Lightweight U is not Iowa

[butchinmi]

http://www.flowrestling.org/article/47659-125-cornell-is-125-u

I'm an Iowa fan so I sometimes don't agree with some of the things that Flo puts out there (which very well may be my black and gold colored shades).

However, from a marketing, PR and buzz standpoint, these guys got it figured out.

From Guilbon #1, to Nikal beating Dean, to Iowa not lightweight U, etc. Whether or not any of if they believe or not, it is just straight up pure interest driven content. And to me, that is increasing the interest in wrestling so I'm ALL for it.

Lastly, they usually have some content/reason to support their thoughts which is great. Also, if you fiddle with the data enough, you can make a lot of arguments. What if it was only during Brands reign? What does the last 10 years look like? Etc., etc. But, they have done a great job using the data to create a story that will create conversation and for the most part agreement or disagreement from the largest fan bases.

 

[JonesHawk125]

Thomas Gilman this year + 4 years of Spencer Lee is going to make Iowa "Lightweight U" in due time (for those that want to go by Flo's logic).

 

[140wildcatv2]

I always enjoy good statistical analysis so I enjoy articles of this stripe. My only problem is with the timeframe used. While 15 years (2016-2002) is a nice number from a statistical standpoint in this case it seems a little silly not to go back an additional 3 years to 1999 which was the first year the weights changed to their current structure.

 

[JonesHawk125]

Yea, but Iowa had a high AA in 2000 and 2001 and Cornell had 0 AAs in those 3 years so that wouldn't generate as many clicks/traffic/Flo discussion.

 

[10ACHAWK]

#bringbackJoeFlo

 

[Gobblin]

The fact that they don't date back to when the weight class actually started is beyond laughable. Trolling at its finest.

Wonder what Strittmatter would think of this write up??

 

[MSU158]

Iowa vs. Cornell placement at 125 since 1999:

------Iowa-------------Cornell-------------------
99 DNQ---------------DNQ
00 3rd Strittmatter-DNQ
01 2nd Strittmatter-DNQ
02 2nd Eustice------7th Lee
03 (1-2) Eustice-----1st Lee
04 R12 Eustice------(1-2) Mormile
05 DNQ----------------(1-2) Mormile
06 (1-2) Magnani----2nd Nickerson
07 8th Falck-----------3rd Nickerson
08 6th Falck-----------(2-2) Rodgriguez
09 R12 Falck----------1st Nickerson
10 1st McDonough---4th Nickerson
11 2nd McDonough--(1-2) Perrelli
12 1st McDonough----4th Perrelli
13 R12 McDonough--3rd Garrett
14 5th Clark-------------2nd Garrett
15 4th Gilman-----------5th Garrett
16 2nd Gilman----------(2-2) Macri

 

[TailgateTom]

Also it appears Iowa has had 6 different people AA'ing during that time frame, compared to 4 for Cornell.

 

[Yankeefan33]

Yea, but Iowa had a high AA in 2000 and 2001 and Cornell had 0 AAs in those 3 years so that wouldn't generate as many clicks/traffic/Flo discussion.

So you're saying they arbitrarily picked 15 years to screw over Iowa? When they are using the same time frame for all weights picked? Hey, there are conspiracy theories all around...

And this doesn't mean Iowa isn't lightweight U. Add in 133 tomorrow and I bet Iowa is at the top.

 

[Tommy Gavin]

So you're saying they arbitrarily picked 15 years to screw over Iowa? When they are using the same time frame for all weights picked? Hey, there are conspiracy theories all around...

And this doesn't mean Iowa isn't lightweight U. Add in 133 tomorrow and I bet Iowa is at the top.

I would say they conveniently picked 15 years instead of going back to 1999.

 

[Jay on HR]

So you're saying they arbitrarily picked 15 years to screw over Iowa? When they are using the same time frame for all weights picked? Hey, there are conspiracy theories all around...

And this doesn't mean Iowa isn't lightweight U. Add in 133 tomorrow and I bet Iowa is at the top.

Why would it be hard to believe that they did pick 15 years instead of 1999 to skew their results? I'm not going to do the work myself, but maybe they did go back to 1999 and realized Iowa was coming up near the top too often so they moved their parameters to a still very good population of 15 years.

Those three years would have still included Gable recruits that were handed to Jimmy so it's not far fetched to assume that it would have made Iowa really fricking good at all ten weights,which is great if you want Iowa fans reading your content, but not if you're aiming for a broader scope.

 

[DonHawkeye]

There are easily 5 better starting points for such a project. 2000 = best this century. 10 years = Sounds a lot better than 15 and is more relevant. 20 years = Sounds better than 15 and is still relevant enough. 5 years = much more relevant than 15. When they changed the weights to the current weights 98 or 99 depending on how you look at it.

15 years seems weird. The whole reason they said they started doing this article was because Pyles called Iowa lightweight U. So it doesn't take a tin foil hat wearing Iowa Fan to figure out that they would love to have some awesome takeaway from their "findings" that was not just "Yep Iowa is the best lightweight school". The fact that they are using 15 years for all the weights moving forward is a moot point.

 

[crablegs1]

They should have explained the reason for their time frames in the article. Without justification, the 15 year is either completely arbitrary or purposefully chosen to distort. Neither are good reasons to choose something and render the data pretty useless.

Glad that wrestling is having some more numbers driven discussion, but this was clearly done by amateurs.

 

[Jaroslav Hasek]

hey guys - I helped contribute to the article, mostly the math. Just wanted to say, appreciate everyone reading the article and sharing their thoughts, no matter what your opinions of it are. also wanted to set the record straight and say that coming up the proper analytical method for this series was very difficult and time consuming, and involved many tough, debatable decisions. however, rest assured that all of those decisions were made with the intention of making Iowa look as bad as possible.

hope that helps clears things up. thanks again for reading!

 

[DonHawkeye]

That's cute. It actually doesn't seem like that hard of a thing to pull off for an organization the size of Flo. The data can be gathered by an intern or outsourced overseas on upwork or fivver. It seems pretty easy that the rankings factor should be actual points scored at NCAAs. Time frame should be this century, or since the weights have been around 98 or 99, or maybe last 10 years, or maybe since they have had 10 weights, or maybe since they have had 8 AAs. But 15 years????

I also think it had less to do with Iowa than trying to have some result that was counter intuitive. Much like a crappy graduate student would try to do with his dissertation.

 

[TailgateTom]

hey guys - I helped contribute to the article, mostly the math. Just wanted to say, appreciate everyone reading the article and sharing their thoughts, no matter what your opinions of it are. also wanted to set the record straight and say that coming up the proper analytical method for this series was very difficult and time consuming, and involved many tough, debatable decisions. however, rest assured that all of those decisions were made with the intention of making Iowa look as bad as possible.

hope that helps clears things up. thanks again for reading!

 

[TailgateTom]

That's cute. You still never explained why you, or flo, choose 15 years? It actually doesn't seem like that hard of a thing to pull off for an organization the size of Flo. The data can be gathered by an outsourced job on upwork or mechanical turk and it seems like taking the actual points scored at NCAAs would have been the best way to determine the best schools.

Another consummate professional. Maybe Yakov Smirnoff (or whatever his name was) can instigate a twitter fight next.

 

[Yankeefan33]

There are easily 5 better starting points for such a project. 2000 = best this century. 10 years = Sounds a lot better than 15 and is more relevant. 20 years = Sounds better than 15 and is within still relevant enough. 5 years = much more relevant than 15. When they changed the weights to the current weights 98 or 99 depending on how you look at it.

15 years seems weird. The whole reason they said they started doing this article was because Pyles called Iowa lightweight U. So it doesn't take a tin foil hat wearing Iowa Fan to figure out that they would love to have some awesome takeaway from their "findings" that was not just "Yep Iowa is the best lightweight school". The fact that they are using 15 years for all the weights moving forward is a moot point because.

I don't know when Christian called Iowa "Lightweight U", but I know Nomad tweeted two weeks ago asking which D1 schools were the best at each weight in the last 10-15 years, so that may have preceded Christian's comment.

 

[Sandor45]

hey guys - I helped contribute to the article, mostly the math. Just wanted to say, appreciate everyone reading the article and sharing their thoughts, no matter what your opinions of it are. also wanted to set the record straight and say that coming up the proper analytical method for this series was very difficult and time consuming, and involved many tough, debatable decisions. however, rest assured that all of those decisions were made with the intention of making Iowa look as bad as possible.

hope that helps clears things up. thanks again for reading!

Just as Flo is shedding it's frat boy image, guys like this bring them back down. Good work.

 

[pablow]

hey guys - I helped contribute to the article, mostly the math. Just wanted to say, appreciate everyone reading the article and sharing their thoughts, no matter what your opinions of it are. also wanted to set the record straight and say that coming up the proper analytical method for this series was very difficult and time consuming, and involved many tough, debatable decisions. however, rest assured that all of those decisions were made with the intention of making Iowa look as bad as possible.

hope that helps clears things up. thanks again for reading!

I wouldn't brag about. Penn State's results are screwed by the 15 year frame too. Both Iowa and PSU have significantly upgraded lightweights post Brands and post Sanderson.

 

[LaxHawk174]

Apparently simply asking why not using the 18 total years of 125 results as opposed to just the last 15 makes HR on fire right now, and all of us paranoid + easily irritable.

Evidently smaller sample size in statistics is better! Who knew? FWIW I would say use the 18 years for all weight classes, as thats the year ALL current weights went into effect, not just 125 to benefit Iowa.. from my perspective to get the most statistically significant results you use all of the data available, not just 83% of it because its a 'prettier' number.

But thats the end of my 'gripe' (if you call it that, we're just discussing whats released..), its essentially just a conversation piece, and as JonesHawk said above, Gilman this year, and Spencer Lee coming soon will easily tilt the '125 scale' back in Iowas favor.

 

[TarpHawk]

I had no problem with the article. I love quantitative analysis, and they did a good job.

As for the conspiracy theory, who knows? But more importantly, who cares? Take it for what it's worth, slice and dice the data to draw your own conclusions.

Iowa's legacy will not be shaped by whether Flo calls us Lightweight U. It will be shaped by how many NCAA titles we win. Everything else is background noise.

 

[Tcalumet]

So you're saying they arbitrarily picked 15 years to screw over Iowa? When they are using the same time frame for all weights picked? Hey, there are conspiracy theories all around...

And this doesn't mean Iowa isn't lightweight U. Add in 133 tomorrow and I bet Iowa is at the top.

I agree - add in 133 and the contest is likely not even close.

 

[LaxHawk174]

I will add, I did overall enjoy the article, it was cool to see all of the different placers and Qualifiers for the different schools at the weight. Is there a database somewhere that has how many team points each wrestler scored for their team for every NCAAs(the past 4 NCAAs have been on track wrestling, so thats where I find my team points, but prior to that I have no idea other than manually calculating)? Or did they have to go back through the brackets and calculate advancement points and bonus points for each wrestler?

 

[Gobblin]

If you factor '25 & '33 I'll bet it's a pretty damn close race between the Hawkeyes and Cowboys... Cornell, PSU, or anyone else isn't even in that conversation.

 

[1stplacehawk]

Apparently simply asking why not using the 18 total years of 125 results as opposed to just the last 15 makes HR on fire right now, and all of us paranoid + easily irritable.

Evidently smaller sample size in statistics is better! Who knew? FWIW I would say use the 18 years for all weight classes, as thats the year ALL current weights went into effect, not just 125 to benefit Iowa.. from my perspective to get the most statistically significant results you use all of the data available, not just 83% of it because its a 'prettier' number.

But thats the end of my 'gripe' (if you call it that, we're just discussing whats released..), its essentially just a conversation piece, and as JonesHawk said above, Gilman this year, and Spencer Lee coming soon will easily tilt the '125 scale' back in Iowas favor.

The irony is that he is as sensitive as Iowa fans.

 

[pablow]

Apparently simply asking why not using the 18 total years of 125 results as opposed to just the last 15 makes HR on fire right now, and all of us paranoid + easily irritable.

Evidently smaller sample size in statistics is better! Who knew? FWIW I would say use the 18 years for all weight classes, as thats the year ALL current weights went into effect, not just 125 to benefit Iowa.. from my perspective to get the most statistically significant results you use all of the data available, not just 83% of it because its a 'prettier' number.

But thats the end of my 'gripe' (if you call it that, we're just discussing whats released..), its essentially just a conversation piece, and as JonesHawk said above, Gilman this year, and Spencer Lee coming soon will easily tilt the '125 scale' back in Iowas favor.

If larger is better than how about starting at 1928 or 1976.

 

[LaxHawk174]

If larger is better than how about starting at 1928 or 1976.

Because if we're specifically talking about the modern weight classes (ie. 125), years prior to 1999 would not be relevant.

 

[TarpHawk]

I will add, I did overall enjoy the article, it was cool to see all of the different placers and Qualifiers for the different schools at the weight. Is there a database somewhere that has how many team points each wrestler scored for their team for every NCAAs(the past 4 NCAAs have been on track wrestling, so thats where I find my team points, but prior to that I have no idea other than manually calculating)? Or did they have to go back through the brackets and calculate advancement points and bonus points for each wrestler?

That's the database I'd love to see...ranking of top 100 wrestlers based on career NCAA points scored.

 

[JohnBasedow]

133 will be posted tomorrow I think, so that will be interesting. Either way Thomas Gilman will win the national championship this year.

 

[LaxHawk174]

That's the database I'd love to see...ranking of top 100 wrestlers based on career NCAA points scored.

The only measurable variable that matters

 

[DonHawkeye]

Because if we're specifically talking about the modern weight classes (ie. 125), years prior to 1999 would not be relevant.

I would actually say 1998 since the weights were only 118, 126 ... only in name.

 

[LaxHawk174]

I would actually say 1998 since the weights were only 118, 126 ... only in name.

I may be wrong, but weren't stricter weight class certification/hydration rules put in place due to multiple dehydration related deaths in 1997-1998 season (2 of which came from my univeristy), which then caused the shift up in weights?

 

[DonHawkeye]

Yes, That year started off 118, 126, 134... Then after the deaths, which I think were around the holidays, the rules were changed and 7lbs were added to all weights and the new weigh-in rules put into place. Many of which still stand. Which is why 1998 could be considered the first year of the new weights. They still called the weights 118, 126... but they were essentially the new weights.

 

[LaxHawk174]

Yes, That year started off 118, 126, 134... Then after the deaths, which I think were around the holidays, the rules were changed and 7lbs were added to all weights and the new weigh-in rules put into place. Many of which still stand. Which is why 1998 could be considered the first year of the new weights. They still called the weights 118, 126... but they were essentially the new weights.

Ah, interesting tidbit, I did not know they changed the weights and rules mid season. So essentially the 118 lbers at the 1998 NCAA tournament were wrestling 125, 126 wrestling 133.. etc?

 

[rossel 33]

I had no problem with the article. I love quantitative analysis, and they did a good job.

As for the conspiracy theory, who knows? But more importantly, who cares? Take it for what it's worth, slice and dice the data to draw your own conclusions.

Iowa's legacy will not be shaped by whether Flo calls us Lightweight U. It will be shaped by how many NCAA titles we win. Everything else is background noise.

------

Exactly. Interesting read, but rather arbitrary time frame.

Why not use the last 7 years?
Iowa - 1,1,2,2,4,5,R12
Cornell - 2,3,4,4,5

coming season - Iowa - #1 ranked, Cornell - #13

And this doesn't even look at WTT's, OTT's, University, Jr World, etc. Or 133#. All of these would overwhelmingly favor Iowa.

Oh yeah....and #1 ranked p4p Lee coming next year.

It's like FLO started with their conclusion, and then went hunting for selective stats to support it. Maybe FLO can do a followup article after the Ncaa tournament.

 

[MSU158]

That's the database I'd love to see...ranking of top 100 wrestlers based on career NCAA points scored.

Lewboo started a topic on thematforums a couple of years ago that probably ended with the top 50 or so. I will see if I can find it later unless he pops up on here in the meantime and posts it.

 

[Azchief32]

CP is arguing it out with your responses but on Twitter...almost like he is talking to himself. Strange.

 

[Jay on HR]

CP is arguing it out with your responses but on Twitter...almost like he is talking to himself. Strange.

So he is sub-tweeting a forum. That's really, really funny.

 

[crablegs1]

What a joke of a response by Jaraslov. If he spent so much time into this article, I would think he would want to defend it and take it a little more seriously. He took the time to come on here and respond, but still couldn't tell us why that number was chosen.

The fact that they can't answer that simple question shows that they did not have a good justification for choosing it. I like to think they didn't choose it purposefully to make Iowa look bad, but rather that they chose it arbitrarily without any real justification or thought into why they decided with that time frame. That is a bad reason and leads to bad analysis.