So we’re going to try to be more transparent this year.
Lots of folks want to SEE our picks — and either breathe a sigh of relief or laugh at them, your mileage may vary — but what we have not done too often is EXPOSE them after the fact.
This year, we’re going to try to do better with that.
So, here’s our “day after” review of 3A-District 1, where we’ll show you what went right, what went wrong, and what went sideways. You decide whether we know what we’re doing.
And let us know. Because we’re not always sure we know what we’re doing.
Predicted: 1. Fleming Island. 2. Oakleaf. 3. Creekside. 4. Bartram Trail. 5. Mandarin. 6. Nease. 7. Sandalwood. 8. Atlantic Coast.
Actual: 1. Fleming Island. 2. Creekside. 3. Oakleaf. 4. Mandarin. 5. Bartram Trail. 6. Nease. 7. Sandalwood. 8. Atlantic Coast.
For the most part, we were very close with this. Probably the biggest miss was in the 2-3 picks; with Oakleaf beating Creekside in a dual not too long again, we figured the hosts should be on top. We learned about Bartram’s holes in the lineup after the preview was sent, but the Bears would still have had a difficult time holding off a better-than-expected effort from Mandarin, which was within shouting distance of Oakleaf for third.
Yeah, we got this
106: We got the top three finishers and in the correct order and our projected fourth did not weigh in; had we had that info, the actual 4th, on whom we had notes but wasn’t projecting to get out, would have been in our mix.
113: We had the top three finishers and in the correct order, and, further, we had the right school, though not necessarily the right kid, for our projected fourth, plus we had a fuller bracket expected than what actually weighed in, so we were very close to 4-for-4.
195: We had three of the top four in the correct order (1-2-4) and our projected third did not wrestle, and wasn’t replaced in the lineup. The actual third did over-performed compared to our projections; the seedings did have him in the right space.
285: We had the right four guys get out, with the runnerup and third-place wrestlers flip-flopped. The main reason for that was the seeding was not what we had expected and our projected runnerup and champ met in the semis. But we pretty much had the right idea. If we had the seedings up front, we would have fixed accordingly.
Do we got this?
120: We got the correct champion and runnerup, but things went sideways from there. Our projected third did not wrestle (we had notes on his replacement, but wasn’t sure if he’d start) and his replacement still got out. The only one we didn’t project was Mutoh, the actual third, and he had a solid tournament.
126: Had we known our projected champ at 132 would drop to 126…we would have had a dilemma on our hands because we hadn’t seen him yet. The order in which 126 was projected was at least in order though, with the projected champ second, projected runnerup third and we got 4th right. Our projected third at 126 also dropped, taking fifth at 120.
138: We did get three of the actual four picks correct to qualify out; our projected third finished sixth at a weight class up. Seedings matched our top three projections, and both Knights that were under-projected both proved me wrong.
152: Our projected choice dominated as we expected, but at 160, and my fourth did not wrestle and I had no notes on his replacement. The seeding at least, agreed with me with respect my projected second and third, who won and finished second, respectively.
182: Not big misses, in that we had three of the correct four guys make it out, as well as both finalists (although they were flip-flopped) and our projected third left the team early to focus on track. Our projected fourth wound up third.
220: We had the correct champion and the correct third-place finisher. We had the right school finishing second; the projected runnerup was injured and his backup got to the final. Our projected fourth wound up taking fifth, although the seeding agreed with me.
Yeah, mistakes were made
132: We started by not having our projected champ in the right weight class. First botched effort. Our projected third was injured and didn’t weigh in (we’re hoping he has a full recovery). But from a predictions standpoint, second mistake. We had the eventual champion finishing fourth; the only part we got right was the projected runnerup, but for the wrong reason.
145: I do not believe I have botched a weight class as badly as this one was botched. We had four completely different people noted as qualifying out in our projection. NONE of the four people actually competed Saturday. The closest we came was mentioning that Oakleaf might have a bit of a logjam in the middles. Wow. That’s expert analysis for you.
160: Had too much of an identification with 145. Our projected champ did not wrestle and our projected third finished second a weight up (Fleming moved up a couple of its kids in this area). We got the runnerup correct and our 4th wound up placing 3rd.
170: Another mess, partially not our bad on this one, in that our projected champ was held out for Covid tracing and our projected fourth did not wrestle, with no replacment. Our projected runnerup won the weight, and our projected third got it right.