Jump to content

Wrestleknownothing

Members
  • Content Count

    2,859
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

Everything posted by Wrestleknownothing

  1. From the OP. From the post I quoted and directly addressed the clause "and executed properly". Not sure why anyone feels a need to police an internet forum.
  2. Even that wasn't executed properly. Dresser went on FRL a couple of years ago after there was controversy around the Last Chance Open. He admitted to rigging the brackets, which is expressly against NCAA rules, but the NCAA did nothing.
  3. I think it is just Rokfin that is doing the pay-per-view for certain events.
  4. You are not alone in that view. Many on this board have complained that the $12.50 in large print and the $150 in small print leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. It seems so unnecessary on their part to turn off so many diehard fans with information presented in a way that is intended to mislead. An unforced error. That they continue to make it after all these years and all these complaints does boggle the mind. Just say what you are charging in a clear fashion. That doesn't seem hard.
  5. In that vein, I would like to mention myself in this thread.
  6. Medical Forfeit? Seems like he could come up with a tougher nickname. I think "the guy whon only lost to The GOAT by one" is tougher.
  7. So does Vertus Jones introduce himself as one of the greatest college wrestlers of all time, or as the guy who only lost to The GOAT by one?
  8. Just started looking at 2019, and 2 seeds go 10 for 10. The #1 and #3 all AA'd. The #30 also went 10/10, but it was the bad 10.
  9. What's wrong with a little pseudoreplication amongst friends? As my father used to say, figures never lie but liars always figure. He was also an accountant who mentioned the firm of Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe so hmmmm.
  10. He tried walking off the mat in the Nick Lee match, but Angel Rivera wouldn't allow it.
  11. Nope. That would be Bo Nickal. And he has the birth certificate to prove it.
  12. Thanks for the correction. I will update it when I get more years in. As for statistical significance, there is none here. I would not use one year of data to attempt to make any predictions or statements about causality.
  13. What the heck, let's put the school data in too. (Also a 5 qualifier minimum)
  14. Relative performance by conference. This one is a little tricky as I limited the dataset to just schools with at least 5 qualifiers, then grouped by conference. The MAC had only a single school with at least 5 qualifiers (Rider with 6), so that one is a little loose on the definition.
  15. A distribution of the final finish by seed.
  16. I spent way too much time loading the 2021 tourney stats into a database to make some data visualizations. If I have the time and if there is an interest, I will do it for more years. Stay tuned. Alternatively, if someone already has the data in a database and is willing to share..... I highlighted the seeds that finished higher than their seed. The 4 seed did better than any other last year. With little room for upside, it was the only "All-American" seed to outperform.
  17. I was looking at the likely Big 10 seeds and something jumped out at 141. When I was debating between Lee and Rivera for the #1 seed, I looked at who they beat. Rivera has beaten the likely 10, 11, 12, and 14 conference seeds. His other four conference wins are all back ups. While he shouldn't be faulted for beating a very weak schedule (and beating them by a whole lot), I do discount the bonus rate/dominance a bit. On the other hand, Rivera does pass the sniff test. The one time I saw him he looked pretty jacked. I have him beating Eierman in the 2/3 semi, Lee beating Red in the 1/4 semi, and Lee taking the conference title.
  18. In the gleaming corridors of the fifty-first floor The money can be made if you really want some more Executive decision, a clinical precision Jumping from the windows, filled with indecision
  19. Close, but I think true probabilities line up like this 125: 83% 133: 83% 141: 83% 149: 83% 157: 82% 165: 83% 174: 83% 184: 83% 197: 83% 285: 83% On second thought make that 83% at 157. So, weighted average suggests 8.3. Sounds about right.
  20. I think it is quaint that after last year's "tie" with no supporting data (never happened before), some on here want to pretend that the Hodge is still quantitatively determined.
  21. Or as we used to say, the atom is safe in his presence.
×
×
  • Create New...