WrestleStat Rankings | Week 12 2022

[STAND with PRIDE]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think its possible SLUPSU placed bets using the WS rankings and lost his ass, therefore he has no money left to donate?

Or maybe he fell out of a tree and landed head first?

 

[SLUPSU]

Nope, not really. Now, break out that wallet.

Yes, really.

You ignored my previous question, do you contribute to EVERY site you frequent? You must be a cheapskate if you don't.

 

[SLUPSU]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think its possible SLUPSU placed bets using the WS rankings and lost his ass, therefore he has no money left to donate?

Or maybe he fell out of a tree and landed head first?

I apologize for not being a REAL wrestling a$$h.... err fan, like you.

 

[ss7]

I apologize for not being a REAL wrestling a$$h.... err fan, like you.

Don't sell yourself short. You seem like a tremendous a$$h...

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Yes, really.

You ignored my previous question, do you contribute to EVERY site you frequent? You must be a cheapskate if you don't.

No, but I'm unaware of any other sites that I frequent, that are run by a couple of guys passionate about something I'm passionate about, who are creating real value for me, for only donations.

I don't consider it that much different than paying for Rokfin, Flo, or Intermat, except it's voluntary.

Do you voluntarily contribute to ANY site that provides content for only donations?

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think its possible SLUPSU placed bets using the WS rankings and lost his ass, therefore he has no money left to donate?

Or maybe he fell out of a tree and landed head first?

Just to be clear, I haven't changed my stance on this, DESPITE falling out of a tree ( not landing headfirst). I think don't change one me bit.

 

[SLUPSU]

No, but I'm unaware of any other sites that I frequent, that are run by a couple of guys passionate about something I'm passionate about, who are creating real value for me, for only donations.

I don't consider it that much different than paying for Rokfin, Flo, or Intermat, except it's voluntary.

Do you voluntarily contribute to ANY site that provides content for only donations?

I don't frequent any sites that run solely on donations. Sorry for not being as passionate about WS as the WS team I'm currently being hounded by, I didn't know that was a criteria for posting an opinion here, an opinion that you agree with.

WS has a link to Rofkin, do they make money that way?

 

[SLUPSU]

Don't sell yourself short. You seem like a tremendous a$$h...

Thanks for your contribution, apparently you aren't smart enough to ignore me.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

I don't frequent any sites that run solely on donations. Sorry for not being as passionate about WS as the WS team I'm currently being hounded by, I didn't know that was a criteria for posting an opinion here, an opinion that you agree with.

WS has a link to Rofkin, do they make money that way?

It's Rokfin, and you'll apparently use any excuse to avoid prying that wallet open.
1. Well, I don't like their rankings, so I'm not paying.
2. They make money on Rokfin, so I'm not paying.
3. I don't pay other websites, so why should I pay WS?

 

[NoVa Lion]

I don't frequent any sites that run solely on donations. Sorry for not being as passionate about WS as the WS team I'm currently being hounded by, I didn't know that was a criteria for posting an opinion here, an opinion that you agree with.

WS has a link to Rofkin, do they make money that way?

Well, that is a lie, since you obviously frequent WS. Not to mention you spend a lot of time complaining about it. If you don't like their rankings why do you even look at them? Makes no sense.

 

[Agoodnap]

Quite honestly, I don't look at any rankings, not even WS, until these threads come along. So, I don't particularly "like" WS, but I do understand its limitations, how the math works, some of the tweaks that WS has made, and how wrestlers end up where they do in the rankings.

I also think it's hilarious that people get mad at WS, and have no concept of any of these things.

You're kidding right? The entire "rankings" in WS in intended to create controversy. It's actually a ruse if you think about it. "Lifetime" rankings during the current season but NOT identified as "Lifetime".
I copied this right from the wiki on Elo that Roar linked:
"Elo ratings are a comparative only, and are valid only within the rating pool in which they were calculated, rather than being an absolute measure of a player's strength."

The rating pool for any "season" continually changes with each season as wrestlers graduate, injuries, weight changes, new wrestlers enter the scene, etc. Here-in lies the problem.

So, a new "Season Ranking" should be added which takes last season and this season into account and after each match this season the oldest match from last season disappears from consideration. By the end of the season last season won't matter.

 

[SLUPSU]

Well, that is a lie, since you obviously frequent WS. Not to mention you spend a lot of time complaining about it. If you don't like their rankings why do you even look at them? Makes no sense.

Words have meanings, let me help you...

frequent​

[ adjective free-kwuhnt; verb fri-kwent, free-kwuhnt ]SHOW IPA

adjective
happening or occurring at short intervals:to make frequent trips to Tokyo.
constant, habitual, or regular:a frequent guest.
located at short distances apart:frequent towns along the shore.

verb (used with object)
to visit often; go often to; be often in:to frequent the art galleries.

 

[SLUPSU]

It's Rokfin, and you'll apparently use any excuse to avoid prying that wallet open.
1. Well, I don't like their rankings, so I'm not paying.
2. They make money on Rokfin, so I'm not paying.
3. I don't pay other websites, so why should I pay WS?

You're brilliant at goal-post shifting and strawman burning. Did you already forget that you claimed that WS runs solely on donations.... that was wrong wasn't it? How long are you going to keep playing this silly game?

 

[pawrestlersintn]

You're kidding right? The entire "rankings" in WS in intended to create controversy. It's actually a ruse if you think about it. "Lifetime" rankings during the current season but NOT identified as "Lifetime".
I copied this right from the wiki on Elo that Roar linked:
"Elo ratings are a comparative only, and are valid only within the rating pool in which they were calculated, rather than being an absolute measure of a player's strength."

The rating pool for any "season" continually changes with each season as wrestlers graduate, injuries, weight changes, new wrestlers enter the scene, etc. Here-in lies the problem.

So, a new "Season Ranking" should be added which takes last season and this season into account and after each match this season the oldest match from last season disappears from consideration. By the end of the season last season won't matter.

This might be the second best take that I've seen so far.

1. Math is political.
2. WS is intentionally using ELO, just to piss people off.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

You're brilliant at goal-post shifting and strawman burning. Did you already forget that you claimed that WS runs solely on donations.... that was wrong wasn't it? How long are you going to keep playing this silly game?

You're right, they're making bank on people like you, not tipping them on Rokfin.

 

[Agoodnap]

This might be the second best take that I've seen so far.

1. Math is political.
2. WS is intentionally using ELO, just to piss people off.

smh...controversy equals clicks! So now what are you going to "read" in to my post that isn't there?

 

[Chickenman Testa]

If WS was a human playing actual chess:

 

[pawrestlersintn]

smh...controversy equals clicks! So now what are you going to "read" in to my post that isn't there?

So, WS is probably developing an algorithm to determine at what point they will reach the tipping point between losing clicks from pissing people off and gaining clicks if they "fix" their rankings so it will look just like every other ranking service. We know Slu will appreciate it so much that he'll throw a buck their way. 🙄

 

[Agoodnap]

You are a bigger jerk than I thought. I'll no longer converse with you. Bye.

 

[billrag]

Never really got into the WS arguments. I fully understand that it's an algorithm and that the owners frequently tweak it to make it a bit more accurate or responsive. I also get that you can't expect it to always get a comparison right because there are too many factors that play into it, some of which simply can't be adjusted on the fly. All of that said, I do agree that some get awfully testy about ANY criticism of WS. I don't criticize and like most of you, I occasionally use WS and appreciate that it's a free/donation service. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to occasionally bellyache that WS got this one or that one really wrong. It's just not worth these sorts of arguments guys. Enjoy the service, accept that it's not perfect, but also accept that there will be some criticism of it by guys who don't understand how it works or even by guys who DO but who wish it was better at predicting outcomes or at ranking individuals.

 

[APSPSUwrestlingfan]

Never really got into the WS arguments. I fully understand that it's an algorithm and that the owners frequently tweak it to make it a bit more accurate or responsive. I also get that you can't expect it to always get a comparison right because there are too many factors that play into it, some of which simply can't be adjusted on the fly. All of that said, I do agree that some get awfully testy about ANY criticism of WS. I don't criticize and like most of you, I occasionally use WS and appreciate that it's a free/donation service. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to occasionally bellyache that WS got this one or that one really wrong. It's just not worth these sorts of arguments guys. Enjoy the service, accept that it's not perfect, but also accept that there will be some criticism of it by guys who don't understand how it works or even by guys who DO but who wish it was better at predicting outcomes or at ranking individuals.

Way too reasonable for how some board members/visitors have been behaving recently.🦔 The hedgehog was the closest I could come to a rabid porcupine. Thanks for your balanced take. Some threads I'm going to ignore for a few more days.

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

Serious question guys, so dont get crazy, Honestly dont look at the site very often, was just wondering do they keep track of the percentage of their correct/wrong predictions? You would think this would be a true sign if things need or dont need tweaked.

 

[billrag]

Serious question guys, so dont get crazy, Honestly dont look at the site very often, was just wondering do they keep track of the percentage of their correct/wrong predictions? You would think this would be a true sign if things need or dont need tweaked.

No idea. I do know that I used to use their site when making my KYPSW picks, but never for their prediction, I was using it to see who the other team likely had wrestling and occasionally to see mutual opponents. I won the contest one year and would have gotten my ass kicked had I simply used their predictions.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

Andregee

How about taking a stab at using a different model. There seems to be a fair amount of research to indicate many newer methods are superior to ELO for 1 many of the reasons cited for 1 on 1 and team competitions.

Here is one interesting reference

Searching for the GOAT of tennis win prediction

Sports forecasting models – beyond their interest to bettors – are important resources for sports analysts and coaches. Like the best athletes, the best forecasting models should be rigorously tested and judged by how well their performance holds up against top competitors. Although a number of...

www.degruyter.com

I also think you could consider a very minimal annual subscription for off day $3-5/yr for full analytics access to reward you for your hard work and dedication. Free access could remain for limited access to other features. A few thousand subscriptions would make it worth your while. I'll commit to being #1.

 

[District four]

Andregee

How about taking a stab at using a different model. There seems to be a fair amount of research to indicate many newer methods are superior to ELO for 1 many of the reasons cited for 1 on 1 and team competitions.

Here is one interesting reference

Searching for the GOAT of tennis win prediction

Sports forecasting models – beyond their interest to bettors – are important resources for sports analysts and coaches. Like the best athletes, the best forecasting models should be rigorously tested and judged by how well their performance holds up against top competitors. Although a number of...

www.degruyter.com

I also think you could consider a very minimal annual subscription for off day $3-5/yr for full analytics access to reward you for your hard work and dedication. Free access could remain for limited access to other features. A few thousand subscriptions would make it worth your while. I'll commit to being #1.

Not for long you won't. Lol. No number one for you

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Never really got into the WS arguments. I fully understand that it's an algorithm and that the owners frequently tweak it to make it a bit more accurate or responsive. I also get that you can't expect it to always get a comparison right because there are too many factors that play into it, some of which simply can't be adjusted on the fly. All of that said, I do agree that some get awfully testy about ANY criticism of WS. I don't criticize and like most of you, I occasionally use WS and appreciate that it's a free/donation service. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to occasionally bellyache that WS got this one or that one really wrong. It's just not worth these sorts of arguments guys. Enjoy the service, accept that it's not perfect, but also accept that there will be some criticism of it by guys who don't understand how it works or even by guys who DO but who wish it was better at predicting outcomes or at ranking individuals.

How dare you be so reasonable? I'll try to leave my typical sarcasm out of this message.

Most of what I try to do is educate, because most of the new people that complain don't understand that WS is just math.

