138 AA/A - The Saga Continues

[Bearhugger]

Upon looking at the February 2nd, 2017 rankings, here is what the 138lb landscape is looking like for AA/A:

Region 1 has FIVE ranked wrestlers.

Region 2 has three ranked wrestlers.

Region 3 has two ranked wrestlers.

Region 4 has ZERO ranked wrestlers.

We need a new system for qualifying wrestlers to the state tournament.

[vortexfan]

MAYBE having only TWO regionals would help, can you imagine the crowds this would draw and the top 8 each region go on to the STATES,

North A/AA and North AAA regional
South A/AA and South AAA regional

[greencrush]

Rankings mean nothing. No matter how much you go on about them.

[guard0544]

Rankings mean nothing. No matter how much you go on about them.

That's the same as saying the seeding in a tournament means nothing. That any wrestler is just as likely to win or place high in the tournament whether they are seeded or not. While someone can exceed their seed at times, most often the seeds are a great predictor of which wrestlers are going to place in the tournament. The rankings are based on the same criteria as seeds. So your opinion on rankings meaning nothing is simply wrong. Rankings certainly are a good reflection of the pecking order in a weight class (based on actual matches wrestled). For that reason looking at the number of ranked wrestlers in a weight class for each region is a pretty solid way of comparing the depth in each region.

[Bearhugger]

Rankings mean nothing. No matter how much you go on about them.

We sure do have a lot of wrestlers changing weight classes late in the season and I predict there will be more changes to come.

People look at the rankings. They see who is at the top and say "no way I am winning a title with that dude there". So they cut down or eat up.

[aaacoach89]

Rankings mean nothing. No matter how much you go on about them.

That's the same as saying the seeding in a tournament means nothing. That any wrestler is just as likely to win or place high in the tournament whether they are seeded or not. While someone can exceed their seed at times, most often the seeds are a great predictor of which wrestlers are going to place in the tournament. The rankings are based on the same criteria as seeds. So your opinion on rankings meaning nothing is simply wrong. Rankings certainly are a good reflection of the pecking order in a weight class (based on actual matches wrestled). For that reason looking at the number of ranked wrestlers in a weight class for each region is a pretty solid way of comparing the depth in each region.

Rankings are a bigger predictor than not! If you take the results of the State Tournament and compare them to the last rankings before the tournament, they are pretty close. Of course you have the one who beats the odds, but more often than not.....they are pretty close. Rankings are based on head to head competition, common opponents, finishes at notable tournaments throughout the year..... I fail to see how that isn't a fairly accurate forecast of what the State Tournament will be like.

[coach_williams]

Since when are rankings used to qualify wrestlers to the state tournament?

[keepitinthecircle]

Some people think there opinion is always right and nobody else has a right to their own opinion.

[aaacoach89]

Since when are rankings used to qualify wrestlers to the state tournament?

They aren't. My point was if you take the last set of rankings done before the State Tournament and compare them to where kids actually placed after the tournament, they are usually pretty close to on point. You may have a kid who finished above or below in some cases, but most of the time they are pretty accurate.

[guard0544]

Since when are rankings used to qualify wrestlers to the state tournament?

Since when did someone say they were?

We all know Region 4 is loaded with talent. If someone feels its fine that way, and people should just suck it up and deal with it...they should say that. But they shouldn't pretend to be so naive as to suggest the rankings are not reflective of the top talent in the state.

[greencrush]

Rankings mean nothing. No matter how much you go on about them.

That's the same as saying the seeding in a tournament means nothing. That any wrestler is just as likely to win or place high in the tournament whether they are seeded or not. While someone can exceed their seed at times, most often the seeds are a great predictor of which wrestlers are going to place in the tournament. The rankings are based on the same criteria as seeds. So your opinion on rankings meaning nothing is simply wrong. Rankings certainly are a good reflection of the pecking order in a weight class (based on actual matches wrestled). For that reason looking at the number of ranked wrestlers in a weight class for each region is a pretty solid way of comparing the depth in each region.

Rankings are a bigger predictor than not! If you take the results of the State Tournament and compare them to the last rankings before the tournament, they are pretty close. Of course you have the one who beats the odds, but more often than not.....they are pretty close. Rankings are based on head to head competition, common opponents, finishes at notable tournaments throughout the year..... I fail to see how that isn't a fairly accurate forecast of what the State Tournament will be like.

1. Bearhugger and I already had this one out, and I had to do the math to prove my point. Since 2010, on average, there have been 27 top 6 ranked wrestlers who did not place, per year.
2. They aren't beating the odds, so much as whoever sets the odds is wrong.

[P.H.D.]

Man alive! Why is everyone so pissed about rankings? It's like the story that never ends. Someone made a list, big deal. Everyone ranks everyone in every facet of life. Unfortunately in life you don't always get to prove otherwise. This is wrestling and anyone can win. My son went to a tournament once and beat the #1 ranked kid in his weight and the #1 in the weight class above in an exhibition. He got the #1 seed for the next weeks tourney, guess what...? #6 seed plowed through the entire tourney. Can't call sandbagging because #6 beat #3 then #2 then #1. It was his day and he woulda blew through any route. Quit crying about rankings and drill. Preparation wins matches not boo hooing.

[aaacoach89]

That's the same as saying the seeding in a tournament means nothing. That any wrestler is just as likely to win or place high in the tournament whether they are seeded or not. While someone can exceed their seed at times, most often the seeds are a great predictor of which wrestlers are going to place in the tournament. The rankings are based on the same criteria as seeds. So your opinion on rankings meaning nothing is simply wrong. Rankings certainly are a good reflection of the pecking order in a weight class (based on actual matches wrestled). For that reason looking at the number of ranked wrestlers in a weight class for each region is a pretty solid way of comparing the depth in each region.

Rankings are a bigger predictor than not! If you take the results of the State Tournament and compare them to the last rankings before the tournament, they are pretty close. Of course you have the one who beats the odds, but more often than not.....they are pretty close. Rankings are based on head to head competition, common opponents, finishes at notable tournaments throughout the year..... I fail to see how that isn't a fairly accurate forecast of what the State Tournament will be like.

1. Bearhugger and I already had this one out, and I had to do the math to prove my point. Since 2010, on average, there have been 27 top 6 ranked wrestlers who did not place, per year.
2. They aren't beating the odds, so much as whoever sets the odds is wrong.

Based on the math you provided....27 top 6 ranked kids who did not place per year. There are 14 weight classes, and the top 6 place at states. That is 84 placing wrestlers. If 27 of the top 6 do not place, that means that 32% of the time the rankings are wrong, and 68% of the time they are right. Now I am not a genius, by any stretch, but by what I see nearly 70% of the time they are a pretty solid predictor. I stated that there will always be upsets and cinderella stories. Last year one of our kids was not ranked in the top 6, on the polls, made it to the semi finals and ended up on the podium for our team. I am happy that happened for us, but when it was all said and done.....the State Champ, Runner Up, and 3rd place finisher were all #1,2, and 3 on the last poll, in the exact order. Pretty solid predictor.

[greencrush]

Based on the math you provided....27 top 6 ranked kids who did not place per year. There are 14 weight classes, and the top 6 place at states. That is 84 placing wrestlers. If 27 of the top 6 do not place, that means that 32% of the time the rankings are wrong, and 68% of the time they are right. Pretty solid predictor.

Something that is wrong 32% of the time is not solid. If you were taking a test, and you answered 32% of the questions wrong, you would get a D. Do you consider a D solid?
Maybe you do. Most people set a higher standard for themselves.

[guard0544]

Based on the math you provided....27 top 6 ranked kids who did not place per year. There are 14 weight classes, and the top 6 place at states. That is 84 placing wrestlers. If 27 of the top 6 do not place, that means that 32% of the time the rankings are wrong, and 68% of the time they are right. Pretty solid predictor.

