|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Brian Nicola added to this discussion on February 26, 2010
|
Wait! The wizard passed them out? This is like the fifth time I've missed out.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on February 26, 2010
|
It takes courage to say that, Brian. Real courage.
Take heart, you may have gotten something after all. You just have to use your brain.
...and the thoughts that I'd be thinkin'. I could be another Lincoln. If I only had a brain...
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on February 26, 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." ------- hi Ethan, this is from BobP let me respond, this has always been a "MAC deserves more forum", so i just decided to state that the numbers from a year ago, and previous years too, don't support that.
"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." ------- from BobP: Ethan, yes i am well aware of the new system, but i think figures from one year ago are "relevant" indicators of conference strength, after all they show who deserved more and who deserved less and who got about what they deserved a year ago under new system.
from BobP: Fact is ive tracked this for years and Big Ten & Big 12 always do better than any other conference even relative to their # of Quals. Going back years, they always deserve more than they get compared to MAC, ACC, EWL.
"In my opnion this is the worst Big Ten I've seen in a long time. Look at teams like Michigan, Northwestern, and Illinois." ------ from BobP, perhaps thats a good point u make Ethan. Perhaps the post-NCAA tourn figures will support that, i wil be tracking them.
|
Last edited by Bob Preusse on February 26, 2010; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on February 26, 2010
|
"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."
-------------------------------
KevinS,
yes, the bottom 20 in the AWN Prep 40 is always tougher and more inaccurate than the top 20. i think we do a great job the higher up the rankings you look, but admitedly the lower part of the Prep 40 is much more open to question.
so that supports your comments re NCAA quals, "harder to rank top 33 than top 20". It sure is.
but just like in Seeding, getting # 1 right is by far the most important designation. If 20 thru 33 are not quite right, thats understandable, its not an exact science ------AND as Greg Urbas says "Just Wrestle". I NEVER hear from either Urbas or Jeff Jordan about Ironman seeding. s/BobP
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Roe Fox added to this discussion on February 26, 2010
|
Everyone knows that the wizard did not hand out real brains. . .or hearts. . .or courage. The lesson from the anecdote is that everyone already has what the wizard was duping people into buying if they only believed in themselves.
Michael knew that. If you received your brain from the wizard I would take it back.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
John Ice added to this discussion on February 26, 2010
|
Nemec wins the wrestle off 13-6.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Conference Allocations
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on February 26, 2010
|
Nemec has a lot of ability but has not had the chance this season to get on a roll. 157 is a pedestrian weight class this season and presents a lot of wrestlers with the chance to be a surprise AA. If Nemec can put together some quality matches at Big Tens, he'll have as good a shot as anyone at nationals of sneaking in for a low place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
