This was a thought project I used to do after the state tournament. However, I found it to be something that yielded more anger than it was worth. Too many asymmetrical results at the state tournament from the course of the rest of the season (along with asymmetrical results from front side to back side at state).
One of the biggest pitfalls in this project was the national ranking mentality of the state tournament being but one data-point among many in a ranking cycle vs. the fan mentality of the state tournament as a end all/be all.
Example - D1/190 with one of the biggest upsets of the state finals. You have J.R. Miller who was 4th at Ironman, Powerade champ, 3rd at Doc B losing to Kowalski who was 8th at Ironman, 2nd at MBC (Neitenbach majored him 17-6), and Carnahan champ. In that Ironman event, two of Kowalski's three losses were to opponents that Miller beat during the tournament. Then you look at Kowalski beating Yackee by one in the state semi vs. Miller dominating him last week at district, along with the whole conversation around high leverage match results outside the season but within the ranking cycle. No national ranker worth their salt is going to have Kowalski over J.R. Miller even after the state final upset (you'll see Miller drop a few slots, and possibly Kowalski jump into the very back of a "20", depending on the composition of the back few spots); but in this type of "single division ranking", there would be pressure to do so.
I'm not trying to pick on Kowalski, who wrestled a great state final, but just trying to pick an obvious upset.