Wrestleknownothing

Me too. Unfortunately I do not have prior year records. Sorry.

I felt a little dirty typing that title. Maybe Jimmy is getting to me. Of course, there are no easy weights. But I think the consensus is that 165, with 3 returning champs, is the toughest. To get the debate started I give you the cumulative winning percentage, wins, and loses by weight sorted by win percentage.

Post pandemic there has been a lot of "load management" and fewer tournaments to fatten up win totals.

I would not discount the planning and adjustments options of the PSU staff/wrestlers. Dean could not penetrate Allred's defense in their earlier match. And he could not stop Allred's shots. If Dean can find a way to finish/get past Allred's defense then he spends less time defending Allred's shots. I have no idea what that adjustment might be, but I know that PSU has a very good history here. I am not calling for a Dean win, but I do think that no one should be surprised if he did take the re-match.

Yeah, he is a curious case. All other undefeated wrestlers (11) are either the 1 seed or the 2 seed, but he is the 5 seed behind three one loss wrestlers and an undefeated wrestler. The Iowa and PSU fans complain they get penalized for wrestling a tough B1G schedule, but it seems clear that the opposite was the case for Haines and Robb.

By the way, the losses for the 4 seed above are incorrect, but it is too late for me to edit and replace the graph. I noticed that the official NCAA brackets have Michael McGee (ASU 133) with a 20-10 record. His actual record is 20-2. Also known as 20 and Vitali.

Teske lost to everybody, he should have a tough draw, that is what being a 25 seed is about. Name me a 25 seed with any easy path to the final, or semis, or quarters, or the second round. Warner is undefeated against Caffey 4-0. Caffey got injured at B1Gs to boot. Sounds like an easy draw. So we are down to 4/10. Sounds like Iowa got favorable treatment.

For example, no pattern to the average number of wins by seed, but a definite pattern to the average number of losses.

Yes

It is not hard per se, just labor intensive. When you and I put together the data set I have been using for this we focused on endpoints (the #1 seed finished 2nd, the #2 seed finished 1st, the #3 seed finish round of 12, etc.). For bonus points we would also need to track each of their pathes to know what bonus they scored, and ideally where they scored it. At one point last year, someone reached out to me to say they had a dataset that contained the detailed results of every NCAA match. They were looking to monetize this via Twitter and a website. We talked about providing visualizations and content, but he seems to have faded. I thought I could save some labor this way, but alas it was not to be.

There was no penalty for not wrestling, just a penalty for losing.

And Actual Real Live Expected All Americans by Team: For those of you who hate the decimal think of it as a rudimentary probability. So for PSU 5.6 means they have a 40% chance of 5 and a 60% chance of 6 AA's (I am simplifying a bit).

Oh, Joy. We have actual seeds. No more messing around with ranks that are....I know, I know...NOT predictions (even though they are sometimes). HEADLINE: THE GAP IS CLOSING When last we gathered to perform this exercise immediately prior to the conference tournaments PSU was a solid 31 point favorite. Now with guys like Max Dean (9th) and Aaron Brooks (3rd) seeded below their rank, PSU is coming back to the field and stands as an 18 point favorite. Still a clear favorite, but well within the bounds of volatility such that you have to give Iowa at least a puncher's chance (maybe more). Add to that PSU is not the bonus machine of years past and we could have a real barn burner of a tournament.

Speak for yourself. Judge Judy and I have issued our verdict.

So, here is what I don't get. He is the richest man in the world (at least I think he is back on top), why would you want to get into petty Twitter fights with people you laid off? Wouldn't you have people you paid to handle the crappy stuff? He can just choose not to be a petty jerk on social media. That is one of his options. Instead he makes being a billionaire seem a very sad existence. It seems a simple choice.

That one stunned me at the time. Talk about a lack of attention to detail.

The alternates come from the pool of other at large candidates.

I believe that is how it was handled with Wyatt Sheets in 2021. He was inserted as the 33 seed. I am not sure if it was the prior 33 seed that had dropped though.

But then how would Jason Nolf have demonstrated his monastic attention to detai?

Thank you for the kind offer, but no, thank you. Via DM another poster has made the same offer. As I explained to him, I have made certain choices with intent knowing there will be minor inconveniences associated with them on rare occasion. This is one of the rare occasions, and I am ok with that.

I don't have Venmo, Zelle, or any other electronic payment apps, and I am not really interested in getting one. I agree with @GreatWhiteNorth that it looks like a good time will be had by all, but I will have to live vicariously.

It has to be Haines after he knocked off the consensus #1

It would help if I wasn't a dummy. I just thought to look at this. The jumps in the discrete number of teams in 1963 and 1979 coincide with the increase in the number of places (i.e. AA's). In 1962 there were four placers per weight. In 1963 it increased to six per weight, and in 1979 it increased to the current eight per weight. The decrease from 1979 to present does correlate with the general decline in programs, which by my estimate peaked in 1975. This is probably causation, too. Those team counts are not official. They are just my best estimate based data assembled from multiple sources.

I am out. Enjoy, gents. @VakAttack, enjoy London with the family. Safe travels.

I think the genetic battle instincts must be a little rusty.