Wrestleknownothing

That translates as blah, blah, blah. Feel free to read through my prior opuses on the topic.

Ideally, yes, but where that gets problematic is you wind up over-Balkanizing the data. If a team has a 10 seed and they have never had a 10 seed before, what do you do with that? I am thinking of playing with ranges instead, but stay tuned.

Correct. I have thought about doing something with that, but have been a bit conflicted on it. I will give it some more thought.

This one is a little tougher to read, but here goes. Based on 2010-2023: The first three columns show the percentage of times a team beats it seed, matches its seed, and does worse than its seed The second set of three columns shows what their average seed is when they beat it, match it, or do worse than it. The third set of three columns shows by how much a team beats their seed, matches their seed (always zero), or does worse than their seed. An example of the way to read this would be: Ohio State beat their seed 35% of the time from 2010-2023 and when they beat their seed they were seeded at 12.5 and beat that by 5.8. Said that way, Iowa is pretty impressive in that they beat their seed more often than anyone else (36% of the time) and did it while having a very high starting point (9.3 seed on average - second highest). And they do it by 4.1 spots. And when they underperform it is usually because they have a very high seed (5.6 - highest) and they only underperform by an average amount (5.9 spots).

Here is how each of the expected top 15 teams has performed relative to their seeds since 2010: One thing to keep in mind is that these teams are likely to have higher seeds. This means they have more room to miss by than room to outperform by. So if 50% perform worse than seed, it is likely that they will underperform their expected score rather than match their expected score.

As a Penn State fan, this sounds like a terrible idea. On second thought, that is exactly what Iowa has been doing for the past decade. (Rimshot). I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitresses.

If Iowa has their wrestlers reinstated with reasonable* penalties, what does that look like for the team race? Assumptions: There is no real difference between Voinovich and Siebrecht, so I left Voinovich in the lineup Caliendo did better at his one NCAA tournament than Kennedy did at his one, so I left Caliendo in the lineup. Brands did much better than Kennedy at his last NCAA tournament, so I gave him the nod at 174. And Brands would presumably have a higher ranking in a pre-season poll than if Kennedy bumped up a weight. A theoretical Cassioppi gets the nod over an even more theoretical Ferrari at 285. And I think Ferrari would have a lower pre-season ranking than Cassioppi at 285 given the two year layoff and new weight. And I am assuming Ferrari cannot make 197 anymore, so Franklin stays in the lineup. Iowa's New Total Iowa's new total look like this: In addition to jumping from 43.1 to 64.2 points (ex bonus). Iowa also gains 1.6 expected AA's from the three returning wrestlers. Title Race Implications Where does that put them for the title race? A solid second. For this I also added Austin Gomez into the Michigan total as a 4 seed behind Lovett, Van Ness, and Parco. Michigan then creeps past Cornell for third (who are we kidding? it is a virtual tie). And Nebraska falls off the podium (what say you Nebraska super fans?) ------------------------------------------- * blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I know. I disagree. ** Title race, haha. I crack myself up sometimes. *** Even though there is no *** above, lets add it down here anyway. Say Ferrari does make 197 and has enough credits to enroll and can get accepted into Iowa. Say. What does that look like? Well, I cannot see Ferrari any higher than the 2 seed behind Brooks. As a 2 seed that is an incremental 12.7 points, moving Iowa to 76.9. Still solidly in second place. But let's say he is the 1 seed and Brooks is the 2, that closes the gap from 44.1 to 36.8 (+3.7 for Iowa, -3.7 for PSU).

Then why did you post about politics with the thinnest veil of wrestling?

Not all pins, but close

Why would I hate more wrestling? I love the idea. It is a shame that the early season tourneys have faded in prestige.

I turned down the scholarship to go to the more expensive school. And I have never had to avoid ex-girlfriends. You do like to project your circumstances on to others. I can't help but wonder if that informs your abhorrent opinions on sexual assault as well.

Would you believe me if I told you I turned down a swimming scholarship for the chance to pay my own way through college at a school without a regulation size pool?

I can see that. I read it as placed higher.

Interesting. I chose surpassed intentionally because I thought it was neutral.

I think it is very difficult to quantify Woods' improvement. While his placement improved his relative placement did not. He was the second highest finishing returner and finished second, after surpassing Matthews and being surpassed by Alirez.

They are both 1%

I assume you are ignoring the NCAA tournament?

He is from Minnesota, not Iowa

And I know what he is.

Two questions. Can Zain make 65kg anymore? Will Gable get permission from fake wrestling to do real wrestling?

He was 94. https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/dispatch/name/robert-dieli-obituary?id=1778893

No

I have no idea what you are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. What? No, I'm not. You are. Shut up.

https://nittanysportsnow.com/2023/10/psu-wrestling-aaron-nagao-injured-could-return-start-season/

I don't know what the reason is, but I would have that one pretty far down my list. In no particular order my list would include injury, his boss changed his mind, he is juicing for pretend wrestling, and he changed his mind.