Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NEswitch

Can't Touch the BIG TEN

Recommended Posts

Just looking at some numbers from the NCAA's... Big Ten outscored Big 12, ACC, EIWA (Top three conference scorers), Pac 12 and WCC...586 to 573.5!

 

So for those of you that complain about how many they qualify... They did this with HALF of the qualifiers

82 NQ (Big Ten) / 164 NQ (Big12,ACC,EIWA,Pac12,WCC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of the ten big ten champions 6 won the NCAA championships

 

125 Delgado

133 Ramos

141 Stieber

149 Tsirtsis

157 Green 3rd (Ness 2nd)

165 Taylor

174 Kokesh 4th (Storley 3rd)

184 Ruth

197 Heflin 2nd

HWT Nelson 2nd

 

6 big ten champs won NCAA's. 2 came in second, one 3rd and one 4th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The individual wrestlers earn their spot for the conference each year now with the new system. I really don't hear anyone complaining especially about the Big 10.

Don't think anyone will argue with you that they have been and remain the premier conference in wrestling, will get tougher with Maryland & Rutgers joining the conference next year.

 

I really like how the NCAA qualifying process has worked the past few years - I was a little skeptical at first, but the right guys go to Nationals. Do wish we had more allotments say 360 total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do wish we had more allotments say 360 total.

 

There are plenty of wrestlers at the national tournament. Over 40% of the starters in Division I make it to the NCAA Championships, and there are a lot of mismatches in the first round. I want qualifying to mean something. I don't want fewer guys to make it, but I don't think we need more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I will edit. And don't talk to me about personal attacks, the guy I was speaking of has made far more than personality attacks against me and many other forum members. I am sick of his stupid antics and it appears so are a lot of others. In any case, I will edit, even though he is getting what he has been giving out for quite a while now and nothing has been done about it. Hope you are happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That fat moron that is a huge Northern Iowa fan suggests very often that the allotment of national qualifiers from the big 10 is unfair and a joke to college wrestling. And he is right, just ask him. He is never wrong, even when he's wrong.

Way to make a personal attack, when you've never even met the guy. At least one thing you've said in there is flatly wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of the ten big ten champions 6 won the NCAA championships

 

125 Delgado

133 Ramos

141 Stieber

149 Tsirtsis

157 Green 3rd (Ness 2nd)

165 Taylor

174 Kokesh 4th (Storley 3rd)

184 Ruth

197 Heflin 2nd

HWT Nelson 2nd

 

6 big ten champs won NCAA's. 2 came in second, one 3rd and one 4th.

 

And 2 Big Twelve champs won it. Which, given that the Big 10 has three times the number of teams... means they performed about the same. They also had about the same percentage of All Americans (Big Twelve had slightly more per capita last year, Big 10 had slightly more per capita this year). The Big 10 has more teams than the Big Twelve. But year over year they perform at about the same level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you are able to match the per capita rate with 3x the number of teams you show a much stronger conference.

 

Take a random Big Twelve wrestler and a random Big 10 wrestler. They are each about equally likely to be a national champion. They are each about equally likely to be a finalist. They are each about equally likely to be an All American. They are each about equally as likely to have reached the R12. They are each about equally as likely to be an NCAA qualifier.

 

No other conference comes anywhere near those two in any of those accomplishments. The only difference between the Big 10 and Big Twelve is that the Big 10 has more schools.

 

The conferences very easily sort into tiers

 

Tier 1: Big 10, Big Twelve

 

Tier 2: MAC, ACC

 

Tier 3: Everybody else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you are able to match the per capita rate with 3x the number of teams you show a much stronger conference.

 

Take a random Big Twelve wrestler and a random Big 10 wrestler. They are each about equally likely to be a national champion. They are each about equally likely to be a finalist. They are each about equally likely to be an All American. They are each about equally as likely to have reached the R12. They are each about equally as likely to be an NCAA qualifier.

 

No other conference comes anywhere near those two in any of those accomplishments. The only difference between the Big 10 and Big Twelve is that the Big 10 has more schools.

 

The conferences very easily sort into tiers

 

Tier 1: Big 10, Big Twelve

 

Tier 2: MAC, ACC

 

Tier 3: Everybody else

 

Apearently not that easy, because you have the Big 12 on the same tier as the Big 10, and they simply are not on that level. I used to be a huge advocate, and defender of the Big 12, until the Huskers switched, and I was astonished at the level of toughness that one has to possess as a team to go through a Big 10 schedule. The Huskers were better this year than any of the recent teams they put on the mat while in the Big 12, and the results reflect far less success, which is attributable to the toughness of schedule, week in, and week out, they have to wrestle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you are able to match the per capita rate with 3x the number of teams you show a much stronger conference.

 

Take a random Big Twelve wrestler and a random Big 10 wrestler. They are each about equally likely to be a national champion. They are each about equally likely to be a finalist. They are each about equally likely to be an All American. They are each about equally as likely to have reached the R12. They are each about equally as likely to be an NCAA qualifier.

 

No other conference comes anywhere near those two in any of those accomplishments. The only difference between the Big 10 and Big Twelve is that the Big 10 has more schools.

 

The conferences very easily sort into tiers

 

Tier 1: Big 10, Big Twelve

 

Tier 2: MAC, ACC

 

Tier 3: Everybody else

 

one team can skew the numbers for the big 12. ok state has produced as well as anyone in the past two years. when you take the top team out of each conference it isn't even close. the big 10 would have to outproduce at a 4:1 margin and they do easily. here are the numbers, and the numbers without the top team in each conference. small sample sizes (big12) can be dramatically affected by outliers (okst).

 

2013

AA/finalists/champs

b10 29/11/5

b12 12/3/3

3:1 expected

AA adv b12/finalists adv b10/champs adv b12

 

2013 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 24/6/4

b12 5/1/1

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs =

 

2014

AA/finalists/champs

b10 34/10/6

b12 11/5/2

3:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b12/champs =

 

2014 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 27/8/4

b12 6/1/0

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs adv b10

 

one strong team carries the big12, while 4-5 carry the big 10. to ignore the fact that the outlier in the big12 makes the numbers look proportional is silly. the big10 is much better than the big12 currently. 90's and early 2000's i totally agree they were on par. today it's not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you are able to match the per capita rate with 3x the number of teams you show a much stronger conference.

 

Take a random Big Twelve wrestler and a random Big 10 wrestler. They are each about equally likely to be a national champion. They are each about equally likely to be a finalist. They are each about equally likely to be an All American. They are each about equally as likely to have reached the R12. They are each about equally as likely to be an NCAA qualifier.

 

No other conference comes anywhere near those two in any of those accomplishments. The only difference between the Big 10 and Big Twelve is that the Big 10 has more schools.

 

The conferences very easily sort into tiers

 

Tier 1: Big 10, Big Twelve

 

Tier 2: MAC, ACC

 

Tier 3: Everybody else

 

one team can skew the numbers for the big 12. ok state has produced as well as anyone in the past two years. when you take the top team out of each conference it isn't even close. the big 10 would have to outproduce at a 4:1 margin and they do easily. here are the numbers, and the numbers without the top team in each conference. small sample sizes (big12) can be dramatically affected by outliers (okst).

 

2013

AA/finalists/champs

b10 29/11/5

b12 12/3/3

3:1 expected

AA adv b12/finalists adv b10/champs adv b12

 

2013 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 24/6/4

b12 5/1/1

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs =

 

2014

AA/finalists/champs

b10 34/10/6

b12 11/5/2

3:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b12/champs =

 

2014 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 27/8/4

b12 6/1/0

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs adv b10

 

one strong team carries the big12, while 4-5 carry the big 10. to ignore the fact that the outlier in the big12 makes the numbers look proportional is silly. the big10 is much better than the big12 currently. 90's and early 2000's i totally agree they were on par. today it's not even close.

-----

 

Excellent point! And I agree that going back in time, the Big 12 (Big 8) was as tough or tougher. There was a time when Okla St and Iowa St were battling for national supremacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

one team can skew the numbers for the big 12. ok state has produced as well as anyone in the past two years. when you take the top team out of each conference it isn't even close. the big 10 would have to outproduce at a 4:1 margin and they do easily. here are the numbers, and the numbers without the top team in each conference. small sample sizes (big12) can be dramatically affected by outliers (okst).

 

2013

AA/finalists/champs

b10 29/11/5

b12 12/3/3

3:1 expected

AA adv b12/finalists adv b10/champs adv b12

 

2013 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 24/6/4

b12 5/1/1

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs =

 

2014

AA/finalists/champs

b10 34/10/6

b12 11/5/2

3:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b12/champs =

 

2014 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 27/8/4

b12 6/1/0

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs adv b10

 

one strong team carries the big12, while 4-5 carry the big 10. to ignore the fact that the outlier in the big12 makes the numbers look proportional is silly. the big10 is much better than the big12 currently. 90's and early 2000's i totally agree they were on par. today it's not even close.

 

It's called proportions. If you take the top 1/4 of the Big 12 out of course it is going to skew the stats more than taking the top 1/12 out of the Big 10. Just like if you took the bottom team out of each conference it would make the Big 12 look way better than the Big 10. One good (or bad) performance will have more effect on a group of 4 (obviously).

