maligned

I think it's a semantics thing. Are traditional rankings predictive of future winners? Certainly, to a degree. They're much more accurately predictive than a coin flip. But is being predictive their purpose? No. Predictive ratings use every piece of data available with no constraints. But traditional rankings are constrained by certain win/loss reward conventions expected by the public. Example: predictive ratings know all of Gable Steveson's history and would rate him above Hendrickson if the season continued because he would be a significant favorite in a rematch. Traditional rankings are constrained to this seasons wins and losses only and would rank Hendrickson ahead of Gable until a new win/loss event happens that is counter to the ranking. In that sense, rankings aren't designed to be predictive, but reward-based above all else.

I can't tell if this comment is tongue-in-cheek. I was presenting an exaggerated scenario to illustrate a point. I wasn't making any comment, in any way, about expectations of actual performance level by Ono this year. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I've never gambled even a penny on wrestling. But I love to analyze all sports and tinker with predictive ratings. Results are key to those and form the basis for those. But win/loss results alone, in a robotic, traditional rankings methodology are not predictive and don't pretend to be so. You can ask rankers. They will all say that conventions of ranking prevent them from putting who they think are truly the best wrestlers in their proper places in many instances. Again--this is because rankings are a recency-biased win/loss rewards system with standardized conventions. Things like margin of victory, past season performance, non-official results, and known performance-hindering injuries are not incorporated in any way--even though they would dramatically improve the predictive nature of rankings. I know you know this: people who set gambling odds don't care about rankings in any way. They incorporate much more data than wins and losses into their odds. They aren't limited in the facts and data they're allowed to use. If you picked win/loss favorites based on rankings compared to based on oddsmakers' assessments--the rankings fall far short. Again, because they're not designed, in principle, to be predictive.

Meant to be funny...but hopefully spot on. Anyone I respect that seems to be a genuine follower of Jesus reflects exactly that picture--whether they were religious before or not.

And win%. And possibly coaches' rank, which, like many rankings, is probably too biased toward win% also.

There's a thread asking about Penn St. being permitted a B team. Should they just have their own conference? Using @Wrestleknownothing's work on each team's NCAA's performance, I created the table below and posted it on another thread. Expected points are calculated based off of average past performance by every seed. If you notice, Penn St. would be the 3rd highest scoring conference with only their 10 starters (see "actual team points"). More than that, no conference other than the Big 10 had an All-American at every weight. Penn St. did that alone. In fact, Penn St.'s individual placed better than the highest placer from each non-Big 10 conference in at least 7 weights (including vs. the Big 12). If we're going to allow Penn St. to have a B team, why not go all the way and allow them to be their own conference of 20 or 30 wrestlers?

Using @Wrestleknownothing 's work, here is the performance of each conference (fyi WKN, I adjusted your "expected" values down 1.5% to reflect total overall points actually scored in the tournament).

To illustrate everyone's point one more way: Mendez, as national champ, is undefeated at 141 until Big 10s next year. Ono is also undefeated at 141, but techs every single guy he faces in the first period the entire season. Mendez will be ranked #1 on every site, because he cannot, on ranking principles, drop until he loses. However, everyone and their mother will be "predicting" an Ono over Mendez result at Big 10s--including the rankers who have Ono slotted #2 on their website. Rankings and predictions are closely correlated--but rankings are win/loss reward based, not predictive, in their purpose.

Yes, they overstate the actual probabilities significantly--especially for the longer odds--to protect their butts. What I'm saying, though, is that they don't overstate by double...their implied odds here for PSU's champs were 3.9, so I'm saying that even with very, very conservative butt-protecting they expected PSU to win more than 3 titles, on average.

Me too. Favorites' odds in a futures list are usually "overstated" by about 8% so that payouts aren't as high. Longer odds are overstated by 10-20% depending on how far down the list you go. Going strictly on their implied odds, they only paid out as if there should have been 3.9 PSU champs. But that number tells us they thought PSU should have had about 3.6 champs in all reality. Even if we think they overstated the PSU guys by 15% (which would be way higher than normal and throw off the rest of the odds list), they still would have been expected to get 3.3 champs. Historical seeds aren't a bad way of estimating performance expectation, but most of PSU's guys this year would have been expected to win more frequently than a standard individual at their seeds. (e.g. Starocci and Mesenbrink had much higher probabilities of winning than a standard #1, Haines and Van Ness much higher than typical #2 and #3, etc.) The odds reflected that, even once we compensate for their profit-taking overstated probabilities.

