Wrestleknownothing

That is not what they cited. They said he was disqualified for interfering with another swimmer. That part of the rule reads: "Any competitor who interferes with another swimmer during a race shall be disqualified from that race, subject to the discretion of the referee." If ever there was a time for discretion it was then.

Complete List: 1988 - 150 1991 - 118 1992 - 158 1993 - 177 1998 - 134 1998 - 167 2000 - 149 2004 - 133 2006 - 149 2008 - 285 2011 - 174 2013 - 133 2014 - 174

It has happened twice in recent years. But I only looked back to 2010.

Yes

You recall correctly.

I am embarassed for swimming.

Checking the results page (https://arena.uww.org/weight-category/1eebc07c-3a32-6bf0-8a63-dd02aceb3ba6) Gomez won 10-0 and moves on to face Lee. Lachlan McNeil won 10-0 and moves on to face Kramer

Stream is experiencing technical difficulties. But for the few seconds they showed, Gomez was up 6-0 in the first 30 seconds of his qualifying round.

10, 2, 3 is the highest seeds the 7 could beat on the way to the final. That happened 6 of 13 times. There was also a UR, 2, 3 combo. So beating 2 and 3 happened 7 of 13 times. But just beating 2 with any other combination happened 12 of 13 times. That makes sense since in the 12 seed era (10 of the 13 years) the 2 would get UR, UR before meeting the 7. In the 16 seed era (2 of the years) it was UR, 15. And last year it was 31, 15.

Sadly, I do not have much ranking data. All I have is the last two years or so. But I will guess this hasn't happened in recent history because Glazier was not a known entity (a rarity for an Iowa wrestler) and suffers from an anchoring problem. He started off unranked. And given the way the rankings work, you have to beat someone higher to move up, but are generally not penalized for losing to someone higher. So Glazier is limited in his ability to move up, but if he started as the #2 wrestler and only lost to Brooks, he would not fall far, if at all. Where you start matters. The exact same record can result in very different rankings based on starting points.

Done about what?

Said he is focusing on coaching.

His win % was also below 72 which wound up being the cutoff.

Deserves? No one, but they had 4 guys ranked in the top 33 and got three allocations.

Crook did not have an RPI, Fongaro and Hamden did.

ACC, Big 12, EIWA, and Pac 12 all gave blood at 141. The only reason they did not get 4 is that Tom Crook switched weights and only had 14 matches at 141, not enough for an RPI. I am surprised they didn't send him to a tournie somewhere.

I had no idea. Do you know how many total?

With the Coaches' Rank being published along side the allocations we can see who the coaches think will win. Surprise, surprise. They seem to be picking a plucky, young upstart of a program. No one saw this coming. And Iowa returns to second with NC State and Oklahoma State joining them on the expected podium. But really all of those slots are "too close to call". The first two columns above will be strongly influenced by the state of one right knee. As the #1 ranked wrestler at 174, Starocci currently accounts for 20.5 expected points, but two inj defaults at the Big 10 tournament probably knocks him down to the #3-#6 seed range, costing about 6 - 11 expected points. If he can't go, then the impact is probably closer to 18 or 19 expected points.

bottom of page 2 of this thread

Yep, he is #33 in the coaches' ranking, so he is a go.

YOY Changes: Big 12 with 8 fewer spots than last year, including 3 fewer at 285. EIWA picks up 8 spots, with 3 more at 184. Pac 12 (+5 spots), and (ACC -5) spots were the other big winner and loser. Only five weights maxed out the pre-allocated spots this year (149, 157, 174, 197, 285). 125 and 141 with the most At-Large spots (6)

I was going to post a pic of Bart writing on the chalkboard "Simpson's paradox isn't mine", but I ran out of disc space. C'est la vie. In the meantime I am worried about my fitted data from the other day. I clearly overstated the probability of #7 winning. More about path dependency than faulty causal inferences.

Interesting. The WWE did not seem to be going that well for him. I know he is a different level talent, but I always wonder what not wrestling does for one's wrestling.

Pretty wild to think that the last 13 times a #7 seed has made the final, they have lost. Until you realize that all 13 times the #7 hit the #1 in the final. For the #7 to win (or #10, etc), they really need the #1 to get knocked off first.