Something that is wrong 32% of the time is not solid. If you were taking a test, and you answered 32% of the questions wrong, you would get a D. Do you consider a D solid?
Maybe you do. Most people set a higher standard for themselves.

When you factor in the pill and who they ended up wrestling and losing too that knocked them out of placing the referenced 32% is less meaningful. Some top 6 wrestlers do not place, but upon closer examination you will see they only lost at the state tournament to wrestlers who were ranked in the top 6. A better measure would be to examine how many of them did not place and lost to someone not ranked in the top 6.

[greencrush]

Based on the math you provided....27 top 6 ranked kids who did not place per year. There are 14 weight classes, and the top 6 place at states. That is 84 placing wrestlers. If 27 of the top 6 do not place, that means that 32% of the time the rankings are wrong, and 68% of the time they are right. Pretty solid predictor.

Something that is wrong 32% of the time is not solid. If you were taking a test, and you answered 32% of the questions wrong, you would get a D. Do you consider a D solid?
Maybe you do. Most people set a higher standard for themselves.

When you factor in the pill and who they ended up wrestling and losing too that knocked them out of placing the referenced 32% is less meaningful. Some top 6 wrestlers do not place, but upon closer examination you will see they only lost at the state tournament to wrestlers who were ranked in the top 6. A better measure would be to examine how many of them did not place and lost to someone not ranked in the top 6.

Back it up with stats.

[aaacoach89]

Based on the math you provided....27 top 6 ranked kids who did not place per year. There are 14 weight classes, and the top 6 place at states. That is 84 placing wrestlers. If 27 of the top 6 do not place, that means that 32% of the time the rankings are wrong, and 68% of the time they are right. Pretty solid predictor.

Something that is wrong 32% of the time is not solid. If you were taking a test, and you answered 32% of the questions wrong, you would get a D. Do you consider a D solid?
Maybe you do. Most people set a higher standard for themselves.

Okay, the rankings....like anything else are not a test. If I were a betting man, and I was given 72% odds of winning that bet.....I would take the bet. If a wrestler posts a 72% win % over his career.....he is a solid wrestler by any standard. If a coach has a 72% win % over his career he is a great coach. If a basketball player makes 72% of his shots he is better than Michael Jordan. If a baseball player hits .720 he is the best of all time by a long shot. And if I am PREDICTING the outcome of a tournament or match and I am right 72% of the time, I am setting a pretty high standard. Predictions are not like academics. In academics the answers are set, the sum of 2+2 never ever changes, there are no variables. In human interaction and competition there are countless variables and things to consider...if I am able to predict the outcome 72% of the time, I am a freaking genius. Those are facts. You can spin numbers any way you want to, but factually speaking you cannot compare the results of an academic test that is based on answers that are set and do not change to the accurate prediction of athletic competition.....which is all rankings are. An educated estimation of where a kid will perform vs. other kids in the same weight class.

[keepitinthecircle]

Based on the math you provided....27 top 6 ranked kids who did not place per year. There are 14 weight classes, and the top 6 place at states. That is 84 placing wrestlers. If 27 of the top 6 do not place, that means that 32% of the time the rankings are wrong, and 68% of the time they are right. Pretty solid predictor.

Something that is wrong 32% of the time is not solid. If you were taking a test, and you answered 32% of the questions wrong, you would get a D. Do you consider a D solid?
Maybe you do. Most people set a higher standard for themselves.

Okay, the rankings....like anything else are not a test. If I were a betting man, and I was given 72% odds of winning that bet.....I would take the bet. If a wrestler posts a 72% win % over his career.....he is a solid wrestler by any standard. If a coach has a 72% win % over his career he is a great coach. If a basketball player makes 72% of his shots he is better than Michael Jordan. If a baseball player hits .720 he is the best of all time by a long shot. And if I am PREDICTING the outcome of a tournament or match and I am right 72% of the time, I am setting a pretty high standard. Predictions are not like academics. In academics the answers are set, the sum of 2+2 never ever changes, there are no variables. In human interaction and competition there are countless variables and things to consider...if I am able to predict the outcome 72% of the time, I am a freaking genius. Those are facts. You can spin numbers any way you want to, but factually speaking you cannot compare the results of an academic test that is based on answers that are set and do not change to the accurate prediction of athletic competition.....which is all rankings are. An educated estimation of where a kid will perform vs. other kids in the same weight class.

