ADVERTISEMENT

Peaking at the NCAA's: Data from FloWrestling

As I said last year they should get rid of the term "peaking". It's simply actual finish vs seed.

If Sammy finishes 4th with his #2 seed it yeilds a different result in their study than if he was seeded 7th but still finished 4th. Did he wrestle any worse or better in either scenario? Of course not. Did he peak more or fail to peak in either scenario? Nope.

Since we all know how flawed and subjective seeding is, any study on seed vs results is just meh for me. But don't let me ruin anyone else's fun... carry on.
 
I honestly thought Iowa wrestled very well relative to expectations last season.

125: Gilman took 4th, beating Dance and Garrett and wrestled Waters well, losing the lead late in the match. He just so happened to run into a super hot guy(Moisey) that had the tournament of his life.
133: Clark taking 2nd was a bit of a shocker to me. I know many on here never wavered with super high expectations, but 133 was very deep last year and he hadn't shown me he was finalist material during the regular season. He turned his game up a ton in March, it just so happens Brewer turned his game up more than anyone, at any weight, wrestling that weekend!
141: Dziewa looked the best he had all season. Jack just proved to be a very bad draw and then after 2 dominant wins, he draws Mayes, who was probably his worst match up not named Stieber.
149: Sorenson rebounded to win 5 matches in a row after taking a devastating upset. Most freshmen fold there. That was a huge statement.
157: Kelly was lucky to qualify. A ginormous heart. Sadly, not the lone prerequisite skill to be very successful at the DI level.
165: The one true letdown if you looked at the start of the season. However, going into the tournament, most had to know he wasn't able and his being unseeded proved to be where he was supposed to be.
174: Evans did what he did the 2 years prior. Fought super hard in the winner's bracket and came one break away from the finals. He then lost 2 OT matches to take 6th.
184: Brooks had the worst draw. He loses a razor close decision to the eventual champ and then draws Stauffer who would go on to take 4th.
197: I take it back about Brooks. Burak had the WORST draw. He loses to the red hot Gadson in the quarters and then draws McIntosh in the consi quarters. He won when he was supposed to and ends up having to beat McIntosh just to wrestle to seed? Brutal.
285: He probably took the most upsetting upset of them all. And what did he do? He rifled off 2 pins and went 6-1 the rest of the way to take 5th and most likely score as many points as he would have if he properly wrestled to his 3 seed.

Iowa had a very solid tournament, they just didn't have the monster point scoring lock(like Stieber). tOSU scored much needed bonus points and had 3 big point scorers lead them to victory.

In addition, Iowa actually scored 15 bonus points at last year's tournament. They had a very solid tournament!
 
I'm guessing if you remove Nick Moore's Jr year & Lofthouse SR year then Iowa is looking a lot better.

IMO Rankings vs finish would be more accurate then some of these crappy seedings we have seen in the last 2 years.
 
tOSU was simply a better big meet tournament team than Iowa was last year. Tomasello, Stieber, Jordan and Snyder outscored Iowa by 4 points by themselves. Courts' performance was just icing on the cake.
 
The article points out some of the unusual things that throw off the numbers, and averaging lessens the effect. It does show a way to confirm/deny feeling about how teams did. ie Minesota's collapse last year,
 
Well over at BWI they of course say this proves Cael can coach. Man I wonder when the time comes if any of them going to jump off the ledge.:(
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT