Who Peaks Best - Interesting Flo Article by Askren
- Thread starter IDrun
- Start date
The problem with Askren's analysis, is that it is based on a subjective measurement...seeding. The two teams that peak the worst in Askren's opinion, have far & away won the most NCAA championships. Wrestling above seed doesn't win championships I guess. Askren should stick to what he's good at, getting his face beaten in, because logic & common sense isn't his strong suit.
The only thing I take away from this "study" is that in the 6 years represented. Iowa is one of only 2 teams during the period to win a national championship. Congrats to Minny, Ok St, Cornell, and Missouri for "peaking" better than Iowa in this 6 year span. You have zero titles to show for it.
The higher your seed, the more unlikely you overachieve. #1 seeds obviously can't even "peak" late.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It also doesn't take injury into account, which we have had our fair share of. Last year we didn't perform well, but two years ago we were wrestling with an extremely banged up team.
And there goes five minutes of my life that I will never get back. Why does Flo give this guy a platform? I could think of a lot of other NCAA champs I'd rather hear from than Askren.
What does peaking have to do to wrestling to, above, or below seed? This is a flawed method of trying to figure out which team peaks the best. We have guys on our team that are seeded higher than they have been ranked all season. If Jeva finishes 6th does that mean he had a bad tournament and didn't peak? This is a way for Askren to compare Missouri, a team which has never won a national championship, to teams that have won many. I'd be more interested in seeing teams that have the most guys avenge an early season loss at the NCAA tournament. I can't even believe Flo would publish something like this.
Jim Gibbons when posed the question if placing higher than your seed helps your team at the NCAA's? "NO SHIT"
I have 3 suggestions... Ignore it, forget you ever read it, or don't read it in the first place.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This made me crack up!Originally posted by Herkuleez5:
Jim Gibbons when posed the question if placing higher than your seed helps your team at the NCAA's? "NO SHIT"
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Askren is still butthurt that Iowa never recruited him. must of ate at him every drive from Wisconsin to Mizzou.
The Iowa bitterness is never gonna end from him.
The Iowa bitterness is never gonna end from him.
Just like in the NCAA basketball tourney there are certain teams that have history. They benefit in the seeding department because of there history of success. I see this as no different. Iowa and OK St. are the most historical teams in the sport which allows them to have the most inflated seeds on average. Not saying it is right, but it is reality. Reason Flo puts this garbage on there site is because there are so many Iowa haters out there that it is popular stuff. Especially out East. They hate us cuz they ain't us. From the movie The Interview which was hilarious by the way.
FIFY!!!
I've actually heard the opposite of theories that Iowa gets low balled on seedings because of our rich history, meaning if there was a toss up for like a 1 seed between a Hawk and another wrestler, the committee would always give it to the other guy because of mutual dislike for Iowa. Idk if I buy it. Although some years I've felt like we've been hosed pretty bad, but every team feels that way I'm sure.
I didn't bother reading Asken's drivel this time.
As far as peaking, I think most teams and wrestlers improve through the course of the season, barring injury. I think that the difference is the Hawks tend to get up to speed faster than others; meaning that they are in better physical condition, toughness, and technique very early in the season. Others seem to have a lot of lung issues and seem "rusty" early on, leaving them with more room to improve by the end of the year. Iowa also improves through the course of the year, but it is less obvious as compared to some others.
As far as peaking, I think most teams and wrestlers improve through the course of the season, barring injury. I think that the difference is the Hawks tend to get up to speed faster than others; meaning that they are in better physical condition, toughness, and technique very early in the season. Others seem to have a lot of lung issues and seem "rusty" early on, leaving them with more room to improve by the end of the year. Iowa also improves through the course of the year, but it is less obvious as compared to some others.
Missouri team results -
2009 - 7th
2010 - 10th
2013 - 7th
No top ten finishes in 2011, 2012, 2014.
However Missouri has apparently "peaked" the last six years better than Cornell, Ok St., and Iowa. So basically they've had some low seed guys all-american.
Penn St. has averaged a negative peaking score in the last six years with their 4 national championships. I guess they weren't able to achieve super-1st place in those years which was a hit.
2009 - 7th
2010 - 10th
2013 - 7th
No top ten finishes in 2011, 2012, 2014.
However Missouri has apparently "peaked" the last six years better than Cornell, Ok St., and Iowa. So basically they've had some low seed guys all-american.
Penn St. has averaged a negative peaking score in the last six years with their 4 national championships. I guess they weren't able to achieve super-1st place in those years which was a hit.
Re: or as the Supreme Leader says in The Interview
A better judge of "peaking" might be to look at bonus points generated per match, overall points scored, or point differential. Would be really hard to do mathematically but you could also break down scoring versus ranked opponents and see if that increases as the season goes on. You would have to re-rank opponents based on the final rankings at the end of the year. Doesn't matter if you beat the 3rd ranked guy at the beginning of the season if he did not AA at the end of the season.
With this method, a guy like Kyle Dake could "peak" at the end of the season even though he was undefeated as the system is not dependent on rankings.
This post was edited on 3/17 9:05 PM by Urohawk
What you meant to say is they "hate us because they anus"
A better judge of "peaking" might be to look at bonus points generated per match, overall points scored, or point differential. Would be really hard to do mathematically but you could also break down scoring versus ranked opponents and see if that increases as the season goes on. You would have to re-rank opponents based on the final rankings at the end of the year. Doesn't matter if you beat the 3rd ranked guy at the beginning of the season if he did not AA at the end of the season.
With this method, a guy like Kyle Dake could "peak" at the end of the season even though he was undefeated as the system is not dependent on rankings.
This post was edited on 3/17 9:05 PM by Urohawk
Misleading thread title. Nothing coming from Askren seems to be interesting. So far he has off comically indignant, and wreaking of jealousy. That was about as laughable as JD Bergman's interview of Lance Palmer after Metcalf beat him in the finals
I hope to see his detailed breakdown after his over seeded Missouri wrestlers fail to deliver this year. I doubt they have 3 champs, so they'll lose ground at some combination of 125, 149 and 197. I don't see them getting to their seed at 141 or 174 either. That must mean that they just don't know how to peak...
Ryan Bader fights at 205, 35 pounds more than Askren. And I guarantee you that Ben is whupping him in training.
Askren is one of the greatest, most entertaining wrestlers I've ever had the privilege to watch. He is just trying to sell his team. Its no big deal, and its good for wrestling.
Latest posts
-
-
-
HawkCast Ep. 120 ANOTHER Portal Addition: Sam Phillips to Bring SPEED
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
