NCAA Seed vs Placement Report Card

2019 NCAA Wrestling Championships report cards.

Mar 30, 2019 by Brock Hite

Seed vs placement data is often used to make an assessment of how good teams are at “peaking.” I was once included in this group, but the sample size is so small and so difficult to accurately measure that you won’t find me trying to make this link. That won’t stop me from handing tournament grades out based on performance vs expectations that come along with seeds.

Already a subscriber? Log In

Do I believe in “peaking?” Sure I do, I just think it’s impossible to measure in wrestling because of the amount of variables. It’s not like track and field or swimming that is easily measurable. The anecdotal evidence from athletes can probably tell you more than the actual results. You need years of research to get to the bottom of “peaking,” and let’s be honest, it would be too long of a read for most.

For this much shorter piece I evaluated the seed and placements of the top ten finishing teams at the 2019 NCAA Wrestling Championships. I did the same for the Big Ten’s and came to the conclusion that the seeding committee did a great job for that tournament and teams across the board performed to expectation. The seeding committee should do a good job in a conference tournament where most guys in each weight class have met during the season. I didn’t expect to see the same results at the national tournament. I was wrong.

There wasn’t a team that came into the tournament and shocked everyone by blowing away their seeds. On the flip side, nobody went into the tank. I was a huge critic of the seeds, and still feel they got a few very wrong. In large part though, they were vindicated by results. Some of this was much to the dismay of fans. The first session on Thursday didn’t see a single wrestler in the top four positions at any weight class drop a match. Those upsets bring energy to the arena and create excitement. Was this a product of seeding all 33 competitors, or was this lack of upsets just an anomaly?

Team	Differential	Team Score
Penn State	-1.5	137.5
Ohio State	1.05	96.5
Oklahoma State	0.8	84
Iowa	1.55	76
Michigan	-0.95	62.5
Missouri	-1.15	62
Cornell	-0.75	59.5
Minnesota	1.3	53.5
Nebraska	-0.2	52
Rutgers	1.5	51.5

Just a few notes on seed and placement values:

All wrestlers were given the seed value they were assigned in the bracket 30-33 included.
Weight classes that failed to qualify for the tournament were given a seed and place value of 34. This didn’t affect the performance number, but gave a more fair value to the average seed for teams that qualified fewer wrestlers.
Losers in a consolation round were assigned the mean of round. If a wrestler lost in the round of 12 that means the losers of that round finished 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th. The mean would be 10.5. The four losers in the round before finished 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th. They were assigned a placement value of 14.5. This was done for each consolation round.

The first table and grade set is the top five teams from the 2019 NCAA Wrestling Championships. The top four teams took home a trophy so the grades should be good, right? Not exactly, a few teams might want to cite an overdue library book and hide their grade for a few days if they have plans this weekend.

Team	125	133	141	149	157	165	174	184	197	285	Average
Penn State Seeds	34	10	3	12	1	2	1	2	1	2	6.8
Penn State Placements	34	8	5	14.5	1	2	2	14.5	1	1	8.3
Ohio State Seeds	25	5	2	2	11	21	19	1	2	16	10.4
Ohio State Placements	20.5	4	2	2	20.5	10.5	14.5	3	2	14.5	9.35
Oklahoma State Seeds	2	1	15	7	34	33	7	26	3	1	12.9
Oklahoma State Placements	5	2	10.5	28.5	34	14.5	14.5	7	3	2	12.1
Iowa Seeds	3	7	22	10	6	1	34	12	5	28	12.8
Iowa Placements	1	5	10.5	8	5	7	34	14.5	7	10.5	10.25
Michigan Seeds	16	2	8	33	4	6	4	34	34	5	14.6
Michigan Placements	14.5	3	14.5	28.5	3	10.5	3	34	34	10.5	15.55

Penn State B-

1st Place, 137.5 Points, -1.5 Placement Differential

I really struggled with how to grade the Nittany Lions. An average seed of 6.8 creates expectations that are almost impossible to meet. They had the worst placement differential of the team’s that were analyzed. Sanderson’s squad placed five guys in the finals, but they were all seeded first or second. They also earned three championships to match three top seeds. RBY snuck onto the podium at the deepest weight in the tournament and Nick Lee fell just short of his third seed. Shakur Rasheed was an outlier that really hurt the perception of the team’s performance. If you throw out Rasheed’s performance you could grade the Nittany Lions out with an A. I waffled quite a bit with Rasheed’s injury, and ultimately ended up penalizing the maximum amount for a second seed finishing in the round of 16. It might not be fair to hold the Nittany Lions to such a high standard, but their performance over the past decade has made it impossible to judge them as a regular team.

Ohio State B+

2nd Place, 96.5 Points, +1.05 Placement Differential

The Buckeyes just missed grading out of the tournament with an A. They placed more than a full place above their seeded average and consistently hit the mark. Had Myles Martin won the tournament the Buckeyes would have graded out with an A.

Oklahoma State D+

3rd Place, 84 Points, +0.8 Placement Differential

If C’s get degrees, then the Cowboys are going to have to spend the summer in the classroom to get back on track to graduate. The placement differential for the Cowboys was on the plus side, but their late season lineup shift created a seeding average well above the true talent level of the Cowboy lineup. Some believed Oklahoma State could push 120 points and be there to steal the title is Penn State had a big collapse. Neither of those materialized.

The differential number looks good because Joseph Smith and Dakota Geer were terribly underseeded compared to a true measure of their skill. Geer finishing in 7th place was probably right inline with how many envisioned his season ending at the beginning of the season, not the 26th seed he drew. Joseph Smith looks like he had an incredibly successful tournament wrestling out of the 33rd seed and finishing in the round of 16. That is terribly misleading. The two-time All-American should have been mentioned in the title picture whether at 165lbs or 174lbs. Jacobe Smith also failed to get back on the podium from the 7th seed. Kaden Gfeller going 0-2 as the 7th seed kept the Cowboys from having a placement differential even more misleading than the +0.8 they actually scored. Late season weight adjustments used to be normal. With the new qualifying and seeding criteria I don’t expect other teams or Oklahoma State to test those waters again. It doesn’t feel right for Piccininni, Fix, Weigel, and White to have this grade on their transcript, but it is a team grade.

Iowa A

4th Place, 76 Points, +1.55 Placement Differential

The Hawkeyes just didn’t have the firepower without Michael Kemerer to place higher. Max Murin and Sam Stoll performed way above expectation making up for a slight slip-up by top-seeded Alex Marinelli. When you consider the performances of Spencer Lee and Austin DeSanto in weight classes that had so many question marks I don’t believe you can grade the Hawkeyes out with anything but an A.

Michigan C+

5th Place, 62.5 Points, -0.95 Placement Differential

Michigan had a very unremarkable tournament. They finished within the margins at almost every weight class. Mason Parris was the highest seeded wrestler to drop an opening round match and battled back to the round of 12. A round of 12 loss by Logan Massa was the difference between a B or a C from my perspective.

Team	125	133	141	149	157	165	174	184	197	285	Average
Missouri Seeds	27	8	5	4	13	15	2	14	34	20	14.2
Missouri Placements	28.5	6	3	6	20.5	20.5	4	20.5	34	10.5	15.35
Cornell Seeds	8	9	1	34	34	34	16	5	9	23	17.3
Cornell Placements	4	20.5	1	34	34	34	14.5	2	8	28.5	18.05
Minnesota Seeds	6	6	7	20	10	28	9	34	34	3	15.7
Minnesota Placements	10.5	7	6	10.5	10.5	20.5	8	34	34	3	14.4
Nebraska Seeds	18	34	16	34	2	7	10	9	14	17	16.1
Nebraska Placements	28.5	34	8	34	2	5	6	10.5	14.5	20.5	16.3
Rutgers Seeds	34	3	33	1	16	34	29	21	34	34	23.9
Rutgers Placements	34	1	28.5	1	14.5	34	14.5	28.5	34	34	22.4

Missouri C+

6th Place, 62 Points, -1.15 Placement Differential

The top-end performers in Missouri’s lineup finished within the margins of their projected All-American finishes. The Tigers dropped a decent amount of points with Jaques, Flynn, and Wisman all bowing out a round before their seeds projected. Had the Tigers won just a match or two more they could have been happier about their grade.

Cornell B

7th Place, 59.5 Points, -0.75 Placement Differential

The Big Red had a negative point differential and still managed a B on their report card. That might be too generous when you considered that the middleweights left a big hole in the lineup when they failed to qualify at 149lbs, 157lbs, and 165lbs. Chaz Tucker made for most of the negative differential and I think most can forgive his backside loss to RBY. Vito coming up with a strong fourth place finish and Max Dean Pulling the upset of the tournament forced me to grade a bit higher than the numbers warranted.

Minnesota B+

8th Place, 53.5 Points, +1.3 Placement Differential

Minnesota was another team that had stunningly consistent results across their lineup. Thorn made up the lost points of Russell when they both finished in the round of 12, one win shy of All-American honors. Had Gable turned the tables on Cassar I would have graded the Gophers out with an A, but a solid B+ is where they finished.

Nebraska B-

9th Place, 52 Points, -0.2 Placement Differential

Nebraska finished very close to chalk throughout their lineup. The plus side was Chad Red and the minus side was Zeke Moisey. Red made his way back to the podium after coming in as the 16-seed. Red’s underwhelming regular season kept him from being seeded appropriately after a second-place finish at Big Ten’s. I hate grading Nebraska lower than a B+ because of Moisey’s performance. It was heartbreaking to watch Moisey walk off the arena floor knowing he had the will to get back on the podium, but his body wasn’t willing to cooperate.

Rutgers A-

10th Place, 51.5 Points, +1.5 Placement Differential

Rutgers is tough to grade as a team because Suriano and Ashnault scored 44 of their 51.5 points. The +1.5 differential was accounted for by two backside wins by Joe Grello at 174lbs. It feels like they took two tests and scored 100s, but they’re willing to take an incomplete if you give them any more assignments. I hate doing it, but I’m going to give them an A- because of the barriers they broke down with their first two national champions.