Did EIWA get screwed or am I a homer, or both

[ltwtlooker]

Eiwa drew 5 1st match 1seeds, 1, 2 seed and is a 1. That's 6 of 10. Most of the brackets are split 3 and 1 and 285 all 5 are in top.
When guys talk about the primacy of the B10 and small 5 it is rare they look at the pencil whipping put on the other conferences.
Even a total moron can divide 4 into 2 and 2. When brackets are loaded in this fashion you get a disporportionate effect. It may be a favorable distribution depending on each situation but it sure looks fishy to me. Maybe some others are in the same boat. Their fans should comment. Obviously no conference could get that bad a 1st round draw. It's taken by EIWA
I am of a firm opinion that the brackets have been manipulated in this fashion for years. At the very least the conference winners should all get a seed. Yes even East Coast!! If NCAA doesn't like the conference then restructure them like they do for March Madness in Bball. I believe the brackets should be predrawn fill in the blanks like they are at MAWA's E. Nationals. It would keep the grownups from pencil whipping hard working kids.

[stovepipe]

^^^LtWtLooker, I certainly assume you're not complaining about the EIWA's having 47 guys competing in the 2008 NCAA Tournament. I certainly hope that under the new allocation system that the individual rankings are fair and accurate, and that the Big 10 and Big 5 are NOT capped. -Stove Pipe

[ltwtlooker]

Hey Stovepipe! Nope 6 of 10 of the charts suck. Take a close look at my message. B10 are split 1/2 top 1/2 bottom Eiwa has mostly 3-1 and where we have a 1 seed all our guys are in his 1/2 bracket. At 125 5 Eiwa guys are in top with 1 seed none in bottom. I would say that is worth moaning about. Far as 47 going it's got 14 teams compared to small 5 so although the rules are the rules it's a bit weak. Never said a word about capping. It is self fulfilling that when you split brackets in a disporportunate way you may get a poor outcome since your own guys may be knocking each other off. When there are 4 qualifiers and 2 brackets dividing should be fairly simple. Yes or No

[stovepipe]

^^^I was noting the EIWA got to send 47 (!) wrestlers to the 2008 NCAA Tournament and I assumed you liked your favorite conference's high allocation number. It turns out that 22 of the EIWA wrestlers went out 0-2 at the NCAA's. Bad seeds? I think the BigTen (capped at only 72) should be complaining about being capped, while, say, the EIWA can send 22 guys who go out 0-2. Interesting discussion, -Stove Pipe

[ltwtlooker]

My point is clear to me. The separation was poor for EIWA. Only a person who wishes to turn a blind eye to it could see otherwise. The issue of who gets how many is driven by talent pool AND placement as you are well aware. It is statistically true that is you put 5 guys from the same conference in the same haf bracket you will have them elimniating each other. It is also not a stretch that if you seed 6 wrestlers against 1 and 2 seeds in the 1st match that you will give them less chance to succeed. I can see no reason for any conference with 4 qualifers in a bracket not to have 2 on each side.. This is not rocket science!! Seeding is always difficult and there are many reasons to pick and choose. The outcomes, generally speakingf followed fairly closely to the projections with most of the placers coming from the top ten rated wrestlers. Still many did not make seed and a few unseeded guys snuck in. This highlights the need for a better method of separation imo. You will note that the B10 and Small 5 were separated much better and that usually is the case. I think that at least a small part of their success is this preferential seeding. Most however comes from the better talent pool.