The people I have a problem with are the over the top "Garbage!" people, and the people that say, "Just fix it!" I am certain that WS reads these messages, and in the past has even tweaked the math to make it better suited for wrestling. I am also certain that there are no new revelations in any messages for the last four or five years. ALL of the arguments and complaints are the same ones. Hence, my explanations of the math are almost always the same.

So, when the same people come along, and offer the same arguments, I offer my same schtick, on the opposite side of the spectrum. "More taste!" "Less filling!" The math does exactly what the math does, which is much more of a lifetime wins and losses ranking, than a week to week, who is better than whom, ranking. Just because people look at the rankings, and think they should be week to week rankings like Intermat, doesn't make them so.

The "Just do it" crowd doesn't have any idea how much time or effort it would require it to "fix" the algorithm into being a week to week ranking. They have no idea how much time WS already spends on WS for the stuff that everybody loves, let alone how much time "fixing it" would entaiI. Personally, believe it would be a monumental task to make it so. The three big variables that people want changed are recency, head to head, and end of season tournament results. If this was single-variable change, it would be one thing, but you start messing with three variables in the ELO math, and all of a sudden, it will get much, much messier. WS isn't charging me anything for their great work on all of the stuff they do, so they can choose to spend their time doing whatever they want. I am not an "other people's money" or "other people's time" kind of a guy.

The thing I think is kind of cool is the career ranking aspect of WS. We already have a host of human-derived rankings. I don't get the angst in rankings much, let alone the intrigue with a guy being ranked #6 in intermat, but #7 in Flo. Man, if people want to argue those two numbers, have at it Just leave me out of it.

For the time being, until WS decides to change, WS is what it is. Maybe they need to title their rankings, "Career Rankings Based on Wins/Losses," to avoid the drama.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Andregee

How about taking a stab at using a different model. There seems to be a fair amount of research to indicate many newer methods are superior to ELO for 1 many of the reasons cited for 1 on 1 and team competitions.

Here is one interesting reference

Searching for the GOAT of tennis win prediction

Sports forecasting models – beyond their interest to bettors – are important resources for sports analysts and coaches. Like the best athletes, the best forecasting models should be rigorously tested and judged by how well their performance holds up against top competitors. Although a number of...

www.degruyter.com

I also think you could consider a very minimal annual subscription for off day $3-5/yr for full analytics access to reward you for your hard work and dedication. Free access could remain for limited access to other features. A few thousand subscriptions would make it worth your while. I'll commit to being #1.

I think they should say the charge is for the Rankings, but you get free access to all of the other stuff.

I'm glancing through the article you linked. Am I reading it wrong, or isn't it saying that Elo is the next best thing to bookmakers, in Section 5? Maybe I'm glancing too fast.

 

[Sportfan2017]

I understand the ELO progression perfectly well....better than most. ELO is not the problem. Consider the following list from Wrestlestats: UPDATED RESPONSE
Rank Name.........................Record..........ELO Rating..........Highest Finish at NCAAs
1. Sasso..................................75-7................1612...........................2nd
2. Suriano..............................75-7................1603..........................NC
3. Desanto.............................94-19.............1602.........................3rd
4. Amine................................91-19..............1600.........................3rd
5. RBY.....................................69-9...............1600..........................NC
6. Wick..................................120-21.............1596...........................3rd
7. O'Connor...........................101-11..............1595............................NC
8. Micic.................................. 93-15.............1594............................2nd
9. Brooks................................39-1...............1592.............................NC
10. Marinelli...........................100-13............1589.............................6th
11. H. Hidlay............................120-11.............1588............................2nd
12. Glory................................... 60-7..............1582.............................6th
13. Starocci...............................46-2..............1575..............................NC
14. Parris...................................81-13..............1572.............................2nd
15. Ferrari..................................30-1...............1572.............................NC
16. T. Wilson.............................110-29............1570.............................3rd

