Jump to content

JCG

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Zeeb: you are correct on the two-year deal. I forgot about Neb. leaving after 2011. On the non-automatic situation, however, the conference did have to deal with it in a way, this year. At 125, Young earned a spot for the conference. But he didn't qualify as an at large for NCAA because he didn't win Big 12. The other three wrestlers had to bank on winning the conference to go -- which Klimara did. But if none of the four had earned a spot for the conference, none would have earned an automatic spot in the NCAA tournament by winning the Big 12.
  2. At least they might put the DQ back in. It made absolutely no sense to remove stalling DQs, meaning you could stall 10 times and still not get DQed. But if you called a 3rd injury timeout -- legitimate or not -- you were done. Personally, would have liked to return to the 1-1-2-DQ, but at least it's back in the books.
  3. Only one year with four teams and that with no automatic status. This year's champ at 125 had to get an at large bid to NCAA. They were not going to get a waiver for a four-team tournament again, according to John Smith.
  4. If the 16-team league/alliance does come to pass, the PAC 12 and Big 12 still will have their conference tournaments. They just won't be NCAA qualifying tournaments. With only 4 teams, Big 12 can't get approval for an NCAA qualifying event.
  5. Well, you said "the Big 12 Championship two-day format." So to me that sounds like you thought the tournament, i.e., the "championship," was a two-day tournament. Still looks that way to me when reading it. Sorry I mis-interpreted it. Yes, they weighed in for two separate one-day events, and that was considered a good by-product of getting the rest of the duals completed. However, all the teams didn't choose to take advantage of that in helping prepare for multiple weighins at nationals. Again, embarrassing not to try to win anytime you step on the mat.
  6. I have since corrected the goof. Looked at the wrong date. Had previously looked it up on Sat. and knew it was 1933, the unofficial one, but somehow saw the 1936 with two teams listed and wrote it down without noticing they tied for second, not first. Brain Lock.
  7. Just for accuracy's sake -- the poster who mentioned the Big 12 tournament "two-day format" being a joke apparently was confused. The Friday duals had nothing to do with the Big 12 tournament. Those duals were simply final regular season duals for each team -- not part of the tournament. West Virginia had trouble getting dates, travel expense, etc., worked out for the required home-and-home with the other three teams, so this is what they did. The embarrassing part was that once they agreed as a conference to do it, two of the teams basically didn't try to put a representative team on the mat.
  8. The heavily weighted score used to be moreso. In 1999, a proposal changed third through eighth from 9-7, 5-3, 2-1 to the current 10-9, 7-6, 4-3 to award team balance. The right move, in my opinion. the committee wants to reward the champion, but I agree that being champion is reward enough in itself. I would not have that big a gap between 1-2. Also, the second half of the proposed change in 1999 was to cut the bonus in half for consolations (just lik advancement). The committee didn't pass that part, sadly. They were forewarned that if they didn't, some 3rd placers would score more team points than champions. It has happened several times. And a few years back, one 5th placer outscored at least one runnerup. This was explained in advance to the committee, which stated it didn't really want that to happen. But the change was not implemented. Heck, the best way a third-placer can help his team is to lose in the first round then win seven straight consolation matches, pinning people along the way. And people who are, theoretically, not as strong as those in championship bracket. The current change announced Thursday is even worse. The pigtail round is an uneven round. Allowing advancement and bonus to be earned without most teams having no chance to wrestle in the round is not an equal playing field. Just wait. If this is unchanged, the title will be decided some year by one contending team having two standouts drawing pigtail matches, pinning unseeded opponents and scoring 6 team points. If a team in contention draws no pigtails, it has no chance to score those points. Previously, you picked up the advancement after the bye. But you still couldn't score bonus. Two simple solutions, with the first one being the most logical and needed for more than just scoring equality: 1. 32 qualifiers per weight, no pigtail. we don't need 33. 2. If No. 1 is not done, at the very least, put the 12 seeded wrestlers into the 32-man bracket where they have earned the right to be (as in basketball). then the only points scored in pigtail would be an unseeded wrestler beating another unseeded wrestler. Still could be an issue because of a contending team scoring bonus in a pigtail, though. Just not as likely as a high seed doing it. this was pointed out about 10 years ago, but no action was ever taken to eliminate the inequity.
  9. that rule applies to TEAM advancement tournaments, like national duals. Not individually bracketed tournaments. I find no rule in the book where a tie would be broken. there have been 2 ties -- only one in 1933 and that ws an unofficial title.
  10. JCG

    ESPN

    A little erroneous on D. Schultz. He was 3rd as a freshman at Oklahoma State. Lost a great match with Mark Churella. After his transfer, he was 2nd and 1st at Oklahoma. Tyler Caldwell joined Schultz as the only two athletes (any sport) to become all-American at both Oklahoma State and Oklahoma.
  11. Good timing for this question. The NCAA sent an email this afternoon saying tickets for 2014 will go on sale Thursday at 10 a.m. Eastern Time. go to NCAA.com/wrestling at that time to order.
  12. I think the main issue with taking it out west is that support hasn't been there, and that was back when the west coast was much stronger in wrestling. In 1976, I loved it being at Tucson. Had a great time. But unfortunately, even with Arizona and Arizona State being strong, the crowd for the finals was only 4,500. In 1980 better crowd in Corvallis, but the arena is too small. Maybe Portland? Seattle was great in 1973. If Las Vegas were allowed to have it, I guess the big draw would be Vegas, so maybe the wrestling crowd would travel there. But I have to agree with an earlier poster on the board: put it in areas where wrestling is strong. I can't see any southeast location being justified, even though I really enjoy Atlanta and have very good friends there.
  13. Have been to 41, 40 in a row. Okayk, okay, so I'm old.
  14. The only requirement I would put in there -- and maybe it already is in the committee's procedure -- is that if wrestle one second then default then forfeit out, you should have a letter from a physician (not a trainer) saying you should be sufficiently recovered by NCAA tournament time to wrestle at or close to full strength. I hate it for the wrestlers who get hurt, but if they're really not close to healthy, I hate to see a healthy wrestler not get the At Large spot.
  15. Don't know how much chance there is the big matchup won't occur, but I would have thought it wise to simply announce today that the order of matches in the finals could be adjusted for marketing purposes or whatever. BUT wait until after the semis, or actually until Saturday morning weigh-in to make sure you will have the climactic matchup you were building up.
×
×
  • Create New...