Wrestleknownothing Posted April 20 Posted April 20 Who was the Mac Daddy collegiate wrestling ranker of 2026? I am on the edge of my seat. Was it @Kozak and JD Rader at Flo? Or maybe Earl Smith at Intermat? Anyone wanna guess the Wrestlestat Elo algo? Surely the coaches know better than anyone? Click to find out: https://wrestling.guru/2026/04/20/who-wore-it-best-ranking-the-rankers-2026/ 4 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Wrestleknownothing Posted April 20 Author Posted April 20 2 hours ago, MPhillips said: FLO, Earl...? One way to find out.... 1 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
boconnell Posted April 20 Posted April 20 Aren't the actual rankers clear that their rankings are not predictions? They are ranking based on results that have occurred rather than what will happen next. If that is the methodology, then what is the point of evaluating how they predicted what would happen next? I could absolutely see the point of questioning their methodology and why they stick exclusively to results that have happened, but evaluating how they predict while not predicting seems inherently flawed from the start of the exercise.
MPhillips Posted April 20 Posted April 20 56 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: One way to find out.... I was gonna wait for some more guesses... .
Wrestleknownothing Posted April 20 Author Posted April 20 17 minutes ago, boconnell said: Aren't the actual rankers clear that their rankings are not predictions? They are ranking based on results that have occurred rather than what will happen next. If that is the methodology, then what is the point of evaluating how they predicted what would happen next? I could absolutely see the point of questioning their methodology and why they stick exclusively to results that have happened, but evaluating how they predict while not predicting seems inherently flawed from the start of the exercise. Rankings are used for predictions all the time, including by Flo, Intermat, and Wrestlestat. See their team tournament rankings. By assuming their rankings are accurate and applying scoring to them they are making predictions. Same for team dual rankings. And Jon Kozak is on on3 defending their rankings by quoting some of the same metrics I use. I am on pretty safe ground here. 2 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
boconnell Posted April 21 Posted April 21 28 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: Rankings are used for predictions all the time, including by Flo, Intermat, and Wrestlestat. See their team tournament rankings. By assuming their rankings are accurate and applying scoring to them they are making predictions. Same for team dual rankings. And Jon Kozak is on on3 defending their rankings by quoting some of the same metrics I use. I am on pretty safe ground here. The rankers vocally don't use predictions or future data. They choose to not rank incoming freshmen at all because they have no past results no matter how bright their future is predicted to be. The rankings are decidedly not predictions. They evaluate everything that has happened prior to nationals rather than saying what will happen at nationals. You are welcome to have a cool thought exercise on safe ground, but you are unquestionably using data in ways it wasn't intended to be used. 2
Simpleman424 Posted April 21 Posted April 21 1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said: One way to find out.... I messed around and found out…it’s as I suspected. You have to really stay on top of all the variables to keep up with accurately ranking in this sport. Also, appreciate the time you put into your article.
juniorvarsity Posted April 21 Posted April 21 34 minutes ago, boconnell said: The rankers vocally don't use predictions or future data. They choose to not rank incoming freshmen at all because they have no past results no matter how bright their future is predicted to be. The rankings are decidedly not predictions. They evaluate everything that has happened prior to nationals rather than saying what will happen at nationals. You are welcome to have a cool thought exercise on safe ground, but you are unquestionably using data in ways it wasn't intended to be used. Relax homie. It's a fun article. I enjoyed it. Rankings are not predictions. Everyone knows. The article is comparing rankings versus outcomes in a handful of interesting ways. 2
boconnell Posted April 21 Posted April 21 3 hours ago, juniorvarsity said: Relax homie. It's a fun article. I enjoyed it. Rankings are not predictions. Everyone knows. The article is comparing rankings versus outcomes in a handful of interesting ways. i said it was a fun thought exercise. As for everyone knowing rankings are not predictions, the guy who wrote the article makes his whole reply to me that the rankings are predictions. 2 1
MPhillips Posted April 21 Posted April 21 12 hours ago, boconnell said: you are unquestionably using data in ways it wasn't intended to be used. Such as? .
Gene Mills Fan Posted April 21 Posted April 21 12 hours ago, boconnell said: The rankers vocally don't use predictions or future data. They choose to not rank incoming freshmen at all because they have no past results no matter how bright their future is predicted to be. The rankings are decidedly not predictions. They evaluate everything that has happened prior to nationals rather than saying what will happen at nationals. You are welcome to have a cool thought exercise on safe ground, but you are unquestionably using data in ways it wasn't intended to be used. I think you both can be right. people refer to rankings to decide on questionable matches, because they are a record of past trends. Not predictions but tools used to predict in certain cases. Just an exercise on what tools are available and how their rankings ended up performing. 1
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 4 Author Posted May 4 On 4/29/2026 at 6:00 AM, Show_Me said: Great stuff … as usual. Thank you 1 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 4 Author Posted May 4 On 4/20/2026 at 7:39 PM, Simpleman424 said: I messed around and found out…it’s as I suspected. You have to really stay on top of all the variables to keep up with accurately ranking in this sport. Also, appreciate the time you put into your article. My pleasure. A lot of the time is always @cowcards. He has chased down so very much information about the history of wrestling. I just come along and take the glory. 1 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Dark Energy Posted May 4 Posted May 4 @Wrestleknownothing - Agreed, great stuff. Your work is always appreciated!! That said, I’m sure you have disappointed many on this board that have a comical hatred for Flo.
flyingcement Posted May 5 Posted May 5 (edited) Thanks WKN! Interesting to see that WrestleStat which is just an equation without any individual stock picking - performs better than coaches. I guess coaches have more on their mind than rating the other teams. Intermat looking good and Flo not too shabby. Of course these are relatively short period of results, so it would be more telling of the quality of judgment for each service, by looking at the statistics over a longer period of time. On the other hand, change in staff can distort the image if you look at across periods of times which are attributed to various different people. Lots of information to digest here. Edited May 5 by flyingcement
Show_Me Posted May 13 Posted May 13 (edited) WKN - In your opinion, what would be the ideal “sample size” for this Rankers analysis ? Understanding that individuals doing the Rankings could change periodically. 3 years ? 5 yrs ? More, less ? Thanks. Edited May 13 by Show_Me
Nevaeh Lavarias Pearl City High School, Hawaii Class of 2027 Committed to Kent State Projected Weight: 124
Braeden Simoneaux New York Military Academy, Louisiana Class of 2027 Committed to Wyoming Projected Weight: 184, 197
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now