Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 29

Thread: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

  1. #10

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Eisenhauer View Post
    Nobody loses three matches at Nationals.
    Actually there are twenty wrestlers (at the bare minimum) who lose three matches at NCAA's and become All Americans. All the 6th place and 8th place finishers finish with three losses.
    RIP Jacob Schlottke - 1984-2011

    "If Cornell finishes ahead of Iowa with five all americans I'll jump into the Des Moines River after finals." -Herkey#1 8/16/12

  2. #11

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    I think it's exactly 20. The 6th and 8th placers each have 3 losses, but no one else does. I was incorrect.

  3. #12

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    Seeding is not an exact science at all. Dake wrestled above his seed at 4, Taylor wrestled above his seed at 3. It just comes down to math, as Herkey said there are more opportunities for a higher seed to outplace his seed than there is for a 1 or 2 seed.

  4. #13

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    Would you make the assumption that those teams that scoried high, say above 60 (Penn State (72.1), Lehigh (67.6), Ohio State (66.7), Edinboro (64.3)) (no idea what the standard dev on this data is) kinda got screwed on their seeding? Or did they out perform? not sure how many wrestlers OSU and Edinboro had, but given the number lehigh and Penn st had it looks like pretty skewed data for those 2 teams.

    It would be interesting to see which teams underperformed and which conferences underperformed or overperformed (give a validation to the automatic births). I am assuming that once you get to a score of 50 it means you are placing your seed. Is that right?

  5. #14

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    Quentin Wright single handedly bolstered PSU to the top of that list with his 2 NCAA performances.
    To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.

  6. #15

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    it would be interesting to see the average seeding postions of each school with these rankings.

  7. #16

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by dmo View Post
    Would you make the assumption that those teams that scoried high, say above 60 (Penn State (72.1), Lehigh (67.6), Ohio State (66.7), Edinboro (64.3)) (no idea what the standard dev on this data is) kinda got screwed on their seeding? Or did they out perform? not sure how many wrestlers OSU and Edinboro had, but given the number lehigh and Penn st had it looks like pretty skewed data for those 2 teams.

    It would be interesting to see which teams underperformed and which conferences underperformed or overperformed (give a validation to the automatic births). I am assuming that once you get to a score of 50 it means you are placing your seed. Is that right?
    No, think in win/loss terms. If you meet or exceed your seed, it's a win. If you don't, it's a loss. The percentages are like winning percentages in baseball or basketball. If as many guys are not meeting or exceeding as are those who are, your percentage would be .500 or 50.0%. For Penn State, it's just slightly less than three of four.

    I deleleted the data, but I recall that PSU had sometime close to 12 wrestlers (now I'm virtually sure that was the number based on what follows) in 13 years that didn't meet or exceed seed. 31 did. So 31/43 = 72.1. Lehigh clocks in at 2 meeting or exceeding for each one that doesn't. Iowa and Ok. St. are about 11 "wins" for every 9 "losses", or a little over .500 (50.0 on the referenced scale).

    If Quentin had failed to meet or exceed seed in both Nationals in which he's participated, PSU would have been 29/14 and just about dead-even with Lehigh (67.4 v. 67.6). But it's kind of silly to start carving individuals out of the data, isn't it?

    You can make a pretty good start on which conferences do well and those that don't be looking at the top 10. I think there were only 16 schools that exceed 50% for their winning percentages over those 13 years.

  8. #17

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    Steve-I'd be interested to see the totals in the first 11 (under Troy Sunderland) versus the last two (under Sanderson).

  9. #18

    Default Re: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by SetonHallPirate View Post
    Steve-I'd be interested to see the totals in the first 11 (under Troy Sunderland) versus the last two (under Sanderson).
    This year was sort of "average" for Penn State. 5-2 (71.4).

    2010 - Pataky Unseeded/DNP (not sure how that scores); Molinaro 5/5 (W); Sanderson 4/6 (L); Vallimont 6/2 (W); Erwin 11/DNP (L); Wade U/DNP (again, not sure, but I would guess these are W's). So that would be 4-2, a bit below average - for PSU.

    As you might guess, most schools fell in the 40-60% range, iirc.

    If I am guessing correctly about the scoring, being unseeded is an "advantage" to some extent, in that you can't post an "L" for your team. But it's also possible to toss U/DNP out of the final data so as not to skew the results. Don't know what methodology was employed.

    I was surprised to see four schools score so highly, frankly. The top three in particular posted results I wouldn't have thought likely. PSU's 72.1% is insanely high, and Lehigh and Ohio State also come in at a 2:1 ratio or better, which is mind-boggling to me.

    Iowa and Ok. State had about double the tracked wrestlers of Penn State in those 13 years and Minnesota was lagging behind the top two by a decent amount.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •