Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Up to this most recent Olympics, the women have been allowed to add weight classes to their world championships in non-Olympic years. However, from what I understand, the men have been rejected to have this same opportunity. Why are women allowed to add weight classes but men are not?
  2. My original post was more about trying to quantify tournament strength rather than debate duals vs. tournaments. Although I am in the group that thinks duals are the better indicator for team strength. At Big Ten's, any single individual can have a maximum of 6 matches. At ACC's, that number is only 4. At NCAA's, you can have as many as 9 matches. Those differences are huge when it comes to points accrued. With duals, there aren't those discrepancies. There's one match and you score or give up as many as 6 points. That's it, nothing else. There's no disputing that the NCAA tournament has the greatest pool of individual talent. Even with all it's depth though, it still just is another structure that teams have to navigate.
  3. Some fun facts about the "Monroeville Four" that I looked up. They competed together for three years, which culminated into a team championship in 2010. At that tournament, the team overall had six qualifiers and finished with a total individual record of 19-4. Of those 19 victories, 16 came from the "Four." They won the state title by 40 points with only 35% of their actual team.
  4. The debate of dual vs. tournament strength has been kicked around for awhile now. Everyone has their opinions on which teams are stronger or weaker in a dual compared to a tournament and vice versa. My question is, how do you gauge a team's tournament strength? Not just for NCAA's or any other specific tournament, but their strength in it's entirety. I've been looking at results from last year and here are some of my findings. These are team scores at conferences and what those same teams did at NCAA's. Big 12's: Missouri - 77, 20 Oklahoma State - 73, 66 Oklahoma - 60.5, 38 Iowa State - 24, 11.5 ACC's: Maryland - 83, 15.5 Virginia - 73.5, 17.5 Virginia Tech - 70.5, 39 PAC-12: Boise State - 129, 3.5 Stanford - 125, 33 Arizona State - 102.5, 2 Cal Poly - 98, 23.5 SoCon: Chattanooga - 102, 3.5 Appalachian State - 72.5, 28 Citadel - 72.5, 4.5 Missouri won Big 12's but finished behind OSU by 46 points at NCAA's, and Oklahoma who they beat comfortably at conference. Virginia Tech took 3rd at ACC's but outscored both of those teams that were in front of them, COMBINED. Boise State is the Pac-12 champ that finished 20 points behind a Cal Poly team that took 4th. Chattanooga won SoCon's by a wide margin yet they are looking up at Appalachian State at NCAA's. All scores are tournament-based that are netting completely different results.
  5. The incentive is NCAA individual titles.
  6. The issue I see with using tournaments to determine team strength is that they come in many varieties. We have our Midlands and Southern Scuffle-types, which can have as many as 40+ in a bracket. Then there are the conference tournaments, which range fom 6 to 11 to 14 teams. Then there's the NCAA's that has 33 wrestlers per bracket. So which tournament structure best determines team strength? Is it NCAA's? Going back the last 5 years, the average team champion did not qualify 10% of it's team, 5 out of 50. In 2010, Penn State missed out on 2 qualifiers. In that same span, the average top 5 team did not qualify 15.6% of their team, 39 out of 250. I checked the brackets on wrestlingstats.com Using a format that allows for 10% of a team champion, and 15.6% of a top 5 team, to ride the bench seems a bit off to me. At least in a dual, everyone has an opportunity to send out a full line-up everytime.
  7. I think the overall issue is that the NCAA will not recognize two team championships. So, if the sport goes to a dual format championship, the NCAA will not recognize the team champion at the individual tournament. The individual championships would lose the team aspect of the tournament. This is an issue for a lot of people in the sport. That is my understanding of the problem. I'll give you the issue of not having two NCAA team champions. However, it's been said that the NWCA would be allowed to keep team scores at the individual championships. So the team aspect is still there, just under another organization. This isn't going to be like how the NWCA National Duals are right now. The problem with the duals, right now, is that not every team is showing up (and they won't show up as long as it's not NCAA-sanctioned). If/When this duals proposal passes, everyone will be going to an NCAA-sanctioned dual championship. At the same time, everyone will also go to the individual championships because it'll still be NCAA-sanctioned at the individual level (although the team race will be headed by the NWCA). What am I missing?
  8. Good luck trying to convince me how this'll impact the team score at the individual championships. The team score is based on how each wrestler does, correct? You can expect each and every wrestler to give it his all because everyone wants to be an NCAA individual champion/AA. Put NRA in front of the team trophy. How's that going to change how Ed Ruth is going to prepare for an individual title? Is that going to really make him less inclined to wrap someone up in a cradle?
  9. So.... Why still keep team scores if they don't count towards a Championship??? What's the point? There still is a championship, that's the point. People are just freaking out because the acroynym on the trophy would be different.
  10. Besides maybe logistics, what exactly is the issue with changing the team champion being determined from an individual tournament to a dual tournament? People believe that this change would "dismantle" NCAA's. I quoted dismantle because those are words that Cael has used to justify his position. Why is it being dismantled? How exactly is it being dismanted? Why would a NWCA team champion, at the individual championships, be less significant than an NCAA team champion? Team scores are determined by individual performances. Tom Brands has said this. The team score is still going to be shown just like at all the other individual championships. The team score is going to be exactly the same, no matter what the acronym is. Wrestlers are going to be busting their butts for AA status or for individual titles, no matter what the team score is. So what's the issue?
  11. Dr. Yow's argument is full of holes. She states that there are no positive effects that pertain to NC State. Yet later mentions that "Coach Popolizio is confident that they'll compete in the team championship annually in three to four years." That seems pretty positive to me. She's also concerned with how Director's points are tallied up. NC State isn't exactly a wrestling powerhouse so they aren't racking up many points in either format. How does the Director's points pertain to NC State for this situation? According to NWCA, NC State competed in 16 duals last year. But apparently they're going to need to increase their budget in order to meet the mandatory 12 dual requirement to be eligible for the team duals. She keeps pointing to how the major conferences, Big 12 and Big Ten, are going to benefit from this. Does she not realize how much those 2 conferences dominate the individual championships right now?
  12. Here's an interesting video from Takedown Wrestling. It mentions the format of the proposed dual tournament (1:56) and it's impact on the individual tournament (22:05). Plus there are various interviews of coaches sprinkled in between that are worth watching. http://blip.tv/TakedownWrestling/takedown-wrestling-episode-179-6347465
  13. I'd prefer not starting another thread on the same topic. But I have a feeling that this would get lost being mixed in with all the dialogue that's taken place in the other threads that are up. This is a letter from Rob Koll. It should give everyone here some insight into what is taking place and the mindset of the NWCA members for moving foward with this proposal. http://www.nwcaonline.com/nwcawebsite/News/2012/09/11/division-i-national-duals-update Sep 11, 2012 To: Wrestling Stakeholders Fr: Rob Koll, President/NWCA Re: DI National Duals Update Date: September 10, 2012 On behalf of the NWCA Board of Directors, we want to provide you with a status report on an NCAA DI National Duals proposal that is going before the NCAA Championship Cabinet for a vote on September 11. If it passes there, it must still make it through the Presidents Council in November. I’m guessing that many of you have heard bits and pieces of this because it has been quite controversial among our DI wrestling coaches and extended community. As a matter of background, National Wrestling Hall of Fame member, John Graham, initially created this national dual meet concept in 1981 by forming Virginia Duals. In 1989, John Graham asked that the NWCA assume control of the event so it could eventually become a true National Dual Meet Championship. The National Duals was eventually titled, the NWCA/Cliff Keen National Duals in honor of one of the founding members of the NWCA (Cliff Keen). Over the years, the event enjoyed considerable success but never really became the true national dual meet championship it was intended to be because one or more of the top teams would routinely abstain from participating each year. It has become apparent to us that the only way a true National Dual Meet Championship will ever be realized is if the NCAA sanctions it. For this reason, we have been communicating this strategy to the wrestling community for a period of time. The need for a national dual meet championship has never been greater as evidenced by the following: [*:1p2ajnqf]We need a way to make intercollegiate wrestling more relevant on every college campus. Here is our DI trend from 1982 to 2012 operating under the current individual NCAA Championship model: 147 teams/1982, 110 teams/1992, 87 teams/2002, 77 teams/2012. We believe growing our spectator base during the regular season around exciting dual meets (that lead to a post season championship) will substantially grow our spectator base and make wrestling more relevant on each college campuses. [*:1p2ajnqf]The DI wrestling spectator base has been stagnant for over a decade. Ten years ago, we had 3 teams with an average fan base of 4000 or more and 10 other teams with 1000 fans or more. Ten years later, it is relatively unchanged. A careful analysis of every mainstream spectator sport in America tells us that they have one thing in common. Essentially, the outcome of every regular season competition ultimately determines advancement to the post season. This dynamic is critical for creating fan and media excitement in intercollegiate wrestling. [*:1p2ajnqf]The new duals concept provides an opportunity for more student athletes to participate in a national championship who otherwise would not have the opportunity to compete in the individual championships. [*:1p2ajnqf]Our sport needs and deserves to have a second marquee event that is nationally televised (ESPN is interested in televising NCAA National Duals in addition to an NCAA individual championship). [*:1p2ajnqf]The NCAA has conducted a demographic study of the spectators who attend the NCAA DI Championships and has discovered that we have an aging fan base we need a strategy to attract a younger crowd and/or new fans to our sport. We believe the dual meet format will be much more attractive to school alumni and non-wrestling fans. [*:1p2ajnqf]Historically, university administrations have not hesitated to eliminate intercollegiate wrestling programs even though they have placed high in the NCAA individual championships. Some recent examples would be Fresno State, UC Davis, and University of Oregon all had recent Top 25 finishes and NCAA champions within a few years of being dropped. Examples of smaller schools are: [*:1p2ajnqf]Liberty University dropped wrestling after advancing 4 wrestlers to the NCAAs [*:1p2ajnqf]UNC Greensboro dropped wrestling after advancing 5 wrestlers to the NCAAs that year (most ever). [*:1p2ajnqf]Slippery Rock dropped wrestling after advancing 5 wrestlers to the NCAAs (most since 1973) The NCAA will continue to completely support the NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships as is (recognizing All Americans, providing per diems, etc.). The one caveat that has clearly created the most controversy among our coaches is that the official team champion would be crowned at the dual meet championship and no longer the individual championship. While the NWCA hoped to have team scores at both championships, it became clear that the NCAA can’t bend on this. On August 3, 2012, the DI representatives of the NWCA Board of Directors (Brian Smith/Missouri, Rob Koll/Cornell, Mark Cody/Oklahoma, Chris Ayers/Princeton, Mike Rogers/F&M, Jim Zalesky/Oregon State, Tom Ryan/Ohio State, Steve Garland/Virginia), discussed the caveat of the NCAA no longer keeping team score at the individual NCAA Championships. The discussion ended in unanimous support of the NCAA National Duals concept with the following strategies to overcome the team scoring concern at the individual championships (should this get passed): [*:1p2ajnqf]The NWCA can keep team score at the individual NCAA Championships much like the independent BCS group keeps a national ranking for football teams. [*:1p2ajnqf]The NWCA can sponsor secondary national dual meet championship (like the NIT for basketball) for all teams that do not advance to the NCAA DI National Duals. Immediately following our August 3 Board meeting, this concept was presented in its entirely to all DI coaches who were in attendance at our convention. Approximately 2/3 of our 77 DI wrestling programs were represented at the NWCA convention. As you can imagine, there was some very spirited debate but when all of the dust settled, we were able to get unanimous support from every head/assistant coach in attendance. Over the past few weeks, numerous coaches called for yet one more vote so that EVERY coach could voice his opinion. We subsequently conducted a vote where all 77 DI coaches voted and the measure passed 39-36-2. In addition to being supported by a majority of DI coaches, we also have the support of some very prominent and influential administrators such as: [*:1p2ajnqf]Bob Bowlsby, Big12 Commissioner and former athletic director at Stanford & Iowa. [*:1p2ajnqf]Col Billy Walker, Deputy Athletic Director at Air Force and former chair of the NCAA Wrestling Committee. [*:1p2ajnqf]Dave Martin, Associate Athletic Director at Oklahoma State University and current chair of the NCAA Wrestling Committee. [*:1p2ajnqf]Derek van der Merwe, Deputy Athletic Director at Central Michigan University and former chair of the NCAA Wrestling Committee. [*:1p2ajnqf]Jim Fallis, former Athletic Director at Northern Arizona University and former NCAA Championship Cabinet member. [*:1p2ajnqf]Dan Gable All that said, the NWCA has decided to lend its full support to the proposal as the NCAA Wrestling Committee puts it in front of the NCAA Championship Cabinet for a vote on September 11. Of course, it is impossible to speculate how that vote will turn out. We recognize that the new National Duals concept is NOT a “silver bullet” by itself as it relates to saving college wrestling teams. That is why the NWCA is contracting with Dr. Coyte Cooper at University of North Carolina to develop/implement a comprehensive marketing kit for FREE to all college programs. We must also dedicate considerable time to addressing our DI conference infrastructure challenges (football and basketball conference realignment have made numerous wrestling conferences vulnerable). Further, we must continue to improve intercollegiate wrestling’s overall ranking with the NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate (APR) so we have better eligibility and graduation rates. Moreover, we have also invested heavily into coaching development so that our coaches are the absolute best stewards of their respective programs. Needless to say, we still have a lot of work ahead of us but we are making great progress on all fronts. Simply stated, growing the spectator and media support and convincing the key decision-making administrators on each campus that there is a huge community outpouring of support for their wrestling program is imperative to protecting the precious 77 DI wrestling programs we have remaining. It’s hard for many administrators to justify spending $300,000 to $500,000 per year for a wrestling program with home dual meet crowds of less than 50 and multiple forfeits in the lineups (despite whatever success a few wrestlers might have at the individual NCAA Championships). While there are some calculated risks in this move, we believe it pales in comparison to the risk of doing nothing. We believe Albert Einstein said it best. “The definition of insanity is when you continue to do the same things and expect a different outcome.” We have lost over one half of the DI wrestling programs since 1975 under the current NCAA Championship model. We believe that if we don’t act, we could end up like men’s gymnastics with 16 college teams remaining. For us to think we can transform intercollegiate wrestling into a mainstream spectator sport under our current NCAA Championship infrastructure is to suggest we can accomplish something that no mainstream spectator sport in America has been able to do. In summary, I believe legendary wrestler and wrestling coach Dan Gable said it best: “I am for moving forward whether it works or not, especially if there is little risk that it can set us backward. Going from there, I am not a status quo guy. If this works, we will have improved college wrestling 100% by going from one great event to two. There isn’t much in life we can improve by 100%.” One thing is for certain. We have a passionate wrestling community that will NEVER let wrestling fail. If this concept doesn’t pass, we will find an alternative. We will be sure to keep you abreast on our progress of the National Duals proposal as well as other important initiatives. Please don’t hesitate to call if you have any questions. [*:1p2ajnqf] National Duals Proposal
  14. Marty actually has finally gotten one right. If these little guys can compete, and often times flourish, at 103. There's no one here that can seriously debate that a miniscule 3 lb. jump is going to hurt. If any of these kids were to quit the sport at 106, they'd also quit the sport at 103.
  • Create New...