I'll try again. The problem that you are seeing is that the younger wrestlers...in their first few years have had to deal with Covid and as a result have wrestled far few matches than guys like Desanto and Amine etc.. They have wrestled 28-30+ matches per year. Brooks, Starocci, Ferarri etc. will never be able to approach that number in their career when they had years in the teens. Since higher # of matches clearly leads to a higher ELO by your own admission.......My suggestion was to give those wrestlers who have been forced to have limited matches a starting ELO of 1350-1400 ( or such ) as a quick fix to equalize the playing field NOW. As the Amines, Sassos, O'Connors etc. graduate.....the playing field will normalize itself because everyone will be starting at the same ELO number. I am suggesting this as a quick fix to a problem that everyone can see. I think it will equalize things rather quickly. Wrestlestat is an awesome source. That said......saying we should ignore obvious issues that I think can rather easily be addressed is not even how Tom Ryan would handle it

 

[SLUPSU]

I do agree that some get awfully testy about ANY criticism of WS

It's comical how triggered and defensive some get, I've been accused of lying, being cheap, and being dumb for WS criticism that they AGREE with.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

There’s been some good posts here but the one thing I keep reading is that the math is a lifetime ranking. I’d point out that the dual comparison isn’t.

Yep. Discussed above. @johnstownsteel actually put the WS picks into KYPSW last year. If I remember correctly, WS finished middle of the road. I'll have to look it up.

 

[johnstownsteel]

Yep. Discussed above. @johnstownsteel actually put the WS picks into KYPSW last year. If I remember correctly, WS finished middle of the road. I'll have to look it up.

Believe it was two years ago but could be wrong.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

I understand the ELO progression perfectly well....better than most. ELO is not the problem. Consider the following list from Wrestlestats: UPDATED RESPONSE
Rank Name.........................Record..........ELO Rating..........Highest Finish at NCAAs
1. Sasso..................................75-7................1612...........................2nd
2. Suriano..............................75-7................1603..........................NC
3. Desanto.............................94-19.............1602.........................3rd
4. Amine................................91-19..............1600.........................3rd
5. RBY.....................................69-9...............1600..........................NC
6. Wick..................................120-21.............1596...........................3rd
7. O'Connor...........................101-11..............1595............................NC
8. Micic.................................. 93-15.............1594............................2nd
9. Brooks................................39-1...............1592.............................NC
10. Marinelli...........................100-13............1589.............................6th
11. H. Hidlay............................120-11.............1588............................2nd
12. Glory................................... 60-7..............1582.............................6th
13. Starocci...............................46-2..............1575..............................NC
14. Parris...................................81-13..............1572.............................2nd
15. Ferrari..................................30-1...............1572.............................NC
16. T. Wilson.............................110-29............1570.............................3rd

I'll try again. The problem that you are seeing is that the younger wrestlers...in their first few years have had to deal with Covid and as a result have wrestled far few matches than guys like Desanto and Amine etc.. They have wrestled 28-30+ matches per year. Brooks, Starocci, Ferarri etc. will never be able to approach that number in their career when they had years in the teens. Since higher # of matches clearly leads to a higher ELO by your own admission.......My suggestion was to give those wrestlers who have been forced to have limited matches a starting ELO of 1350-1400 ( or such ) as a quick fix to equalize the playing field NOW. As the Amines, Sassos, O'Connors etc. graduate.....the playing field will normalize itself because everyone will be starting at the same ELO number. I am suggesting this as a quick fix to a problem that everyone can see. I think it will equalize things rather quickly. Wrestlestat is an awesome source. That said......saying we should ignore obvious issues that I think can rather easily be addressed is not even how Tom Ryan would handle it

Putting Olivieri on a 1400 scale would likely have shot him to the front of the 133 pack, wouldn't it? And, man, would there be holy hell to pay for WS, if he moved in front of RBY. Slu might have a breakdown. Do you eliminate the freshman multiplier, if you award the extra points? Do you reduce the freshman multiplier? Maybe you don't award extra points, but increase the freshman multiplier by a little bit.