 

But this is not a 1 time outlier created this year. This is a year in and year out thing. The Big 12 teams and wrestlers are every bit as good (and often better) on average than the Big 10. Removing data from the picture and skewing results to suit your point doesn't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sockobuw is right and you are wrong barrett. From a mathmatical perspective the B10 doing as well as they do is much more significant and indicates that they are a better conference. The fewer teams you have the easier it is to provide consistent results. Okie state is arguably the only top-tier team left in the B12 while the b10 has FOUR

 

Thats not even taking into account things like conference schedule, how much better the tourney is, etc. A b12 in a tough weight probably has to wrestle one other stud, and many weights one guy just runs away with it without opposition. A b10 guy in weight like 174 might have to wrestler 3 AA caliber wrestlers in one tournament

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

one team can skew the numbers for the big 12. ok state has produced as well as anyone in the past two years. when you take the top team out of each conference it isn't even close. the big 10 would have to outproduce at a 4:1 margin and they do easily. here are the numbers, and the numbers without the top team in each conference. small sample sizes (big12) can be dramatically affected by outliers (okst).

 

2013

AA/finalists/champs

b10 29/11/5

b12 12/3/3

3:1 expected

AA adv b12/finalists adv b10/champs adv b12

 

2013 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 24/6/4

b12 5/1/1

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs =

 

2014

AA/finalists/champs

b10 34/10/6

b12 11/5/2

3:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b12/champs =

 

2014 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 27/8/4

b12 6/1/0

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs adv b10

 

one strong team carries the big12, while 4-5 carry the big 10. to ignore the fact that the outlier in the big12 makes the numbers look proportional is silly. the big10 is much better than the big12 currently. 90's and early 2000's i totally agree they were on par. today it's not even close.

 

It's called proportions. If you take the top 1/4 of the Big 12 out of course it is going to skew the stats more than taking the top 1/12 out of the Big 10. Just like if you took the bottom team out of each conference it would make the Big 12 look way better than the Big 10. One good (or bad) performance will have more effect on a group of 4 (obviously).

 

But this is not a 1 time outlier created this year. This is a year in and year out thing. The Big 12 teams and wrestlers are every bit as good (and often better) on average than the Big 10. Removing data from the picture and skewing results to suit your point doesn't change that.

 

by year in, year out; do you mean the past 2 years? because the current big 12 has only been in existence for 2 years. the depth of the big 10 is what makes it so much better than the other conferences. the proportional idea is carried by the thought that if the big 12 grew to the size of the big 10 they could have the same amount of success per athlete. this simply is flawed and unproven logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Take a random Big Twelve wrestler and a random Big 10 wrestler. They are each about equally likely to be a national champion. They are each about equally likely to be a finalist. They are each about equally likely to be an All American. They are each about equally as likely to have reached the R12. They are each about equally as likely to be an NCAA qualifier.

You know, Cornell could leave the EIWA, form their own conference, and probably wind up with a higher per capita rate than either the Big 10 or the Big 12. Would that make this imaginary conference the best? Absolutely not. In fact, they would be in a weaker conference than the one they had been in the year before. Winning this imaginary conference would simply require making Cornell's starting lineup.

 

Point being:

 

B1G>Big 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2013

AA/finalists/champs

b10 29/11/5

b12 12/3/3

3:1 expected

AA adv b12/finalists adv b10/champs adv b12

 

2013 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 24/6/4

b12 5/1/1

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs =

 

2014

AA/finalists/champs

b10 34/10/6

b12 11/5/2

3:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b12/champs =

 

2014 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 27/8/4

b12 6/1/0

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs adv b10

 

one strong team carries the big12, while 4-5 carry the big 10. to ignore the fact that the outlier in the big12 makes the numbers look proportional is silly. the big10 is much better than the big12 currently. 90's and early 2000's i totally agree they were on par. today it's not even close.

 

Of course taking the top Big Twelve school out has a greater impact than taking the top Big 10 school out. There are three times as many Big 10 schools! If you want to do that comparison you have to take out the top three Big 10 schools. Take out Iowa, Minnesota, and Penn State and you end up with fourteen AAs for the Big 10 to six for the Big Twelve. Which indicates that the Big Ten is more top heavy than the Big Twelve is.

 

Here's another example to illustrate why you can't just drop the top team... take it the other way and drop the bottom team from each conference.

 

Average 2014 Big 10 team score: 48.8

Average 2014 Big Twelve team score: 46.25

 

Average 2014 Big 10 team score(minus Purdue) : 52.6

Average 2014 Big Twelve team score minus West Virginia: 61.2

 

Since it has fewer teams, the outlier is much more pronounced in the Big Twelve.

 

However, if you instead drop the bottom three teams out of the Big 10...

