Team Score Breakdown

[bracketbuster]

Just looking at some stats from the team scores that I found interesting.

2024 Penn State vs. 1997 Iowa
For those wondering about the 3 pt. takedown and 4 point near fall and how that affected bonus points.

Penn State gained 11 extra team points via bonus that they would not have received had it not been for a combination of the above scoring changes since 1997 although you could argue some of their tech falls might have still come as some came like 5 minutes into the match. They had 8 total tech falls so that accounts for 4 of those points (tech falls going to major decisions = -0.5 team points)

Team Over-performers and under-performers - looking at how teams were projected to score based strictly on seeds (advancement and placement points) and how many placement and advancement points they actually scored (no bonus)

Over-Performers
1. Ohio State (+16.5)
2. Michigan (+16)
3. Stanford (+15)
4. Little Rock (+10)
4. Lock Haven (+10)
6. Virginia Tech (+9)
7. Oklahoma (+8.5)
8. Penn State (+7)
9. Navy (6.5)
9. Arizona State (6.5)

Over-Performers / Number of Qualifers
1. Lock Haven (3.33)
2. Stanford (3.00)
3. Little Rock (2.00)
4. Ohio State (1.83)
5. Michigan (1.78)
6. Oklahoma (1.70)
7. Navy (1.30)
8. VMI (1.00)
8. West Virginia (1.00)
10. Virginia Tech (0.90)

Under-Performers
1. NC State (-46.5)
2. Lehigh (-27)
3. Purdue (-12)
4. Northern Iowa (-10)
5. Harvard (-8.5)
6. Binghamton (-8)
7. Illinois (-7.5)
8. Oklahoma State (-6.5)
9. Cal Poly (-5.5)
10. Air Force (-5)

Under-Performers / Qualifiers
1. NC State (-4.65)
2. Lehigh (3.38)
3. Harvard (-2.83)
4. Illinois (-2.50)
5. Purdue (-2.40)
6. Binghamton (-2.00)
7. Air Force (-1.67)
8. Northern Iowa (-1.43)
9. Cal Poly (-1.00)
9. Brown (-1.00)
9. The Citadel (-1.00)

Bonus Points - Which teams scored the most?

Total Bonus Points
1. Penn State - 34
2. Cornell - 19.5
3. Iowa State - 17
4. Iowa - 15
5. NC State - 13.5
6. Northern Iowa - 12
6. Nebraska - 12
6. West Virginia - 12
9. Missouri - 10. 5
10. South Dakota State, Michigan, Ohio State - 9.5

Bonus Points per qualifier
1. Penn State - 3.40
2. North Dakota State - 2.50
3. West Virginia - 2.40
4. Cornell - 2.17
5. Air Force - 2.00
6. Iowa State - 1.89
7. Northern Iowa - 1.71
8. Iowa - 1.67
8. Ohio - 1.67
10. Wisconsin - 1.60

Conference Stats - I wanted to look at this as a whole since there was a lot of debate about how conference place changed seeding

Overperformance or Under-performance - Actual points vs. projected points just looking at placement and advancement (no bonus)

Total Performance
1. Pac 12 (+27)
2. Big Ten (+26)
3. MAC (+16.5)
4. SoCon (+2.5)
5. Big 12 (-4)
6. EIWA (-31.5)
7. ACC (-36.5)

Total Performance / Number of qualifiers
1. Pac 12 (+0.90)
2. MAC (+0.66)
3. Big Ten (+0.27)
4. SoCon (+0.15)
5. Big 12 (-0.06)
6. EIWA (-0.52)
7. ACC (-1.01)

Conference Bonus Points
1. Big Ten (106.5)
2. Big 12 (81.5)
3. EIWA (41)
4. ACC (34.5)
5. Pac 12 (23)
6. MAC (12.5)
7. SoCon (4)

