Jump to content

sbdude

Members
  • Content Count

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sbdude

  1. Or is it maybe an indicator or which program has better institutional support? Hard for a team with 3 scholarships to compete with a fully funded program in a dual. Hard for a program with 2 coaches to have enough time to develop 10 starters (and backups in case of injuries) as well as a program with a full complement of coaches, strength/conditioning coaches, a club team, volunteer coaches, etc. That same team could use their scholarships on 3 studs, spend some serious coaching time with them and place very well at Nationals and have something to point at as having a successful program. Which is best? I don't know but just playing a little devil's advocate here. