MassWrestling.com
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Online
Guests: 12, Members: 0 ...

most ever online: 859
Members: 10113
Newest: Gil
Support MassWrestling. Click a link!











Forums
MassWrestling.com :: Forums :: Rankings and Predictions

Rankings 
Joey Drabowski
Thu Dec 29 2005, 06:15PM
Registered Member #1125
Joined: Sun Jan 16 2005, 08:53AM
Posts: 193
I know this has been mentioned before, but I think that it might be wise to limit the rankings, especially the honorable mentions to twenty. Top ten and top ten honorable mentions. guest does an excellent job but I think he tries to hard to mention so many people that the quality of the rankings is in jeapordy. I think legitimate questions by this community can be asked in regards to what constitutes an honorable mention because in some cases, the honorable mention's list has become ridiculously long. I know you try and include everyone, but why so many?
Mike Atlas
Thu Dec 29 2005, 06:43PM

Joined: Sun Feb 22 2004, 11:26AM
Posts: 6122
Website
Honestly I think honerable mentions are part of his process of keeping tabs on who's doing what - a pool of possible people who may or may not crack the rankings.

Originally, Andy Starr of Weston did top 6 with no honerable mentions, and it was updated perhaps bi-weekly or less.

I would only suggest to Jason to reduce the number of honerable mentions and ranked wrestlers if he found himself overwhelmed with the amount of time spent coming up with each weekly rankings.

[ Edited Thu Dec 29 2005, 07:44PM ]
nasho21
Thu Dec 29 2005, 06:54PM
Registered Member #615
Joined: Thu Oct 07 2004, 05:49PM
Posts: 81
i agress wit FOS, it should be top 10 and then 10 HM. having 20+ HM makes its no big deal to be listed
BigPapaMick215
Thu Dec 29 2005, 06:58PM
Registered Member #2813
Joined: Sun Dec 18 2005, 08:58PM
Posts: 50
nasho21 wrote ...
i agress wit FOS, it should be top 10 and then 10 HM. having 20+ HM makes its no big deal to be listed


i don't agree, there are so many people wrestling in each respectable weight class that once you're mentioned it's a great feeling to know you're above other people in someone's eyes, which is what this site is about for the most part. so i agree with guest's rankings.
Joey Drabowski
Thu Dec 29 2005, 07:44PM
Registered Member #1125
Joined: Sun Jan 16 2005, 08:53AM
Posts: 193
BUt honestly, if it is a respect thing, such as the story Mike Atlas told us about his goal to get ranked, then being number 26 on the honorable ranking list surely isn't something that someone should be gunning for. I think it gives the rankings a little bit more respect and a little more weight if there was a set number such as ten and ten. I understand that people like to be noticed, but just walking around some of the holiday tourneys the past two days, more than a few people have joked or made fun of the rankings due to the large number.

Look at it this way, if someone from another state came to the website and looked at the rankings and saw fifty bijillion people ranked what are they to think about the quality or the legitimacy of the rankings. Rockthecrade don't have a shit-fit over my spelling if there are any mistakes.
lhs wrestler
Thu Dec 29 2005, 08:13PM
Registered Member #1420
Joined: Tue Feb 08 2005, 11:38AM
Posts: 27
Nobody is gunning to be number 26 in the state at any weight class, it is just a nice assurance to everyone who has gone to clubs, camps, lifting, running, everything they have done to improve their wrestling, is showing. It allows people to gain confidence in their skills, and judge where they are at. It may not be necessary, but it is important to the wrestlers who want to see if their commitment to the sport has paid off, before sectionals and states.
BigPapaMick215
Thu Dec 29 2005, 08:39PM
Registered Member #2813
Joined: Sun Dec 18 2005, 08:58PM
Posts: 50
^ very well said LHS
Mike Atlas
Thu Dec 29 2005, 11:01PM

Joined: Sun Feb 22 2004, 11:26AM
Posts: 6122
Website
Good arguments for both sides. My vote goes for limiting the number of HM's. My sentiment is that the rankings should be more exclusive, but I can understand why being HM is important to others.

Jason - "weigh in" on this one please!


[ Edited Fri Dec 30 2005, 12:01AM ]
guest
Thu Dec 29 2005, 11:43PM
Guest I thought long and hard about this after seeing the mixed opinions about how long the rankings/HM list should be.

My gut response, was well thats how I like to do my rankings and thats how it will be.

But in the name of civility and proper explanations of my rationale, I thought Id give yall some of the reasons I have such lengthy rankings.

Reason #1 Our sport deserves as much coverage as any other and part of my job as a member of the MassWrestling Media Team is to cover who is good relative to whom in each weight class. I figure, the more information I can provide about who is going to make an impact this season , the better. Its something for coaches to use, fans to peruse, and wrestlers to look at to see who is out there in their class. Quantity means more thorough coverage. I mean no one forces anyone to look past the top 10, but for the more curious viewer ESPN , Sports Illustrated, and many other sports media sources provide an endless wealth of statistics, rankings, and analysis for anyone that wants to know more than the basic standings. The Mass Wrestling rankings are organized, easy to interpret and reflect factual accomplishments of wrestlers as the season progresses. I use as much data as I can and thus the long list of HMs reflects how through of an analysis I do of all data. I could be lazy and just do the top 10, but in this case I think more info is better.

Reason #2: If I only ranked the top 10 that would leave alot of quality wrestlers unrecognized and without their due pat on the back. Obviously being a 26th HM isnt as big a pat on the back as being an 11th HM, but it is not meant to be. One can see the order of the HMs and realize that there is no watering down, just a gradation of kudos based on where you stand on the rankings, HM list. Lets face it also, most freshman and sophomores arent going to crack the top 10. By having a comprehensive rankings, HM list, it allows for attainable rewards , but frther motivation to move up the list. The 26th HM will be stoked if they are a frosh, but will realize that they still have along way to go and much room to progress.

I hope this explains my reasoning. I would still like to hear a few more opinions on this matter.

[ Edited Fri Dec 30 2005, 12:45AM ]
Grizzly
Fri Dec 30 2005, 12:28AM
Registered Member #1817
Joined: Wed Mar 02 2005, 06:46PM
Posts: 47
the teams REALLY need to be limited. its almost insulting to be number 5342532 in the state, and being in the upper echelon loses its meaning. it should be limited to twenty at the most
guest
Fri Dec 30 2005, 01:21AM
Guest ok that is 1 vote against a lengthy rankings It is noted that Matt Reeves aka Grizzly seems to vote against whatever I am in favor of, hehe.
dwhalleyslug
Fri Dec 30 2005, 06:12AM
Registered Member #461
Joined: Tue Jul 06 2004, 10:15AM
Posts: 197
I think that as long as Jason is willing to do it, having a list of HM's like he has is usefull. It has been proven (at least to me) that the kids on his HM lists are inded very good wrestlers just one or maybe two big wins from cracking the top 10. It is still pretty early and some kids haven't settled into weight class they will be in after the 2 pound allowance comes and for post season tournaments. It definately helps teams out here to identify who the strong wrestlers are when venturing out east.
FanDad1
Fri Dec 30 2005, 07:15AM
Registered Member #2898
Joined: Tue Dec 27 2005, 06:56PM
Posts: 18
I agree that the rankings should be limited to top ten and then the top ten HM's. There is no value to being mentioned if everyone is on the list.

Jason does a great job in putting these things together and it should make his job just a little easier as well.
nafddur
Fri Dec 30 2005, 08:08AM
Registered Member #581
Joined: Sat Sep 18 2004, 10:24PM
Posts: 694
Personally, I like the longer rankings. I like to think we're all smart enough to realize that the higher a wrestler or a team is on the list - no matter how long or short it is - the more significant it is.

Plus due to the nature of the sport and inherent variabilities, it makes sense to me that the number not be limited (different weights will always have different numbers of wrestlers deserving of recognition).
nasho21
Fri Dec 30 2005, 12:05PM
Registered Member #615
Joined: Thu Oct 07 2004, 05:49PM
Posts: 81
im sticking with the limited 10 and 10 comment, but i think the overall team rankings should stay lengthy
Grizzly
Fri Dec 30 2005, 01:30PM
Registered Member #1817
Joined: Wed Mar 02 2005, 06:46PM
Posts: 47
guest wrote ...
ok that is 1 vote against a lengthy rankings It is noted that Matt Reeves aka Grizzly seems to vote against whatever I am in favor of, hehe.



im not against everything i only comment when i feel you're wrong. seriously, what good is there in being the 79th ranked team? do teams really strive for that?
Henry Jones 130
Fri Dec 30 2005, 09:46PM
Registered Member #2928
Joined: Fri Dec 30 2005, 09:23PM
Posts: 358
yes KP isn't even ranked
Mike Atlas
Fri Dec 30 2005, 10:53PM

Joined: Sun Feb 22 2004, 11:26AM
Posts: 6122
Website
Don't college football teams get ranked like 1-100? My ignorance and lack of knowledge about other sports is showing here. Would teams rather be unranked at all and rather have no recognition?
Henry Jones 130
Fri Dec 30 2005, 11:02PM
Registered Member #2928
Joined: Fri Dec 30 2005, 09:23PM
Posts: 358
rankings are opinion not something to rely on
Mike Atlas
Fri Dec 30 2005, 11:28PM

Joined: Sun Feb 22 2004, 11:26AM
Posts: 6122
Website
kpwrestler2005 wrote ...
rankings are opinion not something to rely on


*educated and largely unbiased opinion based on facts*

really, some of the rankings can be considered subjective because everyone doesn't wrestle everyone during the season.

we all could agree that someone who has always lost to a number 2 but has never wrestled the number 1 could possibly beat the number 1. but it's unlikely and you would make that argument based on the available information.

calling them unreliable or merely imaginative opinion is something that would be said by someone who doesn't like where they are ranked (or lack of being ranked, thereof).

no personal offense made, though, dude.


