The Pre-Season "If The NCAA Comes To Their Senses" Projections: Reasonable Gambling Penalties Edition

[Wrestleknownothing]

If Iowa has their wrestlers reinstated with reasonable* penalties, what does that look like for the team race?

Assumptions:

• There is no real difference between Voinovich and Siebrecht, so I left Voinovich in the lineup
• Caliendo did better at his one NCAA tournament than Kennedy did at his one, so I left Caliendo in the lineup.
• Brands did much better than Kennedy at his last NCAA tournament, so I gave him the nod at 174. And Brands would presumably have a higher ranking in a pre-season poll than if Kennedy bumped up a weight.
• A theoretical Cassioppi gets the nod over an even more theoretical Ferrari at 285. And I think Ferrari would have a lower pre-season ranking than Cassioppi at 285 given the two year layoff and new weight.
• And I am assuming Ferrari cannot make 197 anymore, so Franklin stays in the lineup.

Iowa's New Total

Iowa's new total look like this:

 

In addition to jumping from 43.1 to 64.2 points (ex bonus).

Iowa also gains 1.6 expected AA's from the three returning wrestlers.

Title Race Implications

Where does that put them for the title race?

A solid second.

For this I also added Austin Gomez into the Michigan total as a 4 seed behind Lovett, Van Ness, and Parco. Michigan then creeps past Cornell for third (who are we kidding? it is a virtual tie).

And Nebraska falls off the podium (what say you Nebraska super fans?)

-------------------------------------------

* blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I know. I disagree.

** Title race, haha. I crack myself up sometimes.

*** Even though there is no *** above, lets add it down here anyway. Say Ferrari does make 197 and has enough credits to enroll and can get accepted into Iowa. Say. What does that look like? Well, I cannot see Ferrari any higher than the 2 seed behind Brooks. As a 2 seed that is an incremental 12.7 points, moving Iowa to 76.9. Still solidly in second place. But let's say he is the 1 seed and Brooks is the 2, that closes the gap from 44.1 to 36.8 (+3.7 for Iowa, -3.7 for PSU).

 

[uncle bernard]

Really fun race for second. We should all just pretend PSU doesn't exist and treat that like the real team race.

[Wrestleknownothing]

8 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Really fun race for second. We should all just pretend PSU doesn't exist and treat that like the real team race.

As a Penn State fan, this sounds like a terrible idea.

On second thought, that is exactly what Iowa has been doing for the past decade. (Rimshot). I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitresses.

[bnwtwg]

11 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Really fun race for second. We should all just pretend PSU doesn't exist and treat that like the real team race.

The real team race is the runner-up trophy everyone chased along the way.

[Gus]

What top 15 team do you think will outperform their projected preseason point total the most +%? 

What top 15 team do you think will underperform their projected preseason point total the most -%?

 

[Lipdrag]

38 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I crack myself up

One of the best quotes ever.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/605ce1bb-8a49-418d-b4b2-ede8268a2653

Edited October 11, 2023 by Lipdrag

[Lipdrag]

28 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Really fun race for second. We should all just pretend PSU doesn't exist and treat that like the real team race.

The race within the race:  Who is number 2?  AND, can that team break the 50% of the PSU score?  Both will be nail biters in March.

[Wrestleknownothing]

39 minutes ago, Gus said:

What top 15 team do you think will outperform their projected preseason point total the most +%? 

What top 15 team do you think will underperform their projected preseason point total the most -%?

 

Here is how each of the expected top 15 teams has performed relative to their seeds since 2010:

One thing to keep in mind is that these teams are likely to have higher seeds. This means they have more room to miss by than room to outperform by. So if 50% perform worse than seed, it is likely that they will underperform their expected score rather than match their expected score.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Wrestleknownothing

[nhs67]

20 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Here is how each of the expected top 15 teams has performed relative to their seeds since 2010:

One thing to keep in mind is that these teams are likely to have higher seeds. This means they have more room to miss by than room to outperform by. So if 50% perform worse than seed, it is likely that they will underperform their expected score rather than match their expected score.

 

Curious question, Ser...

When you do the 'expected AA' portion you are doing it per the average performance for their seed (current rank), correct?

What if you were to skew based off of school performance as well?  How does it then look?

[Wrestleknownothing]

This one is a little tougher to read, but here goes.

Based on 2010-2023:

• The first three columns show the percentage of times a team beats it seed, matches its seed, and does worse than its seed
• The second set of three columns shows what their average seed is when they beat it, match it, or do worse than it.
• The third set of three columns shows by how much a team beats their seed, matches their seed (always zero), or does worse than their seed.

An example of the way to read this would be: Ohio State beat their seed 35% of the time from 2010-2023 and when they beat their seed they were seeded at 12.5 and beat that by 5.8.

Said that way, Iowa is pretty impressive in that they beat their seed more often than anyone else (36% of the time) and did it while having a very high starting point (9.3 seed on average - second highest). And they do it by 4.1 spots. And when they underperform it is usually because they have a very high seed (5.6 - highest) and they only underperform by an average amount (5.9 spots).

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

Curious question, Ser...

When you do the 'expected AA' portion you are doing it per the average performance for their seed (current rank), correct?

What if you were to skew based off of school performance as well?  How does it then look?

Correct.

I have thought about doing something with that, but have been a bit conflicted on it. I will give it some more thought.

[nhs67]

4 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Correct.

I have thought about doing something with that, but have been a bit conflicted on it. I will give it some more thought.

It would be an entirely new project, I think.  Meaning do the exact same thing, just based on the school.  Obviously you don't have a 70% chance to improve on a #1 seed, but I am sure you can figure that out.  IWknWT.  Then perhaps simply averaging the two could give us an interesting bit of data to view too.

[Wrestleknownothing]

6 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

It would be an entirely new project, I think.  Meaning do the exact same thing, just based on the school.  Obviously you don't have a 70% chance to improve on a #1 seed, but I am sure you can figure that out.  IWknWT.  Then perhaps simply averaging the two could give us an interesting bit of data to view too.

Ideally, yes, but where that gets problematic is you wind up over-Balkanizing the data. If a team has a 10 seed and they have never had a 10 seed before, what do you do with that? I am thinking of playing with ranges instead, but stay tuned.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Is the assumption that reasonable penalties = full, unfettered participation at B10s and NCAAs?

Edited October 11, 2023 by Jimmy Cinnabon

[Wrestleknownothing]

29 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

Is the assumption that reasonable penalties = full, unfettered participation at B10s and NCAAs?

That translates as blah, blah, blah.

Feel free to read through my prior opuses on the topic.

[MPhillips]

3 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Feel free to read through my prior opuses on the topic.

The first post makes it pretty clear...

[Wrestleknownothing]

Another way to look at the over/under performance is to recognize that from a team finish perspective the only thing that matters is finishing top 8.

To that end if I reduce the set to just those who have a 1 in 3, or better, chance to AA (top 10 seeds), then seed relative performance looks like this:

PSU performs right on seed whereas everyone else falls short by 1 to 4 spots on average.

[bnwtwg]

2 hours ago, Gus said:

What top 15 team do you think will outperform their projected preseason point total the most +%? 

What top 15 team do you think will underperform their projected preseason point total the most -%?

 

Declaring we use Intermat's Tournament rankings

RANK	SCHOOL	CONFERENCE	POINTS	NCAA FINISH
1	Penn State	Big Ten	141.5	1
2(T)	Missouri	Big 12	65	5
2(T)	Virginia Tech	ACC	65	9
4	Cornell	EIWA	62.5	3
5	Nebraska	Big Ten	57.5	8
6	Michigan	Big Ten	55.5	6
7	Arizona State	Pac-12	54	7
8	Iowa	Big Ten	48	2
9	NC State	ACC	46	10
10	Oklahoma State	Big 12	43	18(T)
11	Iowa State	Big 12	38.5	11
12	Ohio State	Big Ten	33	4
13	Rutgers	Big Ten	26	34
14(T)	Illinois	Big Ten	25.5	31
14(T)	Oklahoma	Big 12	25.5	40
14(T)	South Dakota State	Big 12	25.5	14

[bnwtwg]

2 hours ago, Gus said:

What top 15 team do you think will outperform their projected preseason point total the most +%? 

What top 15 team do you think will underperform their projected preseason point total the most -%?

 

What top 15 team do you think will outperform their projected preseason point total the most +%? 

Illinois or NC State. Obviously NC State will finish higher, but you are asking +%. Both will narrowly edge out tOSU according to your criteria.

What top 15 team do you think will underperform their projected preseason point total the most -%?

Mizzou will narrowly edge out Oklahoma who has no right being ranked in the top 15

[bnwtwg]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Ideally, yes, but where that gets problematic is you wind up over-Balkanizing the data. If a team has a 10 seed and they have never had a 10 seed before, what do you do with that? I am thinking of playing with ranges instead, but stay tuned.

The fragmentation won't be that bad so not sure how you would end up overbalkanizing? You're describing a limited scenario for anything 16 seed and under. My shocking hypothesis is that that Cael*/ PSU run will throw out the weirdest curve.

Edited October 11, 2023 by bnwtwg

[Wrestleknownothing]

43 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

The fragmentation won't be that bad so not sure how you would end up overbalkanizing? You're describing a limited scenario for anything 16 seed and under. My shocking hypothesis is that that Cael*/ PSU run will throw out the weirdest curve.

The problem comes in much higher than the 16 seed. If all you do is look at the seeds where there is at least a 1 in 3 chance of AAing (top 10) you have major problems with fragmentation at the 3 or 4 seed for all teams, and beginning at the 1 seed for any team outside of the top 6 most entrants seeded in the top 10 between 2010 and 2023.

Michigan is outside of the top 6 in spite of finishing 2nd last year. Building a Michigan specific curve would be problematic.

But even for PSU, how do you build a curve with only three 4 seeds in a 13 year span?

[ionel]

4 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

If Iowa has their wrestlers reinstated with reasonable* penalties, what does that look like for the team race?

Assumptions:

• There is no real difference between Voinovich and Siebrecht, so I left Voinovich in the lineup
• Caliendo did better at his one NCAA tournament than Kennedy did at his one, so I left Caliendo in the lineup.
• Brands did much better than Kennedy at his last NCAA tournament, so I gave him the nod at 174. And Brands would presumably have a higher ranking in a pre-season poll than if Kennedy bumped up a weight.
• A theoretical Cassioppi gets the nod over an even more theoretical Ferrari at 285. And I think Ferrari would have a lower pre-season ranking than Cassioppi at 285 given the two year layoff and new weight.
• And I am assuming Ferrari cannot make 197 anymore, so Franklin stays in the lineup.

Iowa's New Total

Iowa's new total look like this:

 

In addition to jumping from 43.1 to 64.2 points (ex bonus).

Iowa also gains 1.6 expected AA's from the three returning wrestlers.

Title Race Implications

Where does that put them for the title race?

A solid second.

For this I also added Austin Gomez into the Michigan total as a 4 seed behind Lovett, Van Ness, and Parco. Michigan then creeps past Cornell for third (who are we kidding? it is a virtual tie).

And Nebraska falls off the podium (what say you Nebraska super fans?)

-------------------------------------------

* blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I know. I disagree.

** Title race, haha. I crack myself up sometimes.

*** Even though there is no *** above, lets add it down here anyway. Say Ferrari does make 197 and has enough credits to enroll and can get accepted into Iowa. Say. What does that look like? Well, I cannot see Ferrari any higher than the 2 seed behind Brooks. As a 2 seed that is an incremental 12.7 points, moving Iowa to 76.9. Still solidly in second place. But let's say he is the 1 seed and Brooks is the 2, that closes the gap from 44.1 to 36.8 (+3.7 for Iowa, -3.7 for PSU).

 

Yeah but now throw all 3 Ferrari in there, let's assume they all win NC and take out (i mean eliminate from the tourney) a PSU wrestler in the process.  Yeah ... thats what I'm betting on.  

[bnwtwg]

37 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The problem comes in much higher than the 16 seed. If all you do is look at the seeds where there is at least a 1 in 3 chance of AAing (top 10) you have major problems with fragmentation at the 3 or 4 seed for all teams, and beginning at the 1 seed for any team outside of the top 6 most entrants seeded in the top 10 between 2010 and 2023.

Michigan is outside of the top 6 in spite of finishing 2nd last year. Building a Michigan specific curve would be problematic.

But even for PSU, how do you build a curve with only three 4 seeds in a 13 year span?

So hear me out on this… if you give asterisk and extrapolate the last 5/10/15/20 years on top of the all time result wouldn’t that deliver a desired result from the recent results populus? It’s going to help some programs (such as SDSU and Rutgers and maybe ND), while also heavily devestating historical programs that have recently dipped (Oklahoma as a potential example). But it delivers the recency bias that the inevitable 57 pages of homer posts will ask for. It’s almost like you expect people to *read* for the me-now internet slurpers

[Wrestleknownothing]

12 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

So hear me out on this… if you give asterisk and extrapolate the last 5/10/15/20 years on top of the all time result wouldn’t that deliver a desired result from the recent results populus? It’s going to help some programs (such as SDSU and Rutgers and maybe ND), while also heavily devestating historical programs that have recently dipped (Oklahoma as a potential example). But it delivers the recency bias that the inevitable 57 pages of homer posts will ask for. It’s almost like you expect people to *read* for the me-now internet slurpers

If you are asking me if I ever tortured the numbers until they speak.....my answer is no comment.

[Gus]

3 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

What top 15 team do you think will outperform their projected preseason point total the most +%? 

Illinois or NC State. Obviously NC State will finish higher, but you are asking +%. Both will narrowly edge out tOSU according to your criteria.

What top 15 team do you think will underperform their projected preseason point total the most -%?

Mizzou will narrowly edge out Oklahoma who has no right being ranked in the top 15

I’ll go OKSt on the +% and Nebraska on the -%.