GREAT REPLY!!

[aaacoach89]

Something that is wrong 32% of the time is not solid. If you were taking a test, and you answered 32% of the questions wrong, you would get a D. Do you consider a D solid?
Maybe you do. Most people set a higher standard for themselves.

Okay, the rankings....like anything else are not a test. If I were a betting man, and I was given 72% odds of winning that bet.....I would take the bet. If a wrestler posts a 72% win % over his career.....he is a solid wrestler by any standard. If a coach has a 72% win % over his career he is a great coach. If a basketball player makes 72% of his shots he is better than Michael Jordan. If a baseball player hits .720 he is the best of all time by a long shot. And if I am PREDICTING the outcome of a tournament or match and I am right 72% of the time, I am setting a pretty high standard. Predictions are not like academics. In academics the answers are set, the sum of 2+2 never ever changes, there are no variables. In human interaction and competition there are countless variables and things to consider...if I am able to predict the outcome 72% of the time, I am a freaking genius. Those are facts. You can spin numbers any way you want to, but factually speaking you cannot compare the results of an academic test that is based on answers that are set and do not change to the accurate prediction of athletic competition.....which is all rankings are. An educated estimation of where a kid will perform vs. other kids in the same weight class.

GREAT REPLY!!

Thanks

[greencrush]

100-32=68 not 72. So you can't even perform well, when "the answer is set", as you put it.
I don't give a darn if you think that you are "doing a pretty good job" of predicting who will place. Bravo you, congrats! WELL DONE!
I care when people are repetitively posting in a forum about how one region lacks ranked wrestlers, and we need a new system to stop the kids from said region from watering down the state tournament.
1. Your predictions are wrong, all the time, so quit babbling about changing the way kids qualify to the state tournament, and using rankings are you basis for changing things. Your rankings suck. Nothing should be based off them.
2. Kids read this forum all the time, so maybe, if you could think like an adult and not a child who wants high fives for a great forum post, you would realize that it is inappropriate to prattle on about how crappy region 2 is on a public forum. You need to realize that despite the fact that their coaches don't vote on the polls, or post results on this forum, Hedgesville, Washington, etc. regularly bring tough kids to the state tournament. You may not know their name, but I guarantee they will be standing on the podium in a few weeks.
Bravo, good job! Your rankings are correct 68% of the time! What an achievement. If only you could correctly subtract 32 from 100.

[Gator]

5/4 of most people can't do fractions!

[Bearhugger]

100-32=68 not 72. So you can't even perform well, when "the answer is set", as you put it.
I don't give a darn if you think that you are "doing a pretty good job" of predicting who will place. Bravo you, congrats! WELL DONE!
I care when people are repetitively posting in a forum about how one region lacks ranked wrestlers, and we need a new system to stop the kids from said region from watering down the state tournament.
1. Your predictions are wrong, all the time, so quit babbling about changing the way kids qualify to the state tournament, and using rankings are you basis for changing things. Your rankings suck. Nothing should be based off them.
2. Kids read this forum all the time, so maybe, if you could think like an adult and not a child who wants high fives for a great forum post, you would realize that it is inappropriate to prattle on about how crappy region 2 is on a public forum. You need to realize that despite the fact that their coaches don't vote on the polls, or post results on this forum, Hedgesville, Washington, etc. regularly bring tough kids to the state tournament. You may not know their name, but I guarantee they will be standing on the podium in a few weeks.
Bravo, good job! Your rankings are correct 68% of the time! What an achievement. If only you could correctly subtract 32 from 100.

Rankings are an indicator of who is doing well as the season progresses.

The final state tournament results are the final result for the season.

We will all tally by region who places and who doesn't.