1.  The Criteria for the Anne Arundel Individual Rankings are as follows:

a) Head-to-Head Matches (HH)
b) Common Opponents (CO)
c) Accomplishments (AC)
Folkstyle matches from the present season are given the utmost consideration.  
No information, however seemingly irrelevant, is overlooked. HH is the most 
important criteria and may never be overlooked. AC is the weakest criteria and 
may only be used when no other information is available.

2.  More About Individual Rankings:  

a) The basic premise of these wrestling rankings is to leave opinions totally 
out, maximally minimized, of the rankings process by creating a scientific method 
of rankings that is fair to all. The idea is that anyone could realistically 
complete the rankings if they collect all the information and plug it into the 
rankings process. There is no power in being a ranker, because one cannot affect 
the rankings, but merely report what the mathematical process spits out. However, 
as we will find out later, the ranker does have to make some decisions (regarding 
conclusiveness and accomplishments).

b) It should be known that this system is not particularly new or innovative. 
As hall-of-fame wrestler and coach Wayne Hicks has attested, it is the time-honored, a
ge-old way of ranking or seeding wrestlers. I have simply given that system a lexicon, 
so people that talk about rankings can debate with similar vocabulary. 

c) Further, ranking in this fashion cannot predict the winner of upcoming matches. 
It can only report on matches that have already occurred. Here is how the rankings 
are done:

There are four basic situations any ranker can encounter when doing wrestling rankings. 

1.)  Situation 1: Classic Head-to-Head (HH). Wrestler A beats wrestler B in a 
HH match. Thus, wrestler A is ranked ahead. This is the simplest and easiest ranking.

2.) Situation 2: There is no HH match between wrestler A and wrestler B, so common 
opponents (CO) must come into play. For wrestler A to be ranked ahead of wrestler 
B using CO, CO must be conclusive. There are two ways CO can be conclusive: 

a) Two wrestlers in question wrestle the same common opponent in the same season. 
Wrestler A defeats the common opponent and wrestler B loses to the common 
opponent. Wrestler A is ranked ahead. 

b) Two wrestlers in question both wrestle the same opponent in the same season, 
both defeat that opponent, but the results of the match are conclusive as to which 
one is superior (e.g., wrestler A tech-falls the common opponent 15-0 and wrestler 
B defeats the common opponent on an overtime rideout.).

c) The most important part of CO No. 2 is that it is conclusive. If the CO match 
took place in different seasons, the wrestler in question did not dominate from 
start to finish, or the point spread was merely indicative (e.g., 8-1 vs. 4-2) 
but not conclusive, that common opponent information falls under the realm of 
accomplishments, which is the third criteria. 

3.) Situation 3: Wrestler A and wrestler B have no HH matches and no CO, so 
accomplishments (AC) must be used. When ranking with accomplishments, ALL 
INFORMATION must be considered. Certainly, win/loss records (factoring in 
toughness of schedule), national tournaments, state & regional success, county 
placements, indicative (but not conclusive) common opponents, common opponent 
chains, wins and losses over other accomplished wrestlers, etc., must all be 
looked at. This is where the ranker does have some power, because he/she must 
decide whose accomplishments are better. However, it is usually pretty easy to do.

4.)  Situation 4: A string of three or more wrestlers, within the ranking group, 
have essentially tied in HH and CO by all defeating each other, so the ranker must 
default to AC. The three or more wrestlers must then be ranked within their group 
according to their accomplishments (W/L record, toughness of schedule, tournament 
placements, accomplished wrestlers defeated, etc.). Certainly, significant HHs and 
COs weigh heavily as AC in this situation. 

5.)	Other rules to clarify HH, CO & AC:

a)	A HH tie should first be broken with a conclusive CO. If there are no COs, 
the latest match must take precedence in the event of such a tie. For instance, if 
wrestler A and wrestler B have wrestled twice and are 1-1 against each other, 
whoever won the latter match must be ranked higher. 

This simple numerical diagram should explain it:

Wrestler A is 1-1 against Wrestler B and Wrestler B won the latter match: Wrestler 
B ranked ahead.
Wrestler A is 2-1 against Wrestler B and Wrestler B won the latest match: Wrestler 
A ranked ahead.

b)	 Results from the present season are looked at first, then results from 
other seasons. Within a given season, the most recent results hold precedence in 
any tie-breaking situations. If no results from in-season competitions can shed 
light on a ranking, off-season results may be used. 

c)	A placement in a tournament (or even a state title for that matter) is 
only as good as the wrestlers one beats. If wrestler A placed second in a tournament 
and didn’t beat wrestler B, who placed third, there is no ground whatsoever to rank 
wrestler A ahead of wrestler B based on that information alone. 

d)	Wrestlers who avoid competition can be punished in the rankings. If 
Wrestler A is able to wrestle Wrestler B (who is ranked below Wrestler A) and 
chooses not to compete, he will forfeit his ranking. 

e)	Common sense should always prevail. If you have gone through the 
system, and a ranking seems horribly unfair, a mistake has probably been made 
or information pertaining to that specific ranking has been missed. Please don’t 
take it personally.