStat's 11/15 Rankings

 

[matter7172]

Poor Bo. Gets two pins and drops in Flo's P4P rankings. Tough crew.

 

[21Guns]

...so, Suriano soundly dominates 4th ranked Schram, who stalls the entire match, and Schram stays 4th, while Suriano is ranked 10th.

Riiiight.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Poor Bo. Gets two pins and drops in Flo's P4P rankings. Tough crew.

No, everything I posted for Flo from 184 onward is from last week's rankings. Probably should have just held off until Tuesday, when all of Flo's rankings are posted, to avoid any confusion.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

...so, Suriano soundly dominates 4th ranked Schram, who stalls the entire match, and Schram stays 4th, while Suriano is ranked 10th.

Riiiight.

I'm not sure if you read Vais/CP's explanation. It makes some sense. The season is quite young, and the data set is very small, especially for a true freshman like Suriano. Nick went from unranked to 10th, which is a huge move in the rankings, but also somewhat predicted by Vais/CP in the preseason. Schram did not move, and I think Vais/CP's logic has some merit:

"So you'll say, why does Schram not move down more? Well at this point we don't know what a loss to Suriano actually means. 2 matches in, he could be the #3 guy in the country, or maybe something else. The point is, you don't know what the loss means yet, so it's hard to punish him. If Suriano keeps winning, he'll pass Schram quickly. If Suriano starts losing, it could send a signal for us to move Schram back some more. I'm predicting the former."

 

[21Guns]

I'm not sure if you read Vais/CP's explanation. It makes some sense. The season is quite young, and the data set is very small, especially for a true freshman like Suriano. Nick went from unranked to 10th, which is a huge move in the rankings, but also somewhat predicted by Vais/CP in the preseason. Schram did not move, and I think Vais/CP's logic has some merit:

"So you'll say, why does Schram not move down more? Well at this point we don't know what a loss to Suriano actually means. 2 matches in, he could be the #3 guy in the country, or maybe something else. The point is, you don't know what the loss means yet, so it's hard to punish him. If Suriano keeps winning, he'll pass Schram quickly. If Suriano starts losing, it could send a signal for us to move Schram back some more. I'm predicting the former."

Good point. I stand corrected.

Makes total sense now: Schram stays because who says he didn't lose to what might be the #1, 2, or 3 wrestler in the nation in a month or two.

 

[matter7172]

No, everything I posted for Flo from 184 onward is from last week's rankings. Probably should have just held off until Tuesday, when all of Flo's rankings are posted, to avoid any confusion.

I didn't think about the P4P being done later, but it was late.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

This morning I posted InterMat's rankings, completed posting FloWrestling's rankings, posted TOM's rankings, and posted WrestleStat's rankings.

 

[andegre]

Wow, seeing the Morelli and McCutcheon rankings sure shows how tough 174 and 184 are, and how much 197 is not. Should provide a nice lane for McCutcheon.

Tom, thanks for pointing out Lindemuth, I'll get those 2 versions merged together.

 

[SetonHallPirate]

For those wondering, the Dual Impact Index presented by the National Collegiate Open likely will debut on December 5th.

 

[NoVa Lion]

For those wondering, the Dual Impact Index presented by the National Collegiate Open likely will debut on December 5th.

Just in time to explain why we hammered Lehigh on 12/3.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

Good point. I stand corrected.

Makes total sense now: Schram stays because who says he didn't lose to what might be the #1, 2, or 3 wrestler in the nation in a month or two.

It really makes no sense to me. Suriano won and should be ranked ahead. Move him to #4 and Schram to #5 or #10 and #11. The way they did it, it's as if the result didn't happen for Schram. So if they both keep winning or lose to the same guys, when does Flo move Suriano ahead; at some arbitrary point in the future are they all of a sudden going to give credit for the win? Why not just do it now; there is a whole season to sort things out further based on actual results instead of pretending early results didn't happen.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

It really makes no sense to me.

That seems a tad extreme, IMHO. Flo took one approach, and there is some logic to it. It's so early in the season. Schram has a lot of college wins on his resume. Suriano has 2 college wins (all he's wrestled) on his resume. So Flo decided to let things play out.

Other approaches also have some logic to them. InterMat moved Schram 1 behind Suriano. TOM did the same thing. They basically took your approach -- Suriano won so he should be ahead of Schram. WIN moved Suriano from unranked to #9, and Schram from #4 to #13. AWP moved Suriano from unranked to #12, and Schram from #7 to #9, so that's a lot of movement, but Schram is still ahead. Wrestle Stat is computer generated, so I'm not sure that what they did is all that applicable to this discussion.

 

[El-Jefe]

Going out on a limb here: this might work itself out before the B10 Tournament.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

No doubt, that's why I suggested that they let things play out naturally instead of ignoring a result.

Tom, the lack of movement of Schram is what makes it nonsensical to me. According to their rankings, he lost to someone ranked below him yet didn't move down at all. You can't ignore results. All the other ranking services moved him to one degree or another.

 

[The Stan]

It really makes no sense to me. Suriano won and should be ranked ahead. Move him to #4 and Schram to #5 or #10 and #11. The way they did it, it's as if the result didn't happen for Schram. So if they both keep winning or lose to the same guys, when does Flo move Suriano ahead; at some arbitrary point in the future are they all of a sudden going to give credit for the win? Why not just do it now; there is a whole season to sort things out further based on actual results instead of pretending early results didn't happen.

I agree

 

[jtothemfp]

Is anybody on here in touch with our friend Gregg Henry?

Sure hope he hasn't given up doing his rankings!

 

[a_mshaffer]

I agree

I agree as well. Be consistent. Rankings and not projections. That is why Nick wasn't ranked before the season. Rank based on evidence, not projection.

 

[dunkej01]

It's odd because Vais picked Suriano to make the finals. So he believes in the kids talent without seeing him on a college mat.

I can't argue his explanation cause it makes sense in its own bubble but given the previous comment gives the impression of 2+2=5

 

[SetonHallPirate]

Just in time to explain why we hammered Lehigh on 12/3.

If you're hammering Lehigh on December 3rd, expect a 60-0 score, followed by a 60-0 Lehigh win on December 4th, not to mention Cael having to explain to the fans and the media why all of his wrestlers missed weight for the actual Lehigh dual!

 

[NittanyLion84]

No doubt, that's why I suggested that they let things play out naturally instead of ignoring a result.

Tom, the lack of movement of Schram is what makes it nonsensical to me. According to their rankings, he lost to someone ranked below him yet didn't move down at all. You can't ignore results. All the other ranking services moved him to one degree or another.

I agree, it is ignoring actual results. If Schram looses to the 20th ranked wrestler he would have been dinged. Loose to an unranked true freshman, that they're still trying to figure out how high to put him and it's as if Schram never lost. I see no logic in that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either have to go out on a limb and rank true freshman elite recruits, out of the gate and adjust as you go or you have to accept the early results, as opposed to pretending the early results didn't happen.

 

[RoarLions1]

Is anybody on here in touch with our friend Gregg Henry?

Sure hope he hasn't given up doing his rankings!

I'm in touch, but not recently. Sent a note asking about the rankings. His pre-season rankings are normally out in early October, and redblades reached out in a forum, and didn't get a response about this years. Maybe Allen Brown's passing last year is a part of this...just a guess.

I. too, look forward to his rankings...only one that goes to 33. He does a really good job.

 

[Dogwelder]

... You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either have to go out on a limb and rank true freshman elite recruits, out of the gate and adjust as you go or you have to accept the early results, as opposed to pretending the early results didn't happen.

NittanyLion84 hit the nail on the head. Flo is making a weird and overly-subtle choice. First they say that the pre-season ranking is flawed for sure because no newcomers are on it for lack of data. Then, when the first data comes in, they say we love the for-sure-flawed preseason ranking so much that we refuse to change the front of it (top ~4) based on just a little data, but we don't love the back of the for-sure-flawed preseason ranking as much, so we are willing to change the back (top ~10) based on that just a little data.

Whatever logic is used to justify protecting a top-4 flawed ranking against data should logically also apply to protecting a top-10 ranking against data. But Flo decided to protect one and not the other.

 

[SetonHallPirate]

Roar, what about the ones that go to 76 (and beyond)?

 

[RoarLions1]

Roar, what about the ones that go to 76 (and beyond)?

Late in the season, for me. Not now...again, not speaking for anyone else.

 

[RoarLions1]

Here's the way-too-early-to-do-this INTERMAT-ONLY Tournament Placement and Advancement Points for the top-10 teams;

Oklahoma State 99
Iowa 87
Ohio State 82
Penn State 73.5
Virginia Tech 67.5
Missouri 64
Cornell 50.5
Illinois 49
Nebraska 45
Lehigh 38

 

[SetonHallPirate]

Late in the season, for me. Not now...again, not speaking for anyone else.

Gotcha...fair enough!

 

[Chickenman Testa]

Here's the way-too-early-to-do-this INTERMAT-ONLY Tournament Placement and Advancement Points for the top-10 teams;

Oklahoma State 99
Iowa 87
Ohio State 82
Penn State 73.5
Virginia Tech 67.5
Missouri 64
Cornell 50.5
Illinois 49
Nebraska 45
Lehigh 38

To quote George Jefferson, "we're movin on up"

 

[nitlion6]

No doubt, that's why I suggested that they let things play out naturally instead of ignoring a result.

Tom, the lack of movement of Schram is what makes it nonsensical to me. According to their rankings, he lost to someone ranked below him yet didn't move down at all. You can't ignore results. All the other ranking services moved him to one degree or another.

