Wrestleknownothing

They did via the win %.

A pox upon me. I used the wrong data set for my starting point. I started with the highest scoring wrestlers at the NCAA tourney. Gray was not among the top 222. I will fix this.

After reading a thread on HR about where Spencer Lee stands in the pantheon of four timers I decided to take a look at 100%ers instead. Since 1928 there have been 20 wrestlers who won all the titles they were eligible for (yes, I am including Spencer Lee and Yianni Dikomihalis because it is a 100%-slam dunk-guarantee they will win their fourth - you heard it here first). For these 20 I looked at a variety of metrics that I thought were important. For dominance I looked at bonus points per NCAA match (using today's scoring system), pinfall %, and career win %. But I also wanted to measure permanence. In the early days they wrestled very few matches. And I think this matters. It is easier to win 25 straight matches than it is to win 100 straight. So I included total NCAA matches wrestled, total career wins, and total career pinfalls. Some metrics favor the old and some favor the new. To adjust for this reasonable people might weigh these metrics differently than I did. Or include other metrics. Or exclude these metrics. There are choices. What I did was count the number of times a wrestler appears in the top quartile and sort by that count. To break ties I sorted by the average rank. I fully expect Iowa and Cornell fans to absolutely hate this post. Homework: How do you feel about where the two newest four timers stand? Would you include three for three wrestlers in your list? Why or why not?

youse got dat right

Feels very Midwest. I'll allow it.

There are times I have such a difficult time reading your sentences. I think the smudges at the end are too distracting. And one correction. I am more than occasionally misguided.

Is there room for a second bum?

Amen, brother.

The heart wants what the heart wants.

Pinfall has majesty. Exclamation points have no magic to move men's souls.

It was hard to watch. Up 2-0 and lose 2-5. Oof.

Last year @BerniePragle and I spent time inputting the results for 2010 - 2022 by year, weight, seed, and school. Unfortunately I did not include bonus points. Doing bonus points by seed is a LOT more work than just doing it the way we did. What we came up with was an expected advancement and placement points per seed rather than a score that reflects what they would get if they wrestled exactly to their seed. This recognizes the fact that seeds and results can be very different things. For example, from 2010 - 2022 a #1 seed's max points would be 20 plus bonus, but the actual average is 16.81 points. This reflects that the average finish for a #1 seed is between second and third. It looks like this: Now, if you are willing to do the same with bonus points by year, weight, seed, and school and share it would be greatly appreciated.

I worded this very poorly. A better way to say it is: if you rescored the 1997 tournament using today's scoring, Iowa would have 175.5 rather than 170.

5th place is worth 2 more points today than in 97, 6th place is worth 3 more points, giving PSU 5 more placement points given your assumptions. The only other difference is that Iowa had a single match termination which was worth 1 point. Today it would be worth 1.5 points.

No, I just took a look at the brackets on Wrestlingstats.

PSU scores 5 more placement points plus Van Ness' 1.5 to 2. The issue PSU would still have is they are not a big bonus point team. Iowa scored 34 bonus points in 97. PSU will get about half of that.

No such thing anymore.

146.5 in 2017

I think it may be the opposite. In 1997 you only got 1.5 points for a TF if you scored back points. If you led by 15 without back points, it was a match termination and only worth 1 team point. Also third through eighth were worth less then (9, 7, 5, 3, 2, 1) than they are now (10, 9, 7, 6, 4, 3). But @gimpeltf would be best to weigh in on this.

I am a massive PSU fan and I would take the under on every one of those numbers.

I am jealous.

Just vacations and work trips. But I am a big Liverpool fan. So if you hear me saying things like he gave him a Scouse kiss, it's twitchy bum time, he ate all the pies, he hit a purple patch, or they are at sixes and sevens, you will know where it came from.

If they wrestle out of their minds they will be lucky to get within 30 points of the record, which won't even put them in the top 10. To say SI is a shadow of its old self is among the understatements of the year.

Here is my pure guesswork for PSU and Iowa. PSU had 15.5 bonus points last year. I think they lose a net of 3.5 at 141 (swapping Beau Bartlett for Nick Lee) and gain 2.5 among 149, 157 and 165, with Levi Haines the most likely to score bonus. Everything else is a push. That gives them 14.5 bonus points. Iowa had 9 bonus points last year. I think they gain 5.5 at 125, loses 3.5 (swapping Brody Teske for Austin DeSanto) at 133, gains 3.5 at 141, and loses 2 at 174 (swapping Nelson Brands for Michael Kemerer). Everything else is a push. That gives them 12.5 bonus points.

I did this once. I wanted to see if more bonus points are scored on the championship side of the bracket or the consolation side. It breaks down to about 52% / 48%, so there is probably a modest correlation to seed. This is for 2010 - 2022, so a different time period than above.