It Was A Historically Bad Year For The #5 Seed

[Wrestleknownothing]

After updating the scoring model I decided to looking into why the shifts that occurred had occurred. I was really focused on the seeds in the twenties and thirties as there was some expected smoothing out in that area. And sure enough, the #22, #23, #25, and #29 seeds all had their best ever performance. Though the #27, #31, and #32 had their worst performance ever. 

But what really jumped out was the #4, #5, and #6 seeds had their worst performance in the 16+ seed era.

And it wasn't even close for the #5 seed.

This year the 5 seed produced only 3 All-Americans.

• That is tied for the lowest total ever in the 8 AA era (1979 - 2025).
• In 1980, when there were also only 3 AA's from the #5 seed they finished second, fourth, and eighth.
• This year they finished fifth, fifth, and eighth. No #5 seed beat his seed.
• This year the #12 seed had more AA's (5) than the #5 seed (3). That had never happened before.

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Wrestleknownothing

[wrestle87]

Mad respect for building this.

Were there any new seeding criteria that were added (or existing that were taken away) that may have over or underweighted certain conferences over others? Ie, where there any structurally over or underweighted talent pools via this years seeding process?

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, wrestle87 said:

Mad respect for building this.

Were there any new seeding criteria that were added (or existing that were taken away) that may have over or underweighted certain conferences over others? Ie, where there any structurally over or underweighted talent pools via this years seeding process?

Good question. The only thing I can think of is the re-weighting of some criteria, but not sure of anything else.

[SNL Wrestling]

Sick stuff!