Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 19 to 27 of 29

Thread: NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

  1. #19

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

    Like I said, the top teams are higher than Iowa, OSU and Minnesota because those three teams were much better during those years and the wrestlers that qualified for this study were seeded much higher. Most of the time the competition from 6-12 if far inferior to 1-5.
    THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPON ON EARTH IS THE HUMAN SOUL ON FIRE

    "I like to relax with a chainsaw." Tom Brands 12/4/09

  2. #20
    NCAA Champ BlueBloodLion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The same planet as you
    Posts
    1,009

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

    Herkey, your competition comparison goes against your theory: If the 6-12 wrestlers are far inferior to the 1-5 (which I agree there is a big drop off), then the higher seeded wrestlers should have an easier time winning, shouldn't they?

    Let's try some other options:

    1. Some teams peak during the regular season, some peak during the tournament.
    2. Some teams are over-rated going into the tournament.

    Using the PSU 2008 season as an example: They had an ok season, then a bad Big 10 tournament, and then pulled out third at NCAA's by outwrestling all but one seed, if I remember. I think only 2 or 3 of Iowa's wrestlers met their seed that year - and in my opinion - they looked better during the season than at that tournament. It got me wondering if Brand's pressure to win all the time meant they peaked too early. On the flip side, I think that tournament bought Troy one more year. Otherwise, finishing that low in the conference probably would have been that excuse the AD used to make a change. An interesting conversation for another time would be who would have replaced him at that time.

  3. #21

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Eisenhauer View Post

    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.

    .

    Explain why you feel that way.

  4. #22

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueBloodLion View Post
    Herkey, your competition comparison goes against your theory: If the 6-12 wrestlers are far inferior to the 1-5 (which I agree there is a big drop off), then the higher seeded wrestlers should have an easier time winning, shouldn't they?
    Not at all. If youre a four seed, it is very hard to beat someone in the top three to outplace your seed. I think it is easier for the ten seed to beat a seven seed. The further down the seedings go the more it becomes a guess. The top five, or so, are easier to rank, in general. After that it's a crap shoot, most of the time.
    THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPON ON EARTH IS THE HUMAN SOUL ON FIRE

    "I like to relax with a chainsaw." Tom Brands 12/4/09

  5. #23

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts View Post
    Explain why you feel that way.
    No offense, but isn't it obvious. The mean is somewhere around 50. To better that by 40% is probably more than three standard deviations.

  6. #24
    NCAA Champ BlueBloodLion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The same planet as you
    Posts
    1,009

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

    Ok, I think there is some logic there. So looking at the round of 16 (top bracket assuming things go to seeds), the matchups are
    12 / 5 11 / 6 10 / 7 9 / 8 and 1 through 4 get unseeded guys.

    We'll assume 1 through 5 get wins based on what we have talked about. I'd consider 11 over 6 an upset but not a surprising one, and I think the others are even matchups. But then to stay in the upper bracket, anyone 5 or lower has to knock off a top 4 seed. If they don't, then they drop down. While there to get higher than the 7/8 match: 6, 7, 10, 12 have to beat #4. 8, 9 and 11 have to beat 5 (or 3). So you are looking at a pretty big upset to place anywhere other than 7 or 8.
    Considering who typically gets seeded low, it is a very tough road to beat a seed. It really takes two solid upsets. So yes, mathematically there is more room to beat your seed if you are seeded low, the reality is pretty tough.

    I really think peaking for the tournament play a pretty big role and maybe some over-ranking during the season.

  7. #25

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

    Given that being "even" with your seed is a "W", in all likelyhood, the average is over 50%. I'd be interested to know what the numbers are if being equal to seed is counted as a "tie", ie. half a win, half a loss.

  8. #26

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SetonHallPirate View Post
    Given that being "even" with your seed is a "W", in all likelyhood, the average is over 50%. I'd be interested to know what the numbers are if being equal to seed is counted as a "tie", ie. half a win, half a loss.
    I don't think it's a lot over 50. Only 16 schools had a score over 50, so that would suggest a mean pretty close to 50 - especially when the 10th school is at 55. 40-60 was where most of the scores occurred. If there were approximately 95 schools in D1, that would mean 79 at or below (mostly below) 50.

  9. #27

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

    There is no way US/DNP is a win. If that was the case, Liberty, SDSU, etc. would have scored 100. Many of those lower tier schools have had unseeded qualifiers that failed to AA.

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
  •