Wrestleknownothing

Seeds are earned rather than rewarded. In that way they are more ranking than prediction. But rankings contain a degree of subjectivity (whether the Flo rankers want to admit it or not), so it can be hard to differentiate between a ranking and a prediction sometimes. An example, is quality wins. If two undefeated wrestlers do not wrestle the exact same schedule then some subjectivity comes into play to decide who is more deserving of the higher seed based on the quality of their wins. At the margin this is purely subjective and there is an element of a positive feedback loop. If wrestler A beats the #10 ranked wrestler and wrestler B beats the #11 ranked wrestler it is tempting to say wrestler A had a higher quality win, but who is to say that the original ranks were 100% accurate?

There was an NDA involved. I have already said too much.

Officially, no. But all Penn State fans take an oath to the belief that in 2018 Mark Hall lost the #1 seed to Zahid Valencia based on the all-star match.

I don't let myself cut weight.

They will fit in perfectly when they move to phase 2 of The Pines of Mar Gable, or is it Del Boca Vista?

You make an excellent point. Kyle Burwick has essentially finished at his seed every year.

Ben Askren also told you you should invest in crypto. Who you gonna believe?

And now for all teams that have averaged at least 3 NQs per year. Princeton shall lead them all (and we shall all work for them). Given that PSU has qualified the third highest number of wrestlers over that span, how crazy is that number?

Nope And in % terms

Over the last 12 tournaments Nebraska has wrestled at or above their seed 55% of the time (50 of 91) and Iowa has wrestled at or above their seed 56% of the time (63 of 112). Nebraska's worst years were 2014 (1 of 6) and 2021 (2 of 9). Iowa's worst years were 2015 and 2022 (3 of 7). If you narrow it down to just the past three tournaments (the seed to 33 era) Nebraska has wrestled at or above their seed 48% of the time (12 of 25) and Iowa has wrestled at or above their seed 48% of the time (14 of 29). There really is no difference between the two.

Movers and Shakers (based on Intermat). Top 10 and Bottom 10 ranked by change in expected points from pre-season to now. Iowa State is coming on strong. Seven of ten have moved up in the rankings, led by Paniro Johnson. This is a bit unfair to Penn as the lion's share of their "lost" points are due to CJ Composto taking a gap year to recover from injury (only Intermat had him in their pre-season rankings) Wyoming is hit hard by the Stephen Buchanan transfer decision. Ohio State is the opposite of Iowa State with seven of their ten wrestlers dropping in the rankings.

He was listed at 165 at the time by all four services. @lu1979 describes it correctly above. All four services moved Monday to 157 for their second set of rankings at which point Intermat and Flo had Monday at #1 (not sure where WIN had him ranked).

No, mspart is not a word.

Hoisted by my own petard

Disagree. Ohio State could win the Big 12.

I am higher on Real Woods. I think he is a 1 -4 guy rather than a 4 -8.

You remember correctly. Both WIN and Intermat had him #1 in their pre-season rankings.

Let's play that out. Last year Nebraska beat their average seed by an average of 3.8 spots. Using the Intermat rankings (we owe Willie that much, right?) if they out perform their ranking by the same amount this year that gets them to something like 52 placement and advancement points which would have them battling for the last podium spot. Of course, if they keep improving their ranking/seed prior to the tournament then that best case scenario moves higher too.

If Nebraska wrestles this tourney like they wrestled the last NCAA tourney, you will be very happy.

Same data for Nebraska, if you are interested:

I do not think that is correct.

If you look at how often Iowa beats their seed then they are slightly underrated on average with some notable exceptions in each direction. If you look at their average finish to seed (which always skews negative if you are seeded high) then they are slightly overrated, not way overrated:

I am confused. What are the numbers and ranks you typed in?

The last column takes into account this past weekend. The reality is there is no such thing as a lock. Even a #1 seed is not a guarantee. In the last 12 tournaments (2010 - 2022) only 98.33% of #1 seeds finished in the top 8 (118 of 120). Injuries and upsets happen.