Wrestleknownothing

Said he is focusing on coaching.

His win % was also below 72 which wound up being the cutoff.

Deserves? No one, but they had 4 guys ranked in the top 33 and got three allocations.

Crook did not have an RPI, Fongaro and Hamden did.

ACC, Big 12, EIWA, and Pac 12 all gave blood at 141. The only reason they did not get 4 is that Tom Crook switched weights and only had 14 matches at 141, not enough for an RPI. I am surprised they didn't send him to a tournie somewhere.

I had no idea. Do you know how many total?

With the Coaches' Rank being published along side the allocations we can see who the coaches think will win. Surprise, surprise. They seem to be picking a plucky, young upstart of a program. No one saw this coming. And Iowa returns to second with NC State and Oklahoma State joining them on the expected podium. But really all of those slots are "too close to call". The first two columns above will be strongly influenced by the state of one right knee. As the #1 ranked wrestler at 174, Starocci currently accounts for 20.5 expected points, but two inj defaults at the Big 10 tournament probably knocks him down to the #3-#6 seed range, costing about 6 - 11 expected points. If he can't go, then the impact is probably closer to 18 or 19 expected points.

bottom of page 2 of this thread

Yep, he is #33 in the coaches' ranking, so he is a go.

YOY Changes: Big 12 with 8 fewer spots than last year, including 3 fewer at 285. EIWA picks up 8 spots, with 3 more at 184. Pac 12 (+5 spots), and (ACC -5) spots were the other big winner and loser. Only five weights maxed out the pre-allocated spots this year (149, 157, 174, 197, 285). 125 and 141 with the most At-Large spots (6)

I was going to post a pic of Bart writing on the chalkboard "Simpson's paradox isn't mine", but I ran out of disc space. C'est la vie. In the meantime I am worried about my fitted data from the other day. I clearly overstated the probability of #7 winning. More about path dependency than faulty causal inferences.

Interesting. The WWE did not seem to be going that well for him. I know he is a different level talent, but I always wonder what not wrestling does for one's wrestling.

Pretty wild to think that the last 13 times a #7 seed has made the final, they have lost. Until you realize that all 13 times the #7 hit the #1 in the final. For the #7 to win (or #10, etc), they really need the #1 to get knocked off first.

Shoulda used that in school. "Jokes on you, teacher. I didn't get the math wrong, I was just trolling the numbers."

It has almost happened 12 of the last 22 tournaments, including last year. If only it was horseshoes or hand grenades.

#7 seeds who took 1st #1 seeds who took 8th

Yes, he was ranked #1 on Flo until mid November, on Intermat and Wrestlestat he was #1 until he lost his first bout of the year on January 8 to Jordan Titus.

I saw that too. Maybe his middle name is tech? Joe Tech Pins.

How did we not know this? NCAA Most Dominant Leaders through 2/26/24

My kingdom for the data

I do not think there is discretion by the selection committee. At least the document describing the process does not refer to it. For example: "The pre-allocations will be determined by using a sliding scale of the three standards while never going below the base of .700 winning percentage, Top 30 Coach Rank and Top 30 RPI Rank reaching up to the maximum of 29 wrestlers per weight class." From: 2023-24 NCAA DIVISION I WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIPS SELECTION CRITERIA GRID (UPDATED February 12, 2024)

This is what before and after looks like: Take the lower left green box in the left picture (raw data). It represents 1 wrestler at #25 who AA'd in 1 of the 4 years that ranks went to 33 (2.5%). Does that mean that every four years we should expect to see that? Or is it more likely that we will see something similar every ten years or so (1%), or more (<1%)? If the later then the expectation would be that as time passes, we are more likely to see one #24, or one #26 achieve AA than another #25. The fitting process assumes the latter and accounts for this by effectively treating AA as a category rather than eight separate categories. The other thing it achieves is to fill in more obvious discontinuities. For example, no #7 seed won between 2010 and 2023. Does that mean a #7 seed has no chance to win? Not likely given that winners have come from #8, #9, #11, and #13 seeds in that time. And no #1 seed busted out in the blood round in my sample, but two busted out before in the round prior to the the blood round. So a 13-16 exit for a #1 seed is certainly possible, and on the right it is filled in.

2019. It has only been four tournaments.

And that is number two. Well done.