I agree Tiger. Schram did not fall down and pin himself. Nick beat him without ever being in danger of losing.
The attempt at logic to rationalize the non recognition of the result is somewhat silly. Kinda like the silly argument that 1-loss Louisville should be ranked ahead of 1-loss Clemson despite what any available objective measurement indicates, like a head to head match up. Of course as was pointed out, it will work itself out.

 

[NittanyLion84]

NittanyLion84 hit the nail on the head. Flo is making a weird and overly-subtle choice. First they say that the pre-season ranking is flawed for sure because no newcomers are on it for lack of data. Then, when the first data comes in, they say we love the for-sure-flawed preseason ranking so much that we refuse to change the front of it (top ~4) based on just a little data, but we don't love the back of the for-sure-flawed preseason ranking as much, so we are willing to change the back (top ~10) based on that just a little data.

Whatever logic is used to justify protecting a top-4 flawed ranking against data should logically also apply to protecting a top-10 ranking against data. But Flo decided to protect one and not the other.

I might be in the minority, but I think the time has passed to not rank true freshman. I do believe there was a time, before all the national Free and Folk style high school national tournaments, that it was impossible to judge where a high school wrestler would fair against NCAA Division I competition and caution was warranted, but those days have passed. The last few years have proved, if you are an elite recruit out of high school wrestling at all the national tournaments, there is minimal risk that you will not translate well into NCAA competition. How many people really think that it will be a huge risk, next year, to rank Mark Hall, based on what he has done thus far? How many will think the same about Spencer Lee?

 

[KidNittany]

It really makes no sense to me. Suriano won and should be ranked ahead. Move him to #4 and Schram to #5 or #10 and #11. The way they did it, it's as if the result didn't happen for Schram. So if they both keep winning or lose to the same guys, when does Flo move Suriano ahead; at some arbitrary point in the future are they all of a sudden going to give credit for the win? Why not just do it now; there is a whole season to sort things out further based on actual results instead of pretending early results didn't happen.

I feel like Flo ranks based on how they feel that day. I think we can all pencil in Suri as an AA contender right now.

Probably all part of the global conspiracy for Willie to boost his bitcoin reserves

 

[slushhead]

When in doubt, head-to-head should be the first tiebreaker.

Flo's rationale makes sense if it were Week 10 and this was Schram's only loss and Suriano had a few losses to guys below Schram. But it is Week 2, and there are no 2016-17 data to suggest Schram is better than Suriano.

Flo doesn't rank true freshmen in the pre-season because there are "no data". Well, Suriano just gave you some data -- and they are that Suriano is better than Schram, as of November 13, 2016.

The burden is now on Schram to provide data to the contrary.

 

[RoarLions1]

Sounds like I'm in the minority.

 

[Hotshoe]

No doubt, that's why I suggested that they let things play out naturally instead of ignoring a result.

Tom, the lack of movement of Schram is what makes it nonsensical to me. According to their rankings, he lost to someone ranked below him yet didn't move down at all. You can't ignore results. All the other ranking services moved him to one degree or another.

Yeah, just like Michigan...

 

[Ja1339]

I might be in the minority, but I think the time has passed to not rank true freshman. I do believe there was a time, before all the national Free and Folk style high school national tournaments, that it was impossible to judge where a high school wrestler would fair against NCAA Division I competition and caution was warranted, but those days have passed. The last few years have proved, if you are an elite recruit out of high school wrestling at all the national tournaments, there is minimal risk that you will not translate well into NCAA competition. How many people really think that it will be a huge risk, next year, to rank Mark Hall, based on what he has done thus far? How many will think the same about Spencer Lee?

Completely agree. Nick Lee, same thing.

 

[NittanyLion84]

Using this year as an example, if I were doing the rankings, I would have started out Suriano in the 15 to 20 range and adjusted as you got results. Does anybody think that the guys ranked in that range, had an above average chance of beating Nick, proving he didn't belong there? I certainly don't.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

Yeah, just like Michigan...

Can't compare it to college football 10 games in. I assure you if they were #3 and lost the second game of the season to a lower ranked team they would of dropped.

 

[NoVa Lion]

People need to remember these are just rankings. They don't MEAN anything. Interesting to debate and point out what you think the rankings should be but in the end they don't matter. I guess my point is that IMHO there is no reason to get upset just because sometimes they don't make any sense.

 

[Hotshoe]

Can't compare it to college football 10 games in. I assure you if they were #3 and lost the second game of the season to a lower ranked team they would of dropped.

Well, they should have dropped at least a spot or two.

 

[NoVa Lion]

Well, they should have dropped at least a spot or two.

Who should they have dropped behind? Clemson who lost the same week, Washington and Louisville who basically haven't beat any good teams, or one or more of the 2 loss teams? Take a look at the rankings and pick the team or two they should have dropped behind.