Plus, you would be asking WS to determine how many extra points are appropriate, and the number of matches that would be appropriate for getting the 200 point bump. Does Olivieri get the 200, since he had 22 matches this year, even though Mastrogiavanni has only had 10? Maybe 1-10 matches get 200, 11-19 matches get 100, and 20+ matches get 0?

I think your proposal is time-consuming for WS, who hasn't shown a recent penchant for changing anything, and I think it creates as many "wrongs" as it does "rights."

 

[RoarLions1]

Why is it that you find yourself repeatedly defending and explaining (rationalizing?) a ranking system that still doesn't work very well? GIGO.

ffs... shut up, I'm voicing an opinion that most people agree with, their ranking methodology doesn't work very well.

It's comical how triggered and defensive some get, I've been accused of lying, being cheap, and being dumb for WS criticism that they AGREE with.

pawrestlers, despite an ounce of sarcasm, tried to engage you in conversation. You would have none of it, instead saying he was rationalizing (not the best way to start a meaningful conversation) AND saying the tool was Garbage In, Garbage Out. As I see these and every other post, you never were interested in trying to engage him, then you play the martyr card (your last post). Smh.

 

[regularfan]

I know this post will probably get skipped over and lost in the argument. However, I haven't written on the site in a while mainly because I didn't feel I had anything of value to add. Nevertheless, I must admit I get a little tired of hearing people complain every week about WrestleState knowing one of the people who puts it together posts here. So I felt compelled to speak up on behalf of their team (I think it is two guys?).

There are so many things that site does that are not available anywhere else. In my opinion, looking just at the rankings of that site is kind of like using the most expensive computer to play solitaire. The rankings aren't to everybody's liking but how many other people even attempt ranking every single wrestler in Division I. To argue over one or two spots up or down is just petty in my opinion.

Some other features that have nothing to do with rankings:

1. Tournament comparisons: Look how the starters in each conference have done against each other and how the seedings might shake out.
2. Tournament projection: Make your own rankings if you like and it calculates the team score
3. Wrestler profiles: Name another site where you can easily look up the career and season records of probably 1,000 wrestlers across all three divisions
4. Stat leaders: Those are updated in real time. The NCAA releases them like maybe over other week
5. RPI: Right alongside the coaches rankings which he enters and the DI winning percentage at that particular weight to give you an idea of how the allocations might come. Again in real time where the NCAA releases three times a year
6. Fantasy wrestling: If that is your thing. They also have conference picks at the end of the year just for fun if you are interested.
7. Schedules/Results: upcoming dual schedule for every team in one lace
8. Tournaments that are upcoming and which teams are planning to send guys.
9. Recruit commitments: when they become available. You can also look at rosters four years into the future.
10. Social Media feed: get results in real times from team's updating accounts
11. Match videos can be added

How many other sites offered this prior to WrestleStat? Unless I am missing something, I don't think there was any.

 

[SLUPSU]

pawrestlers, despite an ounce of sarcasm, tried to engage you in conversation. You would have none of it, instead saying he was rationalizing (not the best way to start a meaningful conversation) AND saying the tool was Garbage In, Garbage Out. As I see these and every other post, you never were interested in trying to engage him, then you play the martyr card (your last post). Smh.

He tried to engage in conversation, really? All he did was deflect to his I'm cheap schtick while agreeing that WS rankings were flawed.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Why is it that you find yourself repeatedly defending and explaining (rationalizing?) a ranking system that still doesn't work very well? GIGO.

It works perfectly fine for what it is currently designed for. It's the people that don't understand what it's designed for that have a problem, not me, nor WS.

BTW, have you donated to WS, for the massive amount of great stuff they have on their website?

Your first message compared to mine. What do you find unreasonable in my message?

 

[pawrestlersintn]

I know this post will probably get skipped over and lost in the argument. However, I haven't written on the site in a while mainly because I didn't feel I had anything of value to add. Nevertheless, I must admit I get a little tired of hearing people complain every week about WrestleState knowing one of the people who puts it together posts here. So I felt compelled to speak up on behalf of their team (I think it is two guys?).

