When my kids were little and they would complain about something it usually took the form of "I never get to ____, you always get to ____" and was usually directed at a sibling. Oh, and it was always wrong. So, I would respond with "I don't want to hear 'I never, you always' ".
Some of the debates on here can take that form. It is especially the case with NCAA performance. People say some form of "my team always out performs their seed, but your team always under performs". Is that true?
At the risk of ending the debate (ha, ha, ha) I present some data on how teams perform at NCAA's based on 2010 - 2022 results. This gets a bit tricky when you span 12 seed, 16 seed, and 33 seed tournaments.
To deal with that:
An unseeded wrestler can only perform at their seed or better than their seed in my world.
Meanwhile, a seeded wrestler has all three options available to them.
Not a perfect choice, but here we are, none the less. Also, I use the midpoint of the range for non-All Americans. So, a wrestler knocked out in the blood round gets credit for finishing 10.5 ( (12+9)/2 ), if they were not seeded 9 through 12. If they were seeded 9 through 12, they get credit for “At Seed”.
How Often? The first set of three columns shows the % of times a team falls into each category (Better Than Seed, At Seed, or Worse Than Seed)
By How Much? The second set of three columns shows the average of the degree of performance. So when Minnesota outperforms their seed they do it by an average of 3.9 spots.
Yeah, But Where Did They Start? The the third set of three columns shows what the average seed was by category.
The obvious conclusion is that Little Rock is the most under rated tournament team of all time. Do not open your gate for these Trojan horses.
With no further ado, the top 20 by "Better" %: