It is a three-team race, or one team race with two other partcipants

Unbiased_football_fan

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2006
62
553
1
Frederick, MD
Hi BWI Friends - I had a chance to plug the seeds in and let WrestleSim produce some numbers. Penn State is a strong favorite though not a lock like some previous years. I ran things three ways: 1) base, 2) with enhancements (wrestling blue pills), and 3) injury scenario. Let's hope 3) doesn't come into play but it is interesting nonetheless. I LOVE THIS WEEK!

Running the probabilistic model with base numbers produced the results below. The base numbers give no enhancement to a team or wrestler over what would be expected of them based on the historical performance of all similar seeded wrestlers. The model takes into account the performance of each seed against every other seed as well as expected bonus points. Most likely is PSU #1, Michigan #2, Iowa #3. The battle for 3/4 is more likely to be interesting than the battle for 1/2 because points change more quickly in the middle than at the top.

TeamFirst (%)Second (%)Third (%)Mean PtsMean Bonus Pts
Penn State80.317.32.311619
Michigan14.352.728.39816
Iowa6.327.344.38814
ASU03.015.76912
NCSt00.78.06311
Cornell001.0508
OkSt000.3437
VT000.3427
ISU000377

Now you may be thinking "UFF you are a damn fool! Not all teams or wrestlers are created equal!" I say to you of course they are not! Cael has done as well or better than any recent coach getting his guys ready to go for NCAAs. There are advanced settings in the model where you can go in and increase the winning and bonus percentages for each wrestler. You can also fix results, such as having Gable win it (that of course affects HWT scoring by everyone else). I do this cautiously however, as "experts" are sometimes blinded by their expertedness. That sounds like a cool new word.

Scenario 2 has adjustments to win/bonus. I generally only do this for #1 seeds (some #2) and do this very cautiously. Historically a #1 seed wins the whole thing about 70% of the time, so you see how dangerous this can be. Nolf as a #3 was an exception. As you would expect, outcomes get less variable with greater certainty.

Scenario #2 has Penn State winning 93%, Michigan 5%, and Iowa 2%. I think this is most realistic. In previous years I have gotten closer to the actual scores with these adjustments. This scenario has PSU at 126 pts.

Iowa looks to be coming in a bit beaten up to put it mildly. Michigan did great at Big Ten's but the NCAA tourney is completely different from a team composition standpoint. It favors champs. Penn State produces champs. I think Michigan gets one champ in Nicky Gun Show. Amine loses to Keck in the semis.

Scenario #3 - What if Penn State had a #1 seed get injured in match #1 and default out? A few years ago I changed the model so that you could fix results for any match. As the tourney goes on I will fix the early results and simulate the rest giving updated probabilities. Sometimes results that seem HUGE have little impact on the final result mathematically. A top guy that gets beat early and wrestles back to #3 with lots of bonus can score the same amount.

Scenario #3 has Penn State winning 50%, Michigan 35%, Iowa 15%. Penn State would still be the favorite but a coin flip against the field.

Miscellaneous:
I have a lot of respect for what all these guys put their bodies through. However, is it just me or do you want to see some new faces??? I like watching freshmen like Hamiti and Ed Scott. I really can't stand to watch these guys that (when riding) drape on the back, drop to the ankle for a 4 count, come up and run the guy off the mat for 15 seconds of "riding", then repeat. Or stand ear to ear for the first 3 minutes butting heads. Working for pushouts and stall calls. It is such BS. And it is exceedingly difficult to win championships that way. SO STOP DOING IT!!!!!!

Some wrestlers get good draws and some get bad draws, but at the team level there is little difference in draws. The champion has to perform reasonably well across the board such that one bad draw rarely makes a difference. Too much happens with upsets that something that looks good can quickly go terrible on the backside of the bracket to say a priori what is a good and bad draw.

Now we can solve the stupid MFF issue by counting MFFs as a loss for seeding purposes (not on record though). Do that and you will never see a guy sit out when he isn't truly injured.

Trying to boost a guys seed by missing top guys? DOES NOT WORK. His seed will be "boosted" but his place will likely be worse. First he doesn't learn anything he could use to get better and beat the guy the next time around. Second, it increases the chances he gets upset and drops in the wrestlebacks and meets someone else better than he. If this intel is in the 3" binder the binder needs to be burned.

Penn State is set up to get their extra wrestler named Bonus McBonus into the tourney once again this year.

Some really great matches to look forward to. I am really looking forward to seeing some of these young guys compete. Here is to a great tournament of wrestling win or lose! We Are!
 

hlstone

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2006
2,093
1,881
1
Hi BWI Friends - I had a chance to plug the seeds in and let WrestleSim produce some numbers. Penn State is a strong favorite though not a lock like some previous years. I ran things three ways: 1) base, 2) with enhancements (wrestling blue pills), and 3) injury scenario. Let's hope 3) doesn't come into play but it is interesting nonetheless. I LOVE THIS WEEK!

Running the probabilistic model with base numbers produced the results below. The base numbers give no enhancement to a team or wrestler over what would be expected of them based on the historical performance of all similar seeded wrestlers. The model takes into account the performance of each seed against every other seed as well as expected bonus points. Most likely is PSU #1, Michigan #2, Iowa #3. The battle for 3/4 is more likely to be interesting than the battle for 1/2 because points change more quickly in the middle than at the top.

TeamFirst (%)Second (%)Third (%)Mean PtsMean Bonus Pts
Penn State80.317.32.311619
Michigan14.352.728.39816
Iowa6.327.344.38814
ASU03.015.76912
NCSt00.78.06311
Cornell001.0508
OkSt000.3437
VT000.3427
ISU000377

Now you may be thinking "UFF you are a damn fool! Not all teams or wrestlers are created equal!" I say to you of course they are not! Cael has done as well or better than any recent coach getting his guys ready to go for NCAAs. There are advanced settings in the model where you can go in and increase the winning and bonus percentages for each wrestler. You can also fix results, such as having Gable win it (that of course affects HWT scoring by everyone else). I do this cautiously however, as "experts" are sometimes blinded by their expertedness. That sounds like a cool new word.

Scenario 2 has adjustments to win/bonus. I generally only do this for #1 seeds (some #2) and do this very cautiously. Historically a #1 seed wins the whole thing about 70% of the time, so you see how dangerous this can be. Nolf as a #3 was an exception. As you would expect, outcomes get less variable with greater certainty.

Scenario #2 has Penn State winning 93%, Michigan 5%, and Iowa 2%. I think this is most realistic. In previous years I have gotten closer to the actual scores with these adjustments. This scenario has PSU at 126 pts.

Iowa looks to be coming in a bit beaten up to put it mildly. Michigan did great at Big Ten's but the NCAA tourney is completely different from a team composition standpoint. It favors champs. Penn State produces champs. I think Michigan gets one champ in Nicky Gun Show. Amine loses to Keck in the semis.

Scenario #3 - What if Penn State had a #1 seed get injured in match #1 and default out? A few years ago I changed the model so that you could fix results for any match. As the tourney goes on I will fix the early results and simulate the rest giving updated probabilities. Sometimes results that seem HUGE have little impact on the final result mathematically. A top guy that gets beat early and wrestles back to #3 with lots of bonus can score the same amount.

Scenario #3 has Penn State winning 50%, Michigan 35%, Iowa 15%. Penn State would still be the favorite but a coin flip against the field.

Miscellaneous:
I have a lot of respect for what all these guys put their bodies through. However, is it just me or do you want to see some new faces??? I like watching freshmen like Hamiti and Ed Scott. I really can't stand to watch these guys that (when riding) drape on the back, drop to the ankle for a 4 count, come up and run the guy off the mat for 15 seconds of "riding", then repeat. Or stand ear to ear for the first 3 minutes butting heads. Working for pushouts and stall calls. It is such BS. And it is exceedingly difficult to win championships that way. SO STOP DOING IT!!!!!!

Some wrestlers get good draws and some get bad draws, but at the team level there is little difference in draws. The champion has to perform reasonably well across the board such that one bad draw rarely makes a difference. Too much happens with upsets that something that looks good can quickly go terrible on the backside of the bracket to say a priori what is a good and bad draw.

Now we can solve the stupid MFF issue by counting MFFs as a loss for seeding purposes (not on record though). Do that and you will never see a guy sit out when he isn't truly injured.

Trying to boost a guys seed by missing top guys? DOES NOT WORK. His seed will be "boosted" but his place will likely be worse. First he doesn't learn anything he could use to get better and beat the guy the next time around. Second, it increases the chances he gets upset and drops in the wrestlebacks and meets someone else better than he. If this intel is in the 3" binder the binder needs to be burned.

Penn State is set up to get their extra wrestler named Bonus McBonus into the tourney once again this year.

Some really great matches to look forward to. I am really looking forward to seeing some of these young guys compete. Here is to a great tournament of wrestling win or lose! We Are!

I look forward to your simulation every year. If I recall correctly, you have been spot on year after year..

In my brain, I have Northwestern in the top 8. Would you be able to do a simulation for them?

Thanks again
 

Unbiased_football_fan

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2006
62
553
1
Frederick, MD
I look forward to your simulation every year. If I recall correctly, you have been spot on year after year..

In my brain, I have Northwestern in the top 8. Would you be able to do a simulation for them?

Thanks again
Northwestern comes in right around #9 at 38 points. Lots of qualifiers but hard to get points from the #9 and below. Great year for them so far!
 

Random4598375

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2020
334
424
1
I just filled out a full bracket for every weight. It is NOT unbiased. LOL. This is what it produced:

Team Standings
1 Penn State 143.5 with all 5 champs.
2 Michigan 96
3 NC State 93
4 Iowa 83.5
5 Nebraska 60
6 Arizona State 55.5
7 Cornell 54
8 Virginia Tech 51.5
9 Northwestern 45.5
10 North Carolina 42
11 Wisconsin 38
12 Ohio State 37.5
13 Minnesota 36.5
14 Pittsburgh 36.5
15 Missouri 35.5
16 Princeton 35
17 Oklahoma State 32
18 Cal Poly 31.5
19 Iowa State 30
20 Stanford 29.5
 

Unbiased_football_fan

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2006
62
553
1
Frederick, MD
PSU is sitting at a greater than 99.99% chance of winning according to the model.

Your Cats have wrestled VERY well, probably better than any other team in relation to actual vs. modeled.

ASU is at 84% for 3rd, Iowa at 16%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hlstone

hlstone

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2006
2,093
1,881
1
PSU is sitting at a greater than 99.99% chance of winning according to the model.

Your Cats have wrestled VERY well, probably better than any other team in relation to actual vs. modeled.

ASU is at 84% for 3rd, Iowa at 16%.


When 157 wins by a major, NU captures 5th.

Go Cats!!!