NCAA tournament performance vs. seed 1999-2011

[Steve Eisenhauer]

Denny Diehl of the online Lehigh University Wrestling News (actually an email distribution) does some interesting statistical analyses from time to time. One in the most recent missive was surprising.

Subject was wrestlers' performance vs. seed for the last 13 tournaments measured in win/loss terms by whether the wrestler placed higher or lower than his seed. Top 10 in order by "winning percentage" were:

Penn State (72.1)
Lehigh (67.6)
Ohio State (66.7)
Edinboro (64.3)
Indiana (59.3)
Oklahoma (58.3)
Cornell (57.8)

Minnesota (56.8)
Missouri (55.6)
Iowa (55.1)

I would not have predicted those results.

[WhippetGrappler]

Glad to see my Buckeyes in the top 3!!

[Zapp Brannigan]

Actually, I find Iowa and Minnesota's results pretty impressive. Those are programs that typically have most or all of their wrestlers seeded.

[tigerfan]

10 very good programs. Notably absent is OkSt. Clearly they, as well as Minny and Iowa to a lesser extent, are hurt by their consistently high seeds. Much tougher to exceed a 3 seed than a 12 seed.

[JensenS]

Actually, I find Iowa and Minnesota's results pretty impressive. Those are programs that typically have most or all of their wrestlers seeded.

I had this thought as well when looking at the numbers.

Impressive numbers for the programs ranked in the top 3 but this is a point that needs to be kept in mind when looking at statistics broken down in this fashion.

[Steve Eisenhauer]

10 very good programs. Notably absent is OkSt. Clearly they, as well as Minny and Iowa to a lesser extent, are hurt by their consistently high seeds. Much tougher to exceed a 3 seed than a 12 seed.

Oklahoma State was #11.

I just don't understand the logic behind the statements that being seeded high is a disadvantage when it comes to meeting or exceeding your seed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you wrestling higher seeded people more often if you are seeded lower or not seeded at all?

The "win" side is meet or exceed your seed, in case that wasn't clear.

[Zapp Brannigan]

Oklahoma State was #11.

I just don't understand the logic behind the statements that being seeded high is a disadvantage when it comes to meeting or exceeding your seed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you wrestling higher seeded people more often if you are seeded lower or not seeded at all?

The "win" side is meet or exceed your seed, in case that wasn't clear.

If you're a 1 or a 2 seed, if you lose once, you have no chance to meet or exceed your seed. If you're a 11 seed, you could conceivably lose 3 matches and exceed your seed. Same if you're a 7 seed. That type of thing. If you're a school that has a lot of seeds and/or very high seeds, it's much easier to get upset once or even twice and lose the ability to meet seed. There's so many variables, and most of the wrestlers are very close to one another.

[Steve Eisenhauer]

If you're 2, you can lose in the final and equal your seed. Nobody loses three matches at Nationals. But unless you beat wrestlers seeded above you as a lower seed or unseeded, you cannot exceed your seed. I still have to believe beating wrestlers seeded above you is, almost by definition, more difficult than beating those seeded below you

[Herkey#1]

If you're 2, you can lose in the final and equal your seed. Nobody loses three matches at Nationals. But unless you beat wrestlers seeded above you as a lower seed or unseeded, you cannot exceed your seed. I still have to believe beating wrestlers seeded above you is, almost by definition, more difficult than beating those seeded below you

I think most reasonable people would agree that it is much easier to wrestle above your seed if there are eleven spots to place above your seed. I would assume that during that time period, Minnesota, Iowa and Oklahoma State wrestlers were seeded, on average, much higher than all of those other teams wrestlers. Much harder to finish in the two spots above a three seed than it is to finish in the eleven above a twelve seed.