Wrestleknownothing

Ironic that you say you can't look at one situation and then look at one situation. I am not looking at one situation. I am looking at the totality of all situations. And when you do that you see that Big 10 wrestlers get seeded higher in spite of their loses.

Think about that for a second. The post I was responding to said that the Big 10 gets screwed by wrestling each other, but Brooks' lose was a non-conference match.

Nice. Safe travels. I am jealous. Not going this year.

Is here Alaska?

Is that you, Kevin?

I think the actual quote was: "Sometimes the Lord brings you low, the rest of the times it is my ankle pick." - Cael Sanderson

But the RBY one was in private.

More interestingly, based on PSU's seeds and the empirical results of all seeds (not just PSU) from 2010 - 2022, the expected number of champions for PSU is 1.5. Does anyone want to take the under?

AK, AK, AK, why do you have to exaggerate? It is actually 0.00002%. It goes a little something like this:

I think Yianni would be least likely. He has gonna 13 straight regular decisions at NCAAs.

You may want to catch up on the rules and associated interpretation the NCAA issued earlier this year. They say the opposite.

How good of a swimmer did you need to be to gain respect? No reason for the question. Just a random thought.

I don't think that is his style. In years past when they asked him about a seed (maybe Berge?) he responded, "he got what he earned". And RBY said Cael told him right before his first final, "In 10 years no one will remember this." He is more about taking pressure off than piling it on or playing the us against the world, no one believed we could do it card.

The idea that the Big 10 broadly gets screwed in seeding does not hold up this year. While the Big 10 1 seeds are all undefeated, I do not think anyone has a problem with 1 lose Yianni Diakomihalis, or to a lesser extent, 1 lose Parker Keckeisen as a 1 seed. Big 10 2, 3, and 4 seeds have more loses on average than the same seeds from every other conference. And when you compare them to the next most represented conference, the Big12, they have more loses at every seed (where they both have wrestlers) all the way down to the 9 seed.

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.