New Intermat Rankings 12-31-13

[npope]

To who they are not considered at the big ten seating meeting which is there qualifier. So how do they matter

They matter. Rankings come in to play for seedings. Seedings matter. It is obviously not the be all end all. But generally speaking, the better the seed, the bigger the advantage. Are there exceptions? For sure. What team usually wins the national tournament, the team with higher seeded wrestlers or the team that has the philosophy that "seeds don't matter"?

Are you sure about the use of rankings with respect to seeding (serious question)? I mean, I can't see the seeding committee at the Midlands (for example) pulling out one of the handful of rankings and say, "This it it, boys. This is how we figure it out." I highly doubt any rankings are employed at the Midlands - or any other tournament. Rather, I think they simply rely on a set of objective results as much as possible, e.g. 1) current records, 2) head to head results, 3) previous finishes in this particular meet, and 4) miscellaneous previous results. And if that fails to provide a clear seeding answer, they just vote on it. Any use of current rankings is simply too subjective and thus, argumentative.

[Ghetto]

Isn't that likely the same criteria for rankings?

[Spartan]

I have never (I know never say never) in ten years as a head coach and twenty years as an official seen rankings used as a criteria for seeding a tournament. With track wrestling you input your six or seven criteria to sort out the wrestlers,

Record
Minimum number of matches
Head to head against wrestlers in the tournament
Previous finish at national tournament
Previous finish at that tournament

But national ranking has never been one, and if it was which one would you use, a wrestler could be ranked one on intermat and four on flo and two on a different board.  Now I can say I have heard coaches bring it up at seeding meetings and get shot down. Heck I have been reminded by a coach during a match that his wrestler was ranked number one in the nation which made me respond that I didn't care. But as I said earlier the rankings are there for us, I am sure the wrestlers know and look at them but they have zero to do with seeding at the qualifiers at years end.

[DocWrestling]

Seeding is just as subjective as rankings but just by a different set of people.  Criteria is broader for rankings where an individual tournament can focus on just those wrestlers and just that tournament's past results.  Seeding is easier than ranking.

[theunionchair]

When it's all said and done, I think Taylor, Graff, Jordan, and Medberry will AA.

I think. Liegel and Hein are on the doorstep.

I'd take that bet.  No chance we have 4 AA this year.  I would say Graff may be the only one.  I was expecting big things from Medbury, but he doesn't look very good right now.  He is probably the 7th best Hwt in the Big 10.  Jordan will be a multi AA, but I don't see it this year.  Taylor has a lot of work to do before he is in the discussion.  Perhaps next year, but not this year.  It sucks that we couldn't have more AA candidates with the Big 10 tourney in town this year.
'

There are 80, yes, 80 All-Americans in NCAA wrestling. Wisconsin should have at least 3, which it will this year.

[dad 2 5]

To who they are not considered at the big ten seating meeting which is there qualifier. So how do they matter

They matter. Rankings come in to play for seedings. Seedings matter. It is obviously not the be all end all. But generally speaking, the better the seed, the bigger the advantage. Are there exceptions? For sure. What team usually wins the national tournament, the team with higher seeded wrestlers or the team that has the philosophy that "seeds don't matter"?

I think they matter too. Look at the bracket position of JT and others at Midlands. You can end up with two of the big guns right off the jump and not end up where one would hope. can go the other way too where you can get deeper in the tournament due to the seeding/bracket and in the wrestle back bracket. Every win and lose counts and I hope the Badgers continue to improve and positions themselves well for the Big 10 and NCAA.

[npope]

To who they are not considered at the big ten seating meeting which is there qualifier. So how do they matter

They matter. Rankings come in to play for seedings. Seedings matter. It is obviously not the be all end all. But generally speaking, the better the seed, the bigger the advantage. Are there exceptions? For sure. What team usually wins the national tournament, the team with higher seeded wrestlers or the team that has the philosophy that "seeds don't matter"?

I think they matter too. Look at the bracket position of JT and others at Midlands. You can end up with two of the big guns right off the jump and not end up where one would hope. can go the other way too where you can get deeper in the tournament due to the seeding/bracket and in the wrestle back bracket. Every win and lose counts and I hope the Badgers continue to improve and positions themselves well for the Big 10 and NCAA.

I don't think anyone is debating the point that seeding in a tournament matters but rather, the issue is whether rankings should be factored into seeding.

[Barou]

To who they are not considered at the big ten seating meeting which is there qualifier. So how do they matter

They matter. Rankings come in to play for seedings. Seedings matter. It is obviously not the be all end all. But generally speaking, the better the seed, the bigger the advantage. Are there exceptions? For sure. What team usually wins the national tournament, the team with higher seeded wrestlers or the team that has the philosophy that "seeds don't matter"?

I think they matter too. Look at the bracket position of JT and others at Midlands. You can end up with two of the big guns right off the jump and not end up where one would hope. can go the other way too where you can get deeper in the tournament due to the seeding/bracket and in the wrestle back bracket. Every win and lose counts and I hope the Badgers continue to improve and positions themselves well for the Big 10 and NCAA.

I don't think anyone is debating the point that seeding in a tournament matters but rather, the issue is whether rankings should be factored into seeding.

I'm sure they aren't used and not suggesting that they should.  Rankings provide us with a snapshot of what the seedings will be.  It is fair to assume that generally a wrestler at the national tournament wii be seeded at or close to where they are ranked.  Stating the obvious but want to be clear.  Since rankings are assembled based on a number of criteria including record, head to head match ups, etc., they are essentially forecasting and adjusting the seeding predictions for the national tourney. Therefore, when I say rankings matter i am referring to seeding which IMO go hand and hand.

[npope]

I'm sure they aren't used and not suggesting that they should.  Rankings provide us with a snapshot of what the seedings will be.  It is fair to assume that generally a wrestler at the national tournament wii be seeded at or close to where they are ranked.  Stating the obvious but want to be clear.  Since rankings are assembled based on a number of criteria including record, head to head match ups, etc., they are essentially forecasting and adjusting the seeding predictions for the national tourney. Therefore, when I say rankings matter i am referring to seeding which IMO go hand and hand.

I don't know if anybody here would argue that there is probably a high correlation between rankings and seedings; they are both predicated largely on the same criteria. If that's what this debate is about then I think the discussion is finished - everybody would agree. That said, the rankings coming from different organizations can vary significantly. So, there is no single source/ranking that can be said to be a universal barometer for seeding purposes.