Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Violet
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Maroon
  • Orange
  • Gold
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Welcome to the upgraded message boards!  Please note: if you have been using a username to sign in that is different than the handle (display name) displayed on the boards, you must now sign in with either your handle (display name) or the email address associated with your account.  If you don't know what this means, then it probably doesn't affect you!

Sign in to follow this  
ArtusCimber

TN Coach's Poll for 7 January

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, ObserverW said:

Your statement makes no sense to me.  And you will never understand because your team is ranked (and deservedly so) but if your team was one of those who is slighted then you might take your head out of the hole its in and try to look around and see why.  I don't have a problem with the rankings themselves, I think rankings are good.  But the way they are done now is equivalent to someone doing an NFL ranking and year after year and always adding Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Carolina, and Dallas because those are the teams that "should" be winning--they have the most fans.  Where as, maybe one should do some research and list Kansas City and LA.  They don't have the coolest uniforms and the most fans and neither team will earn a legacy ranking but they deserve the recognition.  

All it takes is a little bit of effort.  Track makes it very very easy now.  Don't want to put forth the effort, then bow out of being in the poll group and add someone that cares enough to do some research.

I understand exactly what are saying I really do, but nobody is gonna be happy with rankings no matter the sport. You will be arguing this next year,  2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc. UCF didn’t lose a game for almost 3 years and people laughted at them. It’s part of it

Edited by fooseball95
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, fooseball95 said:

I understand exactly what are saying I really do, but nobody is gonna be happy with rankings no matter the sport. You will be arguing this next year,  2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc. UCF didn’t lose a game for almost 3 years and people laughted at them. It’s part of it

foose, I would really like to see what OW's top 10 looks like because besides the first 3-4 its a jumbled mess after that! This is probably his.

 

Christian Brothers

Arlington

Father Ryan

Wilson Central

Centennial

Summit

Blackman

Baylor

Cleveland

Rossview

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, fooseball95 said:

I understand exactly what are saying I really do, but nobody is gonna be happy with rankings no matter the sport. You will be arguing this next year,  2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc. UCF didn’t lose a game for almost 3 years and people laughted at them. It’s part of it

I think the main part is that the coaches aren't putting any actually statistical or analytical thought into it. Regardless of line ups, etc. It should be clear that after the first couple in the list it no longer makes sense. As teams are ahead of teams that have been beaten head on. Multiple cases of it. Clearly not everyone is going to be happy, nor does it matter that much since it doesn't affect who the actual better team is. But why make a poll with flawed logic and placement decisions. It's different comparing college football considering how many teams, leagues, and schedules there are. Most of the "better" teams have already gone against eachother or have given evidence to what SHOULD happen if they meet. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, cobrakid8 said:

foose, I would really like to see what OW's top 10 looks like because besides the first 3-4 its a jumbled mess after that! This is probably his.

 

Christian Brothers

Arlington

Father Ryan

Wilson Central

Centennial

Summit

Blackman

Baylor

Cleveland

Rossview

Watch out! Even a fake list without Brentwood on here while Centennial, Blackman, and Rossview on here might cause an uproar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MichauleyCulkin said:

I think the main part is that the coaches aren't putting any actually statistical or analytical thought into it. Regardless of line ups, etc. It should be clear that after the first couple in the list it no longer makes sense. As teams are ahead of teams that have been beaten head on. Multiple cases of it. Clearly not everyone is going to be happy, nor does it matter that much since it doesn't affect who the actual better team is. But why make a poll with flawed logic and placement decisions. It's different comparing college football considering how many teams, leagues, and schedules there are. Most of the "better" teams have already gone against eachother or have given evidence to what SHOULD happen if they meet. 

Thats the problem MC, there is a top tier, a mid tier and the rest are mediocre at BEST!

I mean brentwood hasnt beaten anyone of significance and lost to Summit, but Summit got killed by McCallie AND Bradley also lost to oakland and blackman and also Centennial

Centennial beat Summit and Oakland, but lost to Blackman and Oakland later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cobrakid8 said:

Thats the problem MC, there is a top tier, a mid tier and the rest are mediocre at BEST!

I mean brentwood hasnt beaten anyone of significance and lost to Summit, but Summit got killed by McCallie AND Bradley also lost to oakland and blackman and also Centennial

Centennial beat Summit and Oakland, but lost to Blackman and Oakland later on.

Yes but a tier list has to be relative to schedule and then head to head has to be applied or evidence from relative matches. It's like there's a pool of teams where they just randomly throw them around in different spots as opposed to using a statistical approach. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, MichauleyCulkin said:

Yes but a tier list has to be relative to schedule and then head to head has to be applied or evidence from relative matches. It's like there's a pool of teams where they just randomly throw them around in different spots as opposed to using a statistical approach. 

problem though is the one tier is way higher, after that is  random throw in. I will start a new one and put my top 10 and you all can chew those all up. but i will put my reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cobrakid8 said:

problem though is the one tier is way higher, after that is  random throw in. I will start a new one and put my top 10 and you all can chew those all up. but i will put my reasons

Yea believe me I get that. But math is some powerful stuff and I feel like I'm obligated now to show everyone how to add and divide properly. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobrakid8 said:

foose, I would really like to see what OW's top 10 looks like because besides the first 3-4 its a jumbled mess after that! This is probably his.

 

Christian Brothers

Arlington

Father Ryan

Wilson Central

Centennial

Summit

Blackman

Baylor

Cleveland

Rossview

Right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MichauleyCulkin said:

Yea believe me I get that. But math is some powerful stuff and I feel like I'm obligated now to show everyone how to add and divide properly. 

Math doesnt work very well in Wrestling, especially in duals. You state that McCallie is ranked top 5 while Centennial beat Summit worse. However McCallie also BLASTED Arlington AND Wilson Central prob 2 of the top 3-4 public schools in the state. While Centennial lost to Blackman and Oakland the second time they faced them.  Arlington beat Centennial 60-15 while McCallie beat Arlington 46-10.  Again your math doesnt work here, it just doesnt always make sense, like Centennial badly beats Oakland 53-23 but turns around and loses 38-34 the next time around. what happened to that 30 point margin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, cobrakid8 said:

Math doesnt work very well in Wrestling, especially in duals. You state that McCallie is ranked top 5 while Centennial beat Summit worse. However McCallie also BLASTED Arlington AND Wilson Central prob 2 of the top 3-4 public schools in the state. While Centennial lost to Blackman and Oakland the second time they faced them.  Arlington beat Centennial 60-15 while McCallie beat Arlington 46-10.  Again your math doesnt work here, it just doesnt always make sense, like Centennial badly beats Oakland 53-23 but turns around and loses 38-34 the next time around. what happened to that 30 point margin?

Statistics always work. It just has to be more consistent. For example, I looked at one match you mentioned, Centennial vs Oakland. 4 varsity wrestlers didn't wrestle Oakland the second time around. A team like that that has 20 kids on there team, it will be a 12 point swing automatically or force you to change weights around at an attempt to win. So it's conditional on the match. That's where you have to investigate and put more time into it if people wanted to poll teams on the "actual" team and the team that wrestled. Especially around this time where kids are always getting the flu and cutting weight for decent plan. Different variable will always occur and have to be taken to account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MichauleyCulkin said:

Statistics always work. It just has to be more consistent. For example, I looked at one match you mentioned, Centennial vs Oakland. 4 varsity wrestlers didn't wrestle Oakland the second time around. A team like that that has 20 kids on there team, it will be a 12 point swing automatically or force you to change weights around at an attempt to win. So it's conditional on the match. That's where you have to investigate and put more time into it if people wanted to poll teams on the "actual" team and the team that wrestled. Especially around this time where kids are always getting the flu and cutting weight for decent plan. Different variable will always occur and have to be taken to account. 

yeah, but most nobody knows all the variables. you don't know what someone weight decent plan is, usually thats between coach/wrestler/state and you arent privy to that as another coach nor a fan. Also you are a little bit wrong on the Centennial vs Oakland matchup. Yes Centennial was missing a kid or so, but  that doesnt change as much of the swing that happened.

 

Here is a short breakdown:  joe bell lost first one but won second one that is a 6 point swing, king oakland got stuck by humphries centennial first time but won by pin over sandford who wrestled up a weight class the first matchup and got stuck there.
182 though was won by suddeathcentennial 7-6 first time but lost second time 5-3 another 6 point swing
first time 285 was wrestled by oaklands 220 pounder was won by pin but now just a decision so a loss by Oakland of 3 points, 113 centennial kid won by pin first matchup but lost by pin this time to same kid, so a 12 point swing.  

I show Centennial without 3 kids from original: Harvey with a tech, his backup won by major, Humphries with a pin at 152 and Sandford who originally wrestled 160 moved down and got stuck and frye who got stuck first time while the one who replaced him only got reg decisioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...