|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Shawn Andrews added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
Here they are, kind of hard to read... link provided to the site.
http://www.themat.com/section.php?section_id=3&page=showarticle&ArticleID=21556
Any thoughts? I thougt the MAC might get a few more but I am pretty biased
Conference 125 133 141 149 157 165 174 184 197 285 Total
Atlantic Coast Conference 3 1 3 2 4 2 1 2 3 3 24
Big 12 Conference 3 2 4 2 3 4 5 4 5 5 37
Big Ten Conference 6 5 5 8 4 5 6 5 7 5 56
Colonial Athletic Association 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 18
East Regional 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling 4 5 3 4 4 6 4 4 4 3 41
Eastern Wrestling League 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 19
Mid-American Conference 1 4 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 22
Pacific-10 Conference 4 5 5 3 3 1 3 2 2 5 33
Southern Conference 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
West Regional 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 14
TOTAL QUALIFIERS 29 28 28 30 27 28 28 27 29 30 284
hawkram
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Tim Courtad added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
they still have to allocate the remaining 46 qualifiers to fill the 33 man brackets.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
TOTAL QUALIFIERS 29 28 28 30 27 28 28 27 29 30 =284
will be 330, so NCAA still has 46 to allocate after conference/regional tourn.
here are figures from LAST year:
Big Ten 71 Quals, 28 AAs, the best ratio, better than 1 AA for each 3 Quals.
Big Twelve 42 Quals, 14 AAs, next best ratio behind Big Ten, exactly 1AA for each 3 Quals.
ACC and MAC ratio and EWL about equal at about 1 AA for each 5 Quals-- but well behind Big 10 and Big 12, so no crying MAC or ACC or EWL fans.
EWL 25 Quals, 5 AAs
ACC 32 Quals, 6 AAs
MAC 21 Quals, 4 AAs
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Jack Muni added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
Surprised a little that 157 (Big 10) only taking 4 guys & 197 gets 7. With Schlatter, Sanderson & Kinser probably getting out, that seems to leave only one more spot??
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Derek Gainey added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
|
Quote from Jack Muni's post:
|
|
"Surprised a little that 157 (Big 10) only taking 4 guys & 197 gets 7. With Schlatter, Sanderson & Kinser probably getting out, that seems to leave only one more spot??"
|
Who will be the 4th ........Salzar,Jameson/Nemec
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Michael Rodriguez added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
It'll be Jameson, of course. Any other suggestion would be ridiculous. Even if he's not the starter and doesn't even wrestle at Big Tens, the NCAA should give him an at large bid to wrestle in the National Tourny. And then he'll win it, because he's the greatest wrestler ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
John Taylor added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
Now thats funny!! I don't care who you are!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
John Ice added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
In the wrestle off, Jameson will have to win twice, Nemec once.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Kevin Schlosser added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
Remember that these are only tournament allocations not NCAA qualifiers. There are a limited number wildcard or at large entries. Last year the Big Ten had ten additional bids after the conference tournament. I wouldn't be surprised to see ten again this year.
I was also hoping the MAC would get a few more bids but from my perspective they lost around ten potential bids based on their regular season performance, records, rankings.
125 - No one other than Steintrager earned a bid
133 - They earned four, thought they might have grabbed another here but 133 at EMU was a revolving door of decent/quality wrestlers.
141- Lindsey earns lone bid, Bebee made the move up too late
149- D'Alie, Green, & Cathell earned bids, Seth Morton (OU) just missed
157- Probably the most disapointing weight for the MAC as Brown (CMU) was the only one to earn a bid while Mallie Shuster (KSU), Bryan Deutsch (NIL), and Clay Tucker (OU) missed spots
165- Grayson & JM Cannon earned bids, Tice just missed making it 3
174- Bennett and Ison earned bids, witt barely missed a spot
184- Kilgore, Purdue, & Miller no surprise; if Miller no wrestling someone could step up and steal a bid
197- MAC missed a qualifier here, Schuth, Hamel, & Simaz earned bids, looks like Cogar barely missed making it four
285 - This was another weight where the MAC could have had a couple more if Hartshorn (OU) or Wade (EMU)
As far as MAC wildcards go those in the best position at this time appear to be Clair (EMU-133), Bebee (CMU-141), Morton (OU-149), Deutsch (NIU-157)/Shuster (KSU-157) Witt (KSU-174), Cogar (KSU-197), and/or Hartshorn (OU-285). All were ranked in the Coaches or RPI and fell below the thresholds for earning a bid.
Last year the MAC got 2 wild cards but I think they are in a better position to get a few more. A lot depends on who wins or loses at the MAC tournament and what happens at the other qualifiers.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
"Last year the Big Ten had ten additional bids after the conference tournament. I wouldn't be surprised to see ten again this year."
-----------------------------
gonna need 15 to match last years 71 Quals, and 72 was the Big Ten standard prior to new system last year-- so 10 more would be a disappointment for the Big Ten, that would only add up to 66.
based on their production at last years NCAA tourn, i.e. Big Tens # of AAs per # of Quals, the Big Ten deserves alot more Quals as does the Big 12 conference.
Yes, i know the new system doesnt work this way-- its all based on current year RPI and whatever, but the # of AAs last year compared to the # of Quals a conference got is a strong indicator of where the power lies and who deserves more Quals-- and who deserves less.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Josh Lowe added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
The 157/197 would be because if you look at the national rankings - I'm using InterMat's top 20 for sake of discussion, 197 is MUCH DEEPER in the Big Ten.
197 has six ranked individuals, 157 has a whopping three.
The MAC has only 14 top 20 ranked individuals right now per InterMat.
I didn't look at the coaches' poll or RPI.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
|
Quote from Michael Rodriguez's post:
|
|
"It'll be Jameson, of course. Any other suggestion would be ridiculous. Even if he's not the starter and doesn't even wrestle at Big Tens, the NCAA should give him an at large bid to wrestle in the National Tourny. And then he'll win it, because he's the greatest wrestler ever."
|
Ditto!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Ethan Moore added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
Bob - I don't think this was meant to evolve into a MAC vs Big Ten conversation. The MAC used to get 19, now they have 22. Seems about right.
The current system was put into place so that conferences were rewarded for the current year's results, as you know. So quoting legacy results isn't truly relevant.
In my opnion this is the worst Big Ten I've seen in a long time. Look at teams like Michigan, Northwestern, and Illinois. These have been top ten teams the past five years, and this year all three have really struggled. The Big Ten is still the best conference, just not as good as it has been the past 10 years.
Now, they still may have 50% AAs. Iowa, OSU, and MN could acct for 20 between the three of them. But the depth just isn't there this season.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Kevin Schlosser added to this discussion on February 25, 2010
|
I agree with Bob that the Big Ten would be disapointed if they only got ten at large invitations. The numbers don't lie and historically the Big Ten has been one of if not the best. Some weights last year got two, some got none. That is life under the new system and a reminder not to count on anything being automatic. I don't think it would be a stretch to add a plus one to every weight but I wouldn't count on it if I was the one wrestling or coaching.
Everyone can agree that nothing is guaranteed under the current system unless you are standing where you need to be on the podium at your conference tournament I am hesitant to say the Big Ten should get more because national qualifiers are no longer dependent on just your conference tournament, beyond the allocated spots available spots. 13 would probably be a safe estimate and while it is still a drop, I'll blame Illinois, Michigan and Northwestern. The rest of the conference is somewhat on par for where they have been in recent times.
Taking away two bids from each of the bottom three and you have found the lost Big Ten spots. I was somewhat surprised that Michigan qualified four, 133, 174, 184, 197 this season, didn't think Stevens or Mayes would. As an example last year they qualified 6 spots and sent 7, Watts earned a WC, Zeerip stole a spot. Ohio State qualified 9 spots last year, sent 9, earned 6 bids and received 3 WC. This year they did not qualify a spot at 133, 157 and 197.
All-Americans ratios are a great indication of the strength at the top of a conference in an given year. They are a great way to compare the power conferences. In looking at the depth of a conference I think you also have to consider the overall win-loss record of the qualifiers at nationals, their win-loss records against All-Americans, how many advanced each round, how many went 0-2, injuries, among other things.
Where InterMat has someone ranked doesn't really apply if the qualifying system is based on the coaches vote, RPI, and winning percentage. InterMat only ranks to 20 and the standard was 28 and the Coaches/RPI list 33. I am assuming the majority of the final bids were awarded based on where the guys ranked 21-33 were at vs where the guys that were 1-20. (Guys like Cathell and Miller were not the norm) Off memory I think the MAC has 31 guys in the top 33 of the coaches or RPI so to say InterMat only has 14 excludes the 17 guys in the Coaches/RPI
I think InterMat does a very good job with their rankings but I don't think they carry as much weight in this discussion as others do that have a deeper set of rankings or that they would have when discussing seeds at the NCAA/MAC/Big Ten Tournaments.
I know a lot of coaches use the NWCA database to search weights they are ranking for their conference to see who is doing well, results, head-to-heads, etc. Picking a top 20 is tough, picking a top 33 is tougher is what I have been consistently told. A few coaches have stated that they do look at where different media outlets have guys ranked beyond the top 20 when trying to get as much information as possible to consider before submitting their ballot. They don't want to leave someone out so seeing someone you didn't consider or may not have seen wrestle at #25 may give cause to look at them closer.
Bob - AWN ranks teams in the top 40, outside of #1 this year is it easier to rank the top twenty or the bottom twenty? I think you have just as tough a job deciding who to include, who to leave out, and where to put the last ten as the coaches do when determining the last 25-35 guys at a weight.
|
Last edited by Kevin Schlosser on February 26, 2010; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Derek Gainey added to this discussion on February 26, 2010
|
|
Quote from Michael Rodriguez's post:
|
|
"It'll be Jameson, of course. Any other suggestion would be ridiculous. Even if he's not the starter and doesn't even wrestle at Big Tens, the NCAA should give him an at large bid to wrestle in the National Tourny. And then he'll win it, because he's the greatest wrestler ever."
|
Now i see you are starting your B,S. again.....i didnt say anything about Jameson being in the NCAA tourney. I see you didnt get a brain when the wizard passed them out last week. You are such a special person...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
