More accurate to use my pre-NCAA rankings to evaluate where the AAs finished...number is the pre-NCAA Dual Impact Index (without the same adjustments used in the final rankings), listed in order of placing:
125: 5, 15, 1, 4, 3, 21, 8, 10 (0, 0, 5)
133: 4, 2, 3, 1, 7, 9, 6, 11 (0, 1, 6)
141: 1, 2, 3, 14, 27, 15, 8, 9 (1, 2, 4)
149: 1, 4, 3, 2, 13, 11, 6, 29 (1, 1, 5)
157: 1, 4, 3, 8, 7, 2, 11, 18 (1, 1, 6)
165: 1, 3, 2, 8, 5, 13, 4, 12 (1, 1, 6)
174: 2, 4, 3, 7, 13, 1, 8, 34 (0, 1, 6)
184: 1, 5, 16, 3, 21, 6, 10, 14 (1, 1, 4)
197: 1, 2, 4, 6, 3, 8, 5, 7 (1, 2, 8)
285: 1, 4, 6, 3, 2, 7, 13, 17 (1, 1, 6)
Dual Impact Index: 7 of 10 champs, 11 of 20 finalists, 56 of 80 AAs.
Committee: 6 of 10 champs, 9 of 20 finalists, 54 of 80 AAs
Flo: 5 of 10 champs, 10 of 20 finalists, 57 of 80 AAs
Yeah, Flo beat me on AAs, but the Dual Impact Index beat both the committee and Flo everywhere else.
Part of the reason the DII looks so bad for you is because you're including wrestlers who didn't participate in their qualifiers as if they're ranked, something the committee and Flo does not do, and technically I don't do either.
Is it the adjustments that are the problem? Certainly, we'd agree that winning by fall against a lesser-ranked wrestler shouldn't HURT you, right?
Note: The last part isn't a defense, as much as it is a brainstorm. The adjustments should have taken SOME of the "Iowa bias" out of it. (the "Iowa bias" exists because of their relative lack of lesser-ranked Division I opponents on their schedule)