Actually, exact implied odds here are 3.9 champs. They typically overprice futures by about 8% for favorites and 10-20% for longer shots. If you factor in typical overpricing, genuine expected champs in the view of their algorithm was 3.6. I just split the difference when I quoted 3.75.

Two betting favorites took home titles. Implied average number of champs for PSU if the tournament was wrestled 100 times was 3.75. Confirms the sense that the weekend was probably a little bittersweet with only 2 titles.

Going from 141 to 143 feels like a non-issue? Is prepping for 143 at 149 a thing? I haven't heard it before.

Sorry. Jon Jones and Mike Tyson were among the best ever at their sports and had phenomenal coaches. Neither strike me as ones that would be good coaches themselves. There's just too much going on in their heads. Bringing out the best in world-class athletes needs special qualities that you don't automatically have just because you're world-class yourself.

This is exactly it. Being better prepared and having a better approach are huge components of being a better wrestler. It takes great coaching to help gifted guys harness their skills.

Wow. I'm amazed by the growth in several of the Okie St. guys. I thought DT would be able to recruit and build an NIL program at elite levels. But I never thought he'd have the selflessness and mentoring mentality to develop guys' wrestling like Cael and Manning, for example. I still won't cheer for them anytime soon, but I have to give huge props to DT and his guys for the preparation and individual progress they showed.

Can't tell if that's tongue-in-cheek? Gable was a pretty good heavyweight then. By the Olympic year, he was on another planet and he's never come back. Gable now would tech Gable then.

70% first round, 50% second round, 10% vs Shapiro, 45% semis, 10% vs Kasak All seems sort of doable until you run the numbers. It's approximately 650:1 that he'll win all 5 in a row. They hedge a bit to protect their butts and land on published odds of 500:1. (I'm guessing they think his real chance is even slightly worse than that 650:1 number to publish at 500:1)

Lots of in-season examples show us that D2/D3/NAIA champs are roughly D1 qualifier level--but only AA level in rare cases. Wabash 4-time D3 undefeated champ Lefever was in numerous open tournaments from 2015 to 17, with a winning record against D1 national qualifiers but a losing record against AAs. He was more dominant in D3 at 197 than Endene, bonusing everyone in the old scoring system his last 2 years in addition to being unbeaten all 4 seasons. He did then continue to improve and placed top 5 multiple times in US world team qualifier tournaments at 92 and 97kg.

WOW! This is amazing work.

The Hardy one is just more obvious. But ranking Ramos over Lilledahl also feels very normal if you're considering all matches equally and only elevating certain matches' importance for tiebreakers' sake.

I disagree a little bit. I think it's a little more predictable than last year. I'll be surprised if we don't see any of Ramos, Figs, or Lilledahl on the podium. Ramos has been way more active and aggressive than last year. I don't think he'll lose a match because of freezing up again. Figs looked insane at Big 12s other than the fluke loss his first match. He could certainly lose an upset, but it's hard to imagine him losing a couple other than amongst the very best. And Lilledahl seems to be at the highest level he's been all year. I expect one of these 3 to win it and all of them to be Top 8.

It's not about disregarding tournaments. It's that rankings and standings consider all matches/games equally, with tiebreaker biases toward head-to-heads first and foremost, then possibly toward recency or specified bigger events. When two guys or teams have one loss versus three losses and the head-to-head is also involved, the 3-loss guy will never be ranked higher because of the principle of weighting all results mostly on the same footing.

We knew the seeds would go the way that they did because there's a heavy emphasis on conference championships. But back to the ranking discussion here: Bartlett's wins against the seeded field (10-1, 3-1 Top 8, 7-1 Top 16): #1, #3, #3, #13, #14, #15, #15, #23, #27, #28 Loss: #6 Hardy's wins against the seeded field (12-3, 5-3 Top 8, 8-3 Top 16): #3, #4, #4, #6, #6, #12, #14, #15, #21, #28, #29, #31 Losses: #2, #5, #7 Again, if there's no conference championship and recency bias in play, there's no way a blind résumé analysis puts Hardy in front. He wrestled a slightly tougher schedule, but he lost 3 of 8 against the best AND lost the head-to-head. If this were a high school seeding meeting heading into the state series, people would wonder why we're even talking. Hardy deserves the #1 seed based on the conference championship biased protocol. But the question of why rankers have Bartlett ahead of Hardy doesn't have a complicated response.

Not if they played similar schedules. No.