Conference Bonus Points per qualifier
1. Big 12 (1.25)
2. Big Ten (1.11)
3. ACC (0.96)
4. Pac 12 (0.77)
5. EIWA (0.67)
6. MAC (0.50)
7. SoCon (0.24)

[bracketbuster]

I also should have added All-Americans Projected (Top 8 seeds vs. Actual) by conference

ACC: 8 - 11 = (-3)
Big 12: 20-21 = (-1)
Big Ten: 30-27 = (+3)
EIWA: 9-11 = (-2)
MAC: 3-1 = (+2)
PAC 12: 9-8 = (+1)
SoCon: 1-1 = (-)

[MPhillips]

@bracketbusterGood stuff. Cheers...

[1032004]

So basically, if you consider Starocci as a 1 seed, PSU actually under-performed vs seed.

[VakAttack]

I'm going to need this raw data for a very stern email I'm sending to the manager of the NCAA.  @Wrestleknownothing, what say you,  other data nerd guy?

Edited March 25 by VakAttack

[Wrestleknownothing]

9 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I'm going to need this raw data for a very stern email I'm sending to the manager of the NCAA.  @Wrestleknownothing, what say you,  other data nerd guy?

I say good stuff by @bracketbuster

I come to a different conclusion about bonus points due to the impact on pinfalls, but comme ci, comme ca.

[bracketbuster]

8 hours ago, 1032004 said:

So basically, if you consider Starocci as a 1 seed, PSU actually under-performed vs seed.

That obviously helped but essentially he and Davis canceled each other out since as a #9 seed Starocci was "expected" to lose in the round of 12 where Davis did.

[mspart]

Yes good stuff.   Thank you.

mspart

[creek chub]

Wonder what the transfer score for teams are? For example, remove team points for PSU and Michigan for each transfer and see where they finish then

[1032004]

On 3/25/2024 at 11:49 AM, bracketbuster said:

That obviously helped but essentially he and Davis canceled each other out since as a #9 seed Starocci was "expected" to lose in the round of 12 where Davis did.

Yeah so like I said if you count Starocci as a 1 seed, they actually underperformed vs seed.

Kasak was the only other guy to outperform his seed, but both Davis and Truax underperformed vs seed.  The rest performed up to their seed.

Edited March 27 by 1032004

[Le duke]

17 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yeah so like I said if you count Starocci as a 1 seed, they actually underperformed vs seed.

Kasak was the only other guy to outperform his seed, but both Davis and Truax underperformed vs seed.  The rest performed up to their seed.

I see a (6) next to a Truax in the bracket, and a Truax winning the 5th place match at 184. 

So, Starocci, Kasak and Truax all outplaced their seed.

 

 

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

I see a (6) next to a Truax in the bracket, and a Truax winning the 5th place match at 184. 

So, Starocci, Kasak and Truax all outplaced their seed.

 

 

Yeah, but we all know Truax is spiritually a 4 seed.

[1032004]

14 minutes ago, Le duke said:

I see a (6) next to a Truax in the bracket, and a Truax winning the 5th place match at 184. 

So, Starocci, Kasak and Truax all outplaced their seed.

 

 

Apologies, for some reason had it backwards and was thinking Truax was seeded 5th and took 6th.

Point still stands though, for analysis like this Starocci should be considered a 1.  So that makes Davis the only underperformer, although a 1 seed DNP’ing is a bigger difference than 7 to 3 and 6 to 5.  But to be fair 1-20 at 125 probably all could have been considered the same seed.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

37 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yeah so like I said if you count Starocci as a 1 seed, they actually underperformed vs seed.

Kasak was the only other guy to outperform his seed, but both Davis and Truax underperformed vs seed.  The rest performed up to their seed.

With five #1 seeds they were highly probable to underperform their seed. That they did not is fairly amazing. If they had six #1 seeds it would have been nearly impossible to meet or exceed their seed.

[ionel]

37 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

 If they had six #1 seeds it would have been nearly impossible to meet or exceed their seed.

You'd think Cael could find a way.