All things Rankings, NCAA RPI and Coaches Rankings

[jdalu75]

The math is over my head but 141 is a little odd. Why would McG be rated so highly at 141? If anything, Bailey should be rated higher after beating McG and then Kai Miller at the F&M open.

I don't pretend to understand WrestleStat's methods but I'm pretty sure they don't factor dung of any kind into account. I'm certain, however, that they don't begin all over at the start of a new season.

So .... McGonagle is a 2x NCAA qualifier at 141 who was ranked 15th at 133 by WrestleStat before his season-ending injury last year (when he earned a pre-allocated spot for the EIWA); and ranked 5th by the NCAA Coaches' Panel, Amateur Wrestling News, Flowrestling, and Intermat. He came into this season ranked 10th at 133 by WrestleStat and 6th by Flo, Intermat, and The Open Mat. This is a good wrestler.

Since then he's beaten Colaiocco, now ranked 12th at 133, lost to teammate Crookham (#4 at 133) in sudden victory; at 141 he's majored #137 Jaffe, majored #86 (Div 2) Cottone, beaten #77 Kresho, lost to teammate Bailey (#26) in sudden victory. I don't know how much stock they put in results against teammates, but those are his only losses and they were both in OT. So he's 4-2 in wrestled bouts, 4-0 against non-teammates, 3-0 in Div I bouts. That's not a lot to go on, but there's nothing to indicate that he deserves to be dropped much in the rankings.

Personally, I think wrestlers ought to slide in the rankings, or just be removed entirely, during lengthy periods of inactivity. But it doesn't appear that many of the ranking services agree.

Bailey wasn't ranked by anybody last year and was seeded 10th at EIWAs. All his bouts this year are at 141. He has 8 losses, all to wrestlers ranked between #3 and #37. Other than his win over McGonagle, his best win is a sudden victory pin over #32 Miller; after that his best win is over #62 Logan Brown, by one point. I don't think he's got enough good wins to move up a lot; frankly, I'm surprised by the #26 ranking. It's not a matter of looking just at his two best wins, but looking at all those other bouts as well.

[Oracle]

The problem is virtually everyone on this forum refers to Wrestle Stat as if it's reliable. It ain't. It's some guy's mathematical opinion. The polls we have relied on for decades weren't broken. Of course, the NCAA steps in and mandates an RPI system to justify their bid system.... not at all a bad idea....but wrestle stat, IMO, is not the answer for the reasons that have been discussed in this thread. Bailey and McG alone disprove it's validity and ultimate value. Guys come out of red shirt, guys take a year off, guys wrestle just second semester, guys get hurt and miss time ... and so on. Elephant dung may be too mild.

Cue General Obvious to have me prove my opinion. Sorry pal, opinions don't require proof.

It was a much more interesting sport when D2 and D3 could enter guys. That was a crying shame when that stopped.
Rankings and polls will always be subjective --- so what?

[whiz wit]

I pretty much only use wrestlestat for their comparisons, esp. dual meet comparisons. Is there another site where such comparisons can be made (choosing whichever wrestlers for a team's line-up that one likes) so easily and more accurately? How about less easily and more accurately?

[Mountain Hawk]

I pretty much only use wrestlestat for their comparisons, esp. dual meet comparisons. Is there another site where such comparisons can be made (choosing whichever wrestlers for a team's line-up that one likes) so easily and more accurately? How about less easily and more accurately?

How about less easily and less accurately. Grab a big tablet and a pencil with an eraser and start writing in names and assigning scores and playing with the combos. yeah I don't have all afternoon either....I'll take wrestlestat.

Invariably the 20 guys you decide will go will have at least 4 subs you didn't count on anyway!

[martinsilvestri]

Other than his win over McGonagle, his best win is a sudden victory pin over #32 Miller; after that his best win is over #62 Logan Brown, by one point. I don't think he's got enough good wins to move up a lot; frankly, I'm surprised by the #26 ranking. It's not a matter of looking just at his two best wins, but looking at all those other bouts as well.

I mean that does help explain it if Kal Miller is #32 according to wrestlestat, but also provides more evidence that their system is wonky. Intermat and Flo both have Kal Miller at #17 (was #11 when Bailey beat him)

[jdalu75]

The problem is virtually everyone on this forum refers to Wrestle Stat as if it's reliable. It ain't. It's some guy's mathematical opinion. The polls we have relied on for decades weren't broken. Of course, the NCAA steps in and mandates an RPI system to justify their bid system.... not at all a bad idea....but wrestle stat, IMO, is not the answer for the reasons that have been discussed in this thread. Bailey and McG alone disprove it's validity and ultimate value. Guys come out of red shirt, guys take a year off, guys wrestle just second semester, guys get hurt and miss time ... and so on. Elephant dung may be too mild.

You remind me of the people way back when, when baseball started talked about slugging percentage -- What does that prove? What's wrong with batting average, homers, RBIs? What does a slugging percentage of .700 mean, anyway?

Well, it means what it means. It's a statistic that measures something that the others don't. Use it, don't use it, it's up to you, but the stats you're looking at limit your vision.

So we used to have Amateur Wrestling News, which didn't rank down to 20, updated rarely, and refused to shift guys in their rankings quickly .... the old days of let's wait until he wins a few, and then wins a few more. Intermat came along, ranked more often, ranked deeper, and shifted guys too quickly for the wait until he wins a few crowd. But it still came down to opinion. Other outfits started ranking -- some include freshmen in their pre-season rankings, some don't. Some drop guys who miss a month, some don't. It's interesting watching a guy who was injured two months ago climb half a dozen spots in a ranking, simply because he hasn't had to opportunity to lose. But it's all subjective.

So two guys come along and form WrestleStat, and their rankings are based on an admittedly flawed algorithm that leaves human judgment out of it. They bend over backwards and work tirelessly to make sure that their data is accurate (WAYYYY more accurate than the NCAA's official repository on Track OPC -- WS showed Stanich with nine falls, you can be sure of that), accept criticism, use their data for way more than Flo, Track, Intermat, or anybody else does or ever thought to ....... and a cranky old Lehigh fan throws elephant dung at them. Fine; use it, don't use it, it's up to you, but the rankings you're looking at limit your vision.

But please answer me one thing. Since the polls we've always (always being a relative term) relied on aren't broken, explain to me how WIN can steadfastly refuse to rank Beard higher than Cardenas. Beard crushes everybody except for the guys he doesn't beat, is 2-1 lifetime against Cardenas, and won their most recent meeting (the one in the current season) which came the day after he'd beaten a former A/A soundly and Cardenas had the day off. What sort of dung are they using to come up with that result?

[Oracle]

Why does anyone need to look at comparative statistics when they have the W-L records of each wrestler?

It’s not that I abhor statistics, it’s that I’d rather just watch the matches.

[1/2NELSON]

I respect COACHES-POLL,..they know!

Oklahoma State exceeding expectations, but deserving of three-spot,..as they usually get a lot of mileage based on "reputation" alone! Virginia Tech with five returning All-Americans has been disappointing, along with Cornell without their SPARK-PLUG. However he returns,.. and they upset Missouri! Despite that loss, Missouri has been a pretty steady performer, and looking forward to watching them TAKE-DOWN Iowa!

Have to believe Lehigh making the bigger JUMP on the leader-board from a month ago.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/wrestling ... aches-poll

[mookie]

Coaches know the least. Outside of the conference, they're clueless.

[Oracle]

One could make a case for or against the Coaches Poll -- I tend to agree with mookie on this.
Back in early December, I was roundly shouted down when I posted Okla State was a top tier team. Guess what? They were then and are now. They were even without Fix and Surber in the line up. I 'watched' the dual instead of referring to wrestlestat. It was plain to *see* how good they were and how their young guys were going to develop.

In virtually every weight, the top 10-12 guys are pretty sound. After that, anyone can beat anyone on a given day. So ranking guys all the way to 100 or whatever is kind of pointless. At least to me.

You take the final ranking 1 thru 12 just prior to the NCAA tournament and check after the tournament to see how the R12 actually turned out. Always surprises. Guys peak at the right time,,,,,guys are physically built for it,,,,,guys have mentally prepared better than others,,,,,the younger guys use the season to mature and develop -- they are not the same guys as they were in November (not as true for upper classmen)

The fascination with ranking everyone is lost on me but I don't begrudge anyone that is attracted to it.
Enjoy the weekend and Beat Army!