[ Edited Sat Dec 31 2005, 12:31AM ]
WhoBeCryin
Fri Dec 30 2005, 11:39PM
Registered Member #2815
Joined: Sun Dec 18 2005, 09:13PM
Posts: 81
Personally I think the rankings should be somewhat limited. A lot of guys only get up there because of one tournament placing or one big win. As the list builds and gets longer and longer, you get more and more complaints because unranked wrestler A has beaten HM B and the rankings discussions devolve into nothing but "Why is so-and-so here but this guy who beat him once isn't." I can see things are already starting to get a little ridiculous and they will only get worse if the lists keep growing. I believe it would be best if you went with top 10 and maybe 10-15 HMs at most. I know alot of work goes into these rankings and everyone appreciates it, but you're only shouldering more work and inconvenience by making the list so lengthy.
nhwrestler
Sat Dec 31 2005, 07:41AM
Registered Member #920
Joined: Sun Dec 26 2004, 10:31AM
Posts: 135
why not have top 12 or 15 then 10 honorables also i liked it better when you listed what year the kids are
fandad
Sat Dec 31 2005, 08:28AM
Registered Member #58
Joined: Thu Mar 25 2004, 06:48AM
Posts: 101
hey, i am the #1 FanDad.
wolfpackpop
Sat Dec 31 2005, 08:57AM
Registered Member #2793
Joined: Sat Dec 17 2005, 05:56PM
Posts: 33
Keeping the HM list open ended and inclusive, rather than finite and exclusive is important to recognizing up and coming talent. However, I would be very interested in learning about the objective and subjective criteria that are are apllied when developing the list. Is it the number of wins? individual scores? Level of competition?
rockthecradle
Sat Dec 31 2005, 06:47PM
Registered Member #72
Joined: Thu Mar 25 2004, 09:36AM
Posts: 882
everyone agrees Jason's work on the rankings is great...most wrestlers and coaches check them every week and use the information for various reasons...i would bet that the overwhelming majority of users would want that info to continue as is...when you analyze the numbers Jason's rankings list roughly less than 20% of all Mass high school wrestlers, i.e., top 10 is approx 6% of 165(est) in each wt class and 25 more in the HM brings the total to 20% or so...obviously these are rough figures and all wt classes aren't the same...there are probably more say 135's than hvy's...but overall you're still looking at the top 20% of all participants....keep up the good work Jason and list as many as you want... HAPPY NEW YEAR!
[ Edited Sat Dec 31 2005, 08:02PM ]
Go to page:          << Previous thread | Next thread >>

Jump:     Back to top



Moderators: Mike Atlas, CoachMiller, The Rankings Team, JMode, Shvarts, eoghanjames, Jim Maher, plm_77, jubele135, Hill Billy, psch, tourneygeek, NE_07, Sam Shames, Chicken Wing Coach, New England Rankings, matchamp99, Nuge
Click to see our RSS feeds available -->
Recent Wrestling Boxscores
see all | submit | rss

01/20/2018----------
Hampden Charter-24
Lincoln Sudbury-60
01/20/2018----------
Springfield Central-41
Lincoln Sudbury-30
01/20/2018----------
Agawam-15
Lincoln Sudbury-63
Newest Posts
Re: NEW ENGLAND RANKINGS 2017-18
Fahey of Pinkerton lost to Crowley of mt Anth...
Posted by Bob brodly
Jan 21 18 : 17:19

Re: 2017-18 MassWrestling Rankings - 1/15/17
pretty sure bogle is at 126
Posted by Sox_fan
Jan 21 18 : 16:54

Methuen Tournament
This looks like a real strong tournament with...
Posted by Aztec2016
Jan 21 18 : 13:41

Re: 2017-18 MassWrestling Rankings - 1/15/17
Aztec2016 wrote ...SpadleCradle wrote ...Some...
Posted by SpadleCradle
Jan 21 18 : 12:25

Re: 2017-18 MassWrestling Rankings - 1/15/17
SpadleCradle wrote ...Some Results from Chico...
Posted by Aztec2016
Jan 21 18 : 11:10

Re: D3W Rankings 1-18-2018
Thanks Coach, greetings from Aruba!
Posted by CoachMiller
Jan 21 18 : 06:37

Re: 2017-18 MassWrestling Rankings - 1/15/17
matfan09 wrote ...do they have the dual meet ...
Posted by GrayDawg
Jan 21 18 : 05:43

Support MassWrestling. Click a link!