Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 19 to 27 of 43

Thread: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

  1. #19

    Default Re: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

    Quote Originally Posted by r.payton@att.net View Post
    TW,
    He beat Dardanes like a drum -who would you have at #4 ?
    Russ--A basic question is how they determine the seeds. My understanding is that the #1 factor is record in B1G and secondarily their overall season match results/ranking. I don't know either Thomas's or Dardanes's B1G records thus far, but the best Thomas could be is 6-2 as he lost 2 duals this past weekend. I know he MD'ed Dardanes, but I understand Dardanes was sick at the time, so don't put a lot of stock in that one. Conaway will be 6-2 after this week's match against Stieber (his 2 losses being Stieber and Ramos). He has beaten both Graff and Thomas. So, in answer to your question, I would put either Dardanes or Conaway (or perhaps both) ahead of Thomas.

  2. #20

    Default Re: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

    I think all of you people arguing for ramos to get the #1 seed are off your rocker. Stieber is undefeated, 3-0 head to head, returning national champ and big ten champ. Ramos has had a good season himself, but Stieber has more then earned the #1 seed.
    Gold is an idiot.

  3. #21

    Default Re: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

    B1G seeding is done by the conference coaches and is supposed to be primarily based upon the conference record. This is because the coaches are considered to be the best equipped to rank the wrestlers, not outside ranking services nor past results which may be no longer relevant. Politics and horse trading unfortunately play a role in the seeding, but the coaches have traditionally frowned on missing the B1G duals.

    If you argue that LS is #1 based upon past accomplishments, then don't you have to make the same argument for Ness? Does it then matter then if you wrestle any B1G duals at all if one can rely on past accomplishments? The goal is avoid forfeits (Bradley ducking Gelogaev for example, tho not in B1G conference). The coaches are always going to say that their guy was injured/ill when they miss a big match up, so by stressing conference records the coaches are trying to reduce seeding gamemanship.
    "He beat nobodies..Thorn at 133 won't be great, R12 or worse imo...
    I just don't see it...David Thorn is not elite. I don't think he'll place"

  4. #22

    Default Re: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

    I agree with Jammen. Ramos, Stieber, Graff if Graff beats Dardanes.

    Quote Originally Posted by jammen View Post
    It's clear cut:

    1) Ramos 6-0
    2) Stieber 3-0

    You don't get seeded for sitting on the bench.

  5. #23

    Default Re: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

    I saw that 133 Dardenes was out against Michigan State on Sunday. Ness's match against Michigan State's 49 pounder was awesome! Anyone see it?

  6. #24

    Default Re: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

    If Stieber had wrestled all the matches and just didn't show for Iowa then you could make a case that he "ducked" him. But Stieber has been out close to a month and is clearly injured. In light of no losses this year and his 3-0 last year against Ramos, I just can't see giving Ramos the #1 seed. I agree with others that it's a moot point, because they will see each other in the finals. But, the #2 seed will have a tougher time having to face Graff.

  7. #25

    Default Re: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

    Quote Originally Posted by thaxton View Post
    does it really matter at 133? Stieber and Ramos meeting in the finals is about as sure of a thing as you can get. Stieber should get it though, being the returning undefeated B1G Champ
    I honestly don't think Ramos beating Graff is a sure thing, especially if it's not right after weighins.

  8. #26

    Default Re: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

    Well I think the point jammen is trying to make is if you miss duals in conference you will pay the price. I am not saying this is the case at 133 with Streebler this year but we don't have to look to far back to find examples. I recall tOSU vs Northwestern where a certain person didn't wrestle against Herbert to protect the seed. It is too bad but we all know that this type of thing happens from time to time in our sport. I don't think it really matters at 133 this year as Ramos and Steebler will meet in finals anyway. I do feel that if Ramos and Streebler go unbeaten into the Big 10's Ramos should be the 1 seed. Look at BJ Futrell's situation right now. If he makes it back for Big 10's should he be the 2 seed?

  9. #27

    Default Re: Seeding in the Big 10 at 133 and 174

    Quote Originally Posted by TomWright25 View Post
    If Stieber had wrestled all the matches and just didn't show for Iowa then you could make a case that he "ducked" him.
    I'm not making the case that LS ducked Ramos. I'm saying that if you miss B1G duals for any reason then it is supposed to be considered a detriment in seeding. Unfortunately, conference records no longer matter as much they used to which leads to more forfeits.
    "He beat nobodies..Thorn at 133 won't be great, R12 or worse imo...
    I just don't see it...David Thorn is not elite. I don't think he'll place"

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •