Penn State Scoring record question?

[scourge165]

Has anyone done the match and figured out what the team scores would be with the same scoring system?

I've seen people saying PSU only broke the record because of the 3 pt TD and 4 pt NF, but...obviously the scoring is different.

Advancement points were not awarded to PSU and Iowa losses(presumably) some points for placement.

Off the top of my head, 6 Wrestlers made it to the finals. Advancement points on those Wrestlers, 1 point per win on the front side, 6X4, 24 points.

125-Davis 2 wins on the front side. 2 more points.
133-Nagao 3 wins on the backside. .5 points per win there. 1.5
'41, '49, '57, '65, '74, 
184-Truax 2 wins on the front side 2 points, 4 wins on the backside, 2 more points.
197, HWT

So they get 24 more from the finalists, 2 from Davis, 1.5 at '33, Truax 4 points.

31.5 more points

They LOSE points due to the scoring. 3rd was worth 9 points in '97, 10 points now, so -1 for Kasak. 5th is worth 7 points, it was worth 5. 

So -3.

PSU adds 28.5 points. 

Iowa gains 3 at 142 for a 6th place finish
Gain 2 at 167(everyone else is in the finals through 167

Iowa gains 5 points.

So PSU is +23.5 points due to the scoring. Has this already been done? I'm doing this as I type and not being real thorough. Anything else I've missed?

[Hammerlock3]

tranfer portal makes it like comparing dead ball era pitchers to modern ones....and PSU isn't Bob Gibson in this analogy(yet).

[scourge165]

20 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

tranfer portal makes it like comparing dead ball era pitchers to modern ones....and PSU isn't Bob Gibson in this analogy(yet).

I mean...it's Iowa, they've got quite a bit of resources themselves. They have plenty of NIL money to be able to compete.

 

But that's beside the point. I was simply...adjusting for the scoring differences. 

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

I mean...it's Iowa, they've got quite a bit of resources themselves. They have plenty of NIL money to be able to compete.

 

But that's beside the point. I was simply...adjusting for the scoring differences. 

I was just saying Iowa might have had some pretty insane teams if they could have recruited the other colleges. Also in 1997 Iowa didn't have anyone with 6 years of eligibility.

[WildTurk]

1 hour ago, Hammerlock3 said:

tranfer portal makes it like comparing dead ball era pitchers to modern ones....and PSU isn't Bob Gibson in this analogy(yet).

Yep. *

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, scourge165 said:

Has anyone done the match and figured out what the team scores would be with the same scoring system?

I've seen people saying PSU only broke the record because of the 3 pt TD and 4 pt NF, but...obviously the scoring is different.

Advancement points were not awarded to PSU and Iowa losses(presumably) some points for placement.

Off the top of my head, 6 Wrestlers made it to the finals. Advancement points on those Wrestlers, 1 point per win on the front side, 6X4, 24 points.

125-Davis 2 wins on the front side. 2 more points.
133-Nagao 3 wins on the backside. .5 points per win there. 1.5
'41, '49, '57, '65, '74, 
184-Truax 2 wins on the front side 2 points, 4 wins on the backside, 2 more points.
197, HWT

So they get 24 more from the finalists, 2 from Davis, 1.5 at '33, Truax 4 points.

31.5 more points

They LOSE points due to the scoring. 3rd was worth 9 points in '97, 10 points now, so -1 for Kasak. 5th is worth 7 points, it was worth 5. 

So -3.

PSU adds 28.5 points. 

Iowa gains 3 at 142 for a 6th place finish
Gain 2 at 167(everyone else is in the finals through 167

Iowa gains 5 points.

So PSU is +23.5 points due to the scoring. Has this already been done? I'm doing this as I type and not being real thorough. Anything else I've missed?

The answer to the question, who scored more, is the same as the answer to the question, what kind of underwear does @BobDole wear, boxers or briefs? Depends.

You have a couple of errors. Advancement points were awarded in 1997 at the same level as today, 1 for the championship round and 0.5 for the consolation round. The only difference was that in 1997 it was treated as a 64 man bracket when there were more than 32 wrestlers. That meant there was an extra advancement point on the championship side and an extra 0.5 advancement points on the consolation side for just the brackets with >32. 

The other main difference was in 1997 you only got 1 bonus point for a tech fall without back points.

Adjusting for those differences by re-scoring Iowa using today's method gets you 171.5.

The only question, then, is were bonus easier to come by this year? That is where "Depends" comes in. Yes, it was easier to get majors and tech falls, but the increase in tech falls appears to have had an unintended consequence. The number of pin falls dropped. The obvious explanation would be that getting to a tech fall faster meant there wasn't as much opportunity to pin fall an overmatched opponent. But bonus points are somewhat volatile from year to year.

So, was this just a down year for bonus that was lifted a little by the easier major and tech? Or was this a normal bonus year where we traded off pin falls for tech falls, thereby offsetting the increase in majors?

 

[VakAttack]

29 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The answer to the question, who scored more, is the same as the answer to the question, what kind of underwear does @BobDole wear, boxers or briefs? Depends.

You have a couple of errors. Advancement points were awarded in 1997 at the same level as today, 1 for the championship round and 0.5 for the consolation round. The only difference was that in 1997 it was treated as a 64 man bracket when there were more than 32 wrestlers. That meant there was an extra advancement point on the championship side and an extra 0.5 advancement points on the consolation side for just the brackets with >32. 

The other main difference was in 1997 you only got 1 bonus point for a tech fall without back points.

Adjusting for those differences by re-scoring Iowa using today's method gets you 171.5.

The only question, then, is were bonus easier to come by this year? That is where "Depends" comes in. Yes, it was easier to get majors and tech falls, but the increase in tech falls appears to have had an unintended consequence. The number of pin falls dropped. The obvious explanation would be that getting to a tech fall faster meant there wasn't as much opportunity to pin fall an overmatched opponent. But bonus points are somewhat volatile from year to year.

So, was this just a down year for bonus that was lifted a little by the easier major and tech? Or was this a normal bonus year where we traded off pin falls for tech falls, thereby offsetting the increase in majors?

 

We'll need more years of data, obviously, but it is notable that this happened for PSU in the first year of the new scoring rules....but of course it also happened to coincide with a particularly strong (which is saying something) PSU team.

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

 @BobDole wear,  Depends.

The number of pin falls dropped. 

 Or was this a normal bonus year where we traded off pin falls for tech falls, thereby offsetting the increase in majors?

 

Careful, Bob will put you in the Zoo for that.  

You are finally moving in the right direction with the space between the two words pin and fall.  Now if you can simply use them in different sentences you'll be on the same page as the rest of the wrestling world.

Edited April 10 by ionel

[Hammerlock3]

can someone take the "pin falls" joke out to pasture already....

[Wrestleknownothing]

14 minutes ago, ionel said:

Careful, Bob will put you in the Zoo for that.  

You are finally moving in the right direction with the space between the two words pin and fall.  Now if you can simply use them in different sentences you'll be on the same page as the rest of the wrestling world.

I hope you are happy, you just got another intern fired.

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

can someone take the "pin falls" joke out to pasture already....

[jackwebster]

7 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

I was just saying Iowa might have had some pretty insane teams if they could have recruited the other colleges. Also in 1997 Iowa didn't have anyone with 6 years of eligibility.

Iowa didn't need to recruit the other colleges. They were playing by a different set of rules than everyone else. There's a reason Seay got it trouble: the AD gave him a very specific task and he complied . . . and it worked. But, I guess the NCAA and Iowa didn't like the other folks stacking the deck. 

Edited April 10 by jackwebster

[11986]

was the scoring significantly different back in 1986? Iowa had 5 champs, a 2nd, a 4th, and a 5th. Scored 158 then. At a quick glance at bracket decent amount of bonus. 

    

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

25 minutes ago, 11986 said:

was the scoring significantly different back in 1986? Iowa had 5 champs, a 2nd, a 4th, and a 5th. Scored 158 then. At a quick glance at bracket decent amount of bonus. 

    

And the national finalist 118 quit the day before Big 10!

[Hammerlock3]

5 hours ago, jackwebster said:

Iowa didn't need to recruit the other colleges. They were playing by a different set of rules than everyone else. There's a reason Seay got it trouble: the AD gave him a very specific task and he complied . . . and it worked. But, I guess the NCAA and Iowa didn't like the other folks stacking the deck. 

ok i can play that game too. PSU is playing by its own rules, should be stripped of all trophies.

[gimpeltf]

1 hour ago, 11986 said:

was the scoring significantly different back in 1986? Iowa had 5 champs, a 2nd, a 4th, and a 5th. Scored 158 then. At a quick glance at bracket decent amount of bonus. 

I wouldn't say the scoring mechanism was very different- slightly with bonus as I recall. What might have been more significant was that the consolations were follow the quarter-finalists. Probably didn't make that much difference to Iowa but it would have eliminated a round or two in the consies. I don't see that they had a 118 or Hwt which affected them more.