There are so many things that site does that are not available anywhere else. In my opinion, looking just at the rankings of that site is kind of like using the most expensive computer to play solitaire. The rankings aren't to everybody's liking but how many other people even attempt ranking every single wrestler in Division I. To argue over one or two spots up or down is just petty in my opinion.

Some other features that have nothing to do with rankings:

1. Tournament comparisons: Look how the starters in each conference have done against each other and how the seedings might shake out.
2. Tournament projection: Make your own rankings if you like and it calculates the team score
3. Wrestler profiles: Name another site where you can easily look up the career and season records of probably 1,000 wrestlers across all three divisions
4. Stat leaders: Those are updated in real time. The NCAA releases them like maybe over other week
5. RPI: Right alongside the coaches rankings which he enters and the DI winning percentage at that particular weight to give you an idea of how the allocations might come. Again in real time where the NCAA releases three times a year
6. Fantasy wrestling: If that is your thing. They also have conference picks at the end of the year just for fun if you are interested.
7. Schedules/Results: upcoming dual schedule for every team in one lace
8. Tournaments that are upcoming and which teams are planning to send guys.
9. Recruit commitments: when they become available. You can also look at rosters four years into the future.
10. Social Media feed: get results in real times from team's updating accounts
11. Match videos can be added

How many other sites offered this prior to WrestleStat? Unless I am missing something, I don't think there was any.

Great post.

 

[mcpat]

I know this post will probably get skipped over and lost in the argument. However, I haven't written on the site in a while mainly because I didn't feel I had anything of value to add. Nevertheless, I must admit I get a little tired of hearing people complain every week about WrestleState knowing one of the people who puts it together posts here. So I felt compelled to speak up on behalf of their team (I think it is two guys?).

There are so many things that site does that are not available anywhere else. In my opinion, looking just at the rankings of that site is kind of like using the most expensive computer to play solitaire. The rankings aren't to everybody's liking but how many other people even attempt ranking every single wrestler in Division I. To argue over one or two spots up or down is just petty in my opinion.

Some other features that have nothing to do with rankings:

1. Tournament comparisons: Look how the starters in each conference have done against each other and how the seedings might shake out.
2. Tournament projection: Make your own rankings if you like and it calculates the team score
3. Wrestler profiles: Name another site where you can easily look up the career and season records of probably 1,000 wrestlers across all three divisions
4. Stat leaders: Those are updated in real time. The NCAA releases them like maybe over other week
5. RPI: Right alongside the coaches rankings which he enters and the DI winning percentage at that particular weight to give you an idea of how the allocations might come. Again in real time where the NCAA releases three times a year
6. Fantasy wrestling: If that is your thing. They also have conference picks at the end of the year just for fun if you are interested.
7. Schedules/Results: upcoming dual schedule for every team in one lace
8. Tournaments that are upcoming and which teams are planning to send guys.
9. Recruit commitments: when they become available. You can also look at rosters four years into the future.
10. Social Media feed: get results in real times from team's updating accounts
11. Match videos can be added

How many other sites offered this prior to WrestleStat? Unless I am missing something, I don't think there was any.

It’s a great site. I love it. In fact, I think it’s time I donate to it after I post this.

It also has rankings that are tough to understand. I don’t mean to be unsympathetic, but Willie posts on this forum too; does that mean intermat’s rankings and free content from it and Matscouts are out of bounds for comment? I think I’ve seen stuff even from Martin before; is Rokfin out of bounds? The guys from Flo have posted; can we not criticize Flo?

I’m not saying folks don’t go too far. I’m not saying I haven’t gone too far. But if you rank wrestlers, you’re crazy to think folks won’t have opinions about the rankings. Strong opinions.

 

[SLUPSU]

Your first message compared to mine. What do you find unreasonable in my message?

Your post was not unreasonable but the tone was condescending.