2022 NCAA DI Qualifier Allocations Announced

NCAA

2/24/2022

2021 NCAA Championships (photo courtesy of Tony Rotundo; WrestlersAreWarriors.com)

INDIANAPOLIS - The NCAA Division I Wrestling Committee has announced the pre-allocation spots for the 2022 NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships as listed in the chart below.

Each qualifying tournament was awarded pre-allocations to the national tournament based on regular season performance by conference wrestlers through February 20. The pre-allocations are determined using a sliding scale of a .700 winning percentage, top 30 coaches' rank and top 30 ratings percentage index (RPI) with a maximum of 29 pre-allocations per weight class.

For each wrestler that reached the threshold in at least two of the three categories, his conference tournament was awarded a qualifying spot in that weight class. Each conference was awarded a minimum of one automatic bid per weight class, which will go to the tournament champion, even if they did not have any wrestlers reach at least two of the three thresholds. NCAA championship spots for each qualifying event will be awarded at conference tournaments based solely on place-finish.

After all the conference tournaments have concluded, the NCAA Division I Wrestling Committee will meet in-person to select the remaining 43 at-large qualifiers, which will be announced on March 8, while brackets and seeding will be announced on NCAA.com at 6 p.m. on March 9. All weight classes will consist of 33 wrestlers.

ACC 125(3) 133(5) 141(4) 149(4) 157(5) 165(3) 174(4) 184(5) 197(3) 285(3) Total (39)
Big 12 125(6) 133(6) 141(7) 149(4) 157(6) 165(4) 174(8) 184(4) 197(7) 285(6) Total (58)
Big Ten 125(10) 133(10) 141(7) 149(7) 157(7) 165(7) 174(8) 184(12) 197(11) 285(9) Total (88)
EIWA 125(4) 133(2) 141(4) 149(4) 157(5) 165(7) 174(4) 184(3) 197(5) 285(4) Total (42)
MAC 125(1) 133(1) 141(3) 149(5) 157(2) 165(3) 174(2) 184(2) 197(1) 285(2) Total (22)
Pac-12 125 (3) 133(3) 141(2) 149 (3) 157(2) 165(3) 174(2) 184(2) 197(1) 285(2) Total (23)
SoCon 125(2) 133(2) 141(1) 149(2) 157(1) 165(2) 174(1) 184(1) 197(1) 285(2) Total (15)
Pre-Allocations 125(29) 133(29) 141(28) 149(29) 157 (28) 165(29) 174(29) 184(29) 197(29) 285(28) Total (287)
At-Large 125(4) 133(4) 141(5) 149(4) 157(5) 165(4) 174(4) 184(4) 197(4) 285(5) Total (43)

The coaches' rankings are determined by a vote of 14 coaches in each weight class with two head coaches from each of the seven conference. For ranking purposes, coaches may only consider a wrestler that has been designated as a starter at a respective weight class. Wrestlers must have five Division I matches in the weight class to be considered with at least one within the last 30 days.

The RPI is a calculation that consists of three factors: winning percentage, opponent winning percentage (strength of schedule) and opponent's opponent winning percentage (opponent's strength of schedule). Only matches against Division I opponents at the designated weight class count towards the RPI and a wrestler needs to have wrestled 15 matches to be ranked.

The NCAA Division I Wrestling Committee did determine it will not consider for championship selections, including conference pre-allocations, any results from extra matches that ended with injury defaults where the wrestlers did not wrestle.

Comments

Bebe1993 (1) about 4 and a half years ago

sounding like a broken record again. The big10 is the premier conference. We all know this. But seriously, two weight classes with 10 qualifiers, 1 with 11 and 1 with twelve. Obviously, all one has to do in the big 10 is show up and sign in and you on to the big show. Keeping in mind that conference places down to 8th place. Do you really deserve a trip to the nationals if you can't place 8th in your conference tournament?

dbestsport (1) about 4 and a half years ago

The Big 10 has 14 teams (140 wrestlers). At 88 qualifiers, that is 62.9% of the participants.
The ACC has 6 teams (60 wrestlers). With 39 qualifiers, that is 65% of their participants.
Should we take away ACC allocations?

BadgerBoy (2) about 4 and a half years ago

As another data point for the Big Ten, the latest InterMat rankings: 8 BigT wrestlers in top 15 at 125# and 133#; 8 BigT wrestlers in top 20 at 184#, 197#. Watch the Big Ten Conference tourney in Lincoln and you will see it takes a whole lot more than simply signing in. Its a meat grinder!

dbestsport (2) about 4 and a half years ago

The coaches' rankings are determined by a vote of 14 coaches in each weight class with two head coaches from each of the seven conference.
Can someone please explain to me how Mason Parris is rated higher than Greg Kerkvliet?? They wrestled. They wrestled at Michigan. Kerkvliet won. Kerkvliet has less losses than Parris. What possible criteria could they be using??

djhart69 (2) about 4 and a half years ago

How about 32-man brackets, instead of 33? Why are they stuck on the number 33 when the number of teams fluctuate nearly every year? All it does is add 20 matches and adds an unnecessary twist to each bracket just to give 10 extra guys a shot. Makes no sense to me.

les (2) about 4 and a half years ago

This sounds like a football coaches poll to me. Why even have a wrestling season if coaches aren't going to check and see who is beating who? Penn St. Hwy beating the Mich. Hwy at Mich. and he's ranked below him. The Ohio State 125 lber beats both the Iowa and Minn guys and is ranked below them by the coaches. The Oregon St. kid pins Real Woods from Stanford, again, and is ranked 7 spots below him. What did all the 14 coaches do, go by old book that says that USC is still a football power, let's rank them high. I always thought that wrestling was a sport that when you beat someone, you're considered better than them. SMH

ban basketball (1) about 4 and a half years ago

Bebe1993,

Yous is speakin' my language that I've been a-speakin' for well over two decades. In the Big 10, and Big 12, to a lesser degree, be upright and breathing at the end and you're in.

In fact, and as we've seen, don't even rassle by forfeiting your way through and you're in. What a joke.

hardcor_33 (1) about 4 and a half years ago

Allotments seem about right. People always hate the B10 getting so many but I would much rather have the #10 guy in some weight classes from the B10 than the #3 guy from the Ivy or Patriot Leagues. Not to say I don't like the underdogs, but in some cases the #10 in 1 conference may be the 15th best guy in the country. Also, as debestsport said, the ACC has a higher percentage of automatic allotments than the B10 based on the participants in the conference.
However, debestsport is leaving out some information when it comes to coach's rankings. You can't simply put Kerkvliet ahead of Parris because he beat him. Parris beat Cassioppi who whooped Kerk. It is like a few years ago when Cassar beat Steveson, Steveson beat White, White beat Cassar. They just guessed and put the 3 in an order. In my opinion they got it wrong, but you can't just take into account one of those matches.

dbestsport (1) about 4 and a half years ago

With all due respect, the example you give supports my opinion. If Kerk beat Parris, then Cass beat Kerk, and then Parris beat Cass, then I would agree that Parris should be higher than Kerk. That didn't happen.
However the Big 10 pre-seeds got it right. 1.) Gable; 2) Cass; 3.) Kerk, 4.) Parris.
The world is right again (at least for HW seeding).

hostcity (1) about 4 and a half years ago

I have crunched some unofficial numbers:
Top 33: Big 10-94 (28.5%) Big 12- 81 (24,5%) EIWA- 49 (14,8%) ACC- 41 (12.4%) MAC- 27 (8.2%) Pac 12- 22 (6.7%) SoCon- 16 (4.8%)
Top 20: Big 10- 73 (36.5% Big 12- 46 (23.0%) EIWA- 24 (12.0%) ACC- 28 (14.0%) MAC- 9 (4.5%) Pac 12- 16 (8.0%) SoCon- 4 (2.0%)
Allocations (287) Big 10- 88 (30.7%) Big 12- 58 (20.2%) EIWA- 42 (14.6%) ACC- 39 (13.6%) MAC- 22 (7.7%) Pac 12- 23 (8.0%) SoCon- 15 (5.2%)
Based on these are the allocations fair?

hostcity (1) about 4 and a half years ago

Found an error. Have to correct and update.

hostcity (1) about 4 and a half years ago

Correction:
Top 33: Big 10- 94 (28.5%) Big 12- 75 (22.7%) EIWA- 49 (14.8%) ACC- 41 (12.4%) Pac 12- 28 (8.5%) MAC- 27 (8.2%) SoCon- 16 (4.8%)
Top 20: Big 10- 73 (36.5%) Big 12- 42 (21.0%) EIWA- 24 (12.0%) ACC- 28 (14.0%) Pac 12- 20 (10.0%) MAC- 9 (4.5%) SoCon- 4 (2.0%)
Allocations- Big 10- 88 (30.7%) Big 12- 58 (20.2%) EIWA- 42 (14.6%) ACC- 39 (13.6%) Pac 12- 23 (8.0%) MAC- 22 (7.7%) SoCon- 15 (5.2%)