Edited April 10 by gimpeltf

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, 11986 said:

was the scoring significantly different back in 1986? Iowa had 5 champs, a 2nd, a 4th, and a 5th. Scored 158 then. At a quick glance at bracket decent amount of bonus. 

    

Re-scoring using today's rules 1986 Iowa would have had +13 bonus points, +4 placement points, and -7 advancement points for a net gain of +10, putting them at 168 total points and just shy of the 171.5 adjusted points for 1997 Iowa and the 172.5 points for 2024 PSU.

[OMW]

18 hours ago, WildTurk said:

Yep. *

just like Caitlin Clark...

[fishbane]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Re-scoring using today's rules 1986 Iowa would have had +13 bonus points, +4 placement points, and -7 advancement points for a net gain of +10, putting them at 168 total points and just shy of the 171.5 adjusted points for 1997 Iowa and the 172.5 points for 2024 PSU.

I tried doing this and I'm messing something up.  I get Iowa's 1997 total as 171 which is off by 1 and 172 when adjusting for scoring differences.  

This is the scoring as I understand it from 1997.  I get 171, but that is off by 1

This is rescored with 2024 scoring.  I get 172 total.  The bye points (-4.5) are removed.  Joe Williams's match termination/4 point TF win over Abel is now worth 2.5 (+0.5).  The placement points go up for Gilliss (+3) and Uker (+2). Making a net 1 point gain.

What do I have wrong?

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 hours ago, fishbane said:

I tried doing this and I'm messing something up.  I get Iowa's 1997 total as 171 which is off by 1 and 172 when adjusting for scoring differences.  

This is the scoring as I understand it from 1997.  I get 171, but that is off by 1

This is rescored with 2024 scoring.  I get 172 total.  The bye points (-4.5) are removed.  Joe Williams's match termination/4 point TF win over Abel is now worth 2.5 (+0.5).  The placement points go up for Gilliss (+3) and Uker (+2). Making a net 1 point gain.

What do I have wrong?

The bracket on wrestlingstats and the NWHOF (same bracket) is problematic. I eventually came to the conclusion that Lincoln McIlravy's TF were actually MT. I am pretty convinced on one of them and fairly convinced on the other. That brings his total down a point.

There is a more contemporaneous bracket on the UNI website for the tournament (I can't believe it still exists) I used to come to this conclusion. I cover it in excruciating detail in the below thread. In that thread there is also some phenomenal information from @gimpeltf who worked the scoring table at that tournament.

 

[NM1965]

9 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

And the national finalist 118 quit the day before Big 10!

Who was that? 

[WildTurk]

5 hours ago, OMW said:

just like Caitlin Clark...

Nope

[11986]

19 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

And the national finalist 118 quit the day before Big 10!

 

9 hours ago, NM1965 said:

Who was that? 

Matt Egeland. Placed 2nd at 118 in ‘85 from the 8 seed.  Struggled the next year with the weight cut. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

22 minutes ago, 11986 said:

 

Matt Egeland. Placed 2nd at 118 in ‘85 from the 8 seed.  Struggled the next year with the weight cut. 

Walked out of a athletes weight cutting session a day or two before Big 10 and did not return.  Seems like it could have really let the team down, but they reacted by scoring a ton of points and they all seem to still have a pretty high opinion of Egeland.  After "The Dual" was released this year, a lot of people started attacking Egeland online and Royce Alger really came to his defense.

[fishbane]

13 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The bracket on wrestlingstats and the NWHOF (same bracket) is problematic. I eventually came to the conclusion that Lincoln McIlravy's TF were actually MT. I am pretty convinced on one of them and fairly convinced on the other. That brings his total down a point.

There is a more contemporaneous bracket on the UNI website for the tournament (I can't believe it still exists) I used to come to this conclusion. I cover it in excruciating detail in the below thread. In that thread there is also some phenomenal information from @gimpeltf who worked the scoring table at that tournament.

 

Oh interesting.  I guess the McIlravy matches must be MT instead of TF.  I had thought possibly a team point had been deducted as that wouldn't show up in the brackets, but given what was in the other thread the McIlravy explanation is likely it.  This would update my 1997 table to look like this

And 2024 scoring to look like this

After changing McIlravy's TF to MT, I'm getting 170 for 1997 Iowa using 1997 scoring, but I get 172 for 1997 Iowa using 2024 scoring.  I think where we are different is the Joe Williams vs Tivon Able MT.  I think you forgot to make it a TF in 2024 scoring.  I looked at the UNI website you references and that also has that as a 22-7 7:00 match termination.  

Edited April 11 by fishbane