 

Average 2014 Big 10 team score(minus Purdue, Michigan State, and Indiana) : 61.2

 

You find out that the top 3/4 of the Big 10 and top 3/4 of the Big Twelve had an identical average team score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the point is that is is harder to have those scores over a larger sample size. its similar to trying to compare a guy who bats .400 for the first two months of the season to one that does it for the whole season. ok st is their hot month. the big ten is able to have the same amount of success with a larger sample size. anyone who believes the big10 is currently = to the big 12 obviously has an affiliation to the big 12. for those who don't read all posts i do believe in the 90's and early 2000's the big 12 was = and probably even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the Big 10 is the best conference and I never said they weren't. I also don't think it's close. The Big 12 should cease to be a conference now that it is down to 4 (and they basically are with the ACC team up next year).

 

None of that changes the FACT that Big 12 wrestlers and teams perform on par with the Big 10 on an annual basis. It also doesn't change the fact that Sockubow is twisting data to fit a pre-determined conclusion when he pulls OSU and PSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that the Big 10 is the best conference and I never said they weren't. I also don't think it's close. The Big 12 should cease to be a conference now that it is down to 4 (and they basically are with the ACC team up next year).

 

None of that changes the FACT that Big 12 wrestlers and teams perform on par with the Big 10 on an annual basis. It also doesn't change the fact that Sockubow is twisting data to fit a pre-determined conclusion when he pulls OSU and PSU.

 

I agree and that's been my point all along. The average Big 10 wrestler is basically the same level as the average Big Twelve wrestler. And the average wrestler of those two conferences is miles above the average wrestler of any other conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2013

AA/finalists/champs

b10 29/11/5

b12 12/3/3

3:1 expected

AA adv b12/finalists adv b10/champs adv b12

 

2013 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 24/6/4

b12 5/1/1

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs =

 

2014

AA/finalists/champs

b10 34/10/6

b12 11/5/2

3:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b12/champs =

 

2014 without psu and osu

AA/finalists/champs

b10 27/8/4

b12 6/1/0

4:1 expected

AA adv b10/finalists adv b10/champs adv b10

 

one strong team carries the big12, while 4-5 carry the big 10. to ignore the fact that the outlier in the big12 makes the numbers look proportional is silly. the big10 is much better than the big12 currently. 90's and early 2000's i totally agree they were on par. today it's not even close.

 

Of course taking the top Big Twelve school out has a greater impact than taking the top Big 10 school out. There are three times as many Big 10 schools! If you want to do that comparison you have to take out the top three Big 10 schools. Take out Iowa, Minnesota, and Penn State and you end up with fourteen AAs for the Big 10 to six for the Big Twelve. Which indicates that the Big Ten is more top heavy than the Big Twelve is.

 

Here's another example to illustrate why you can't just drop the top team... take it the other way and drop the bottom team from each conference.

 

Average 2014 Big 10 team score: 48.8

Average 2014 Big Twelve team score: 46.25

 

Average 2014 Big 10 team score(minus Purdue) : 52.6

Average 2014 Big Twelve team score minus West Virginia: 61.2

 

Since it has fewer teams, the outlier is much more pronounced in the Big Twelve.

 

However, if you instead drop the bottom three teams out of the Big 10...

 

Average 2014 Big 10 team score(minus Purdue, Michigan State, and Indiana) : 61.2

 

You find out that the top 3/4 of the Big 10 and top 3/4 of the Big Twelve had an identical average team score.

 

Agreed. You can't simply subtract OSU from the Big 12 (25% of it's membership) and only remove 1 team (about 8%) from the Big 10 and expect the results not to be skewed. You have to remove 25% of the teams from the Big 10 and leave them with 75% of the teams participating to "even" the results. Remove 29 of the Big 10's qualifiers (the 3 top teams qualified 29) and that leaves 55 Big 10 qualifiers. Plus knock 21 All Americans off the Big 10 total in that case, including 3 NCAA champs. So that knocks the number of Big 10 All Americans from 34 to 13 (but with a still impressive 3 champs).

 

After removing the top 25% from each conference:

Big 10 9 teams/13 All Americans

Big 12 3 teams/ 6 All Americans

 

So that would show the Big 10 to be more "top heavy" than the Big 12. In fact the remaining teams in the Big 12 average 2 All Americans each as opposed by 1.44 per Big 10 team, so the Big 12 is over 35% higher.

 

Another way to look at it is from a non-team perspective but from a depth perceptive: remove the top 25% of the qualifiers from each weight class and look at conference performance. Remove the top 3 finishers from each weight class and the Big 10 loses 6 NCAA champs (expected) and 22 placers.

 

Big 10 placers 4-12/12 All Americans

Big 12 placers 2-4/ 5 All Americans

 

So by both of those metrics the Big 12 is easily on par with the Big 10 qualitatively. Objectively the Big 10 is the best conference in the country, no doubt about it, but production per the average teams in each conf is about equal, and the top 25% of each conference are also about on the same par quality wise. Realistically the only significant difference is that the Big 10 is a much larger conference with a much larger talent pool than the 4 teams of the Big 12, but the quality of both is similar (and in fact could be seen to be on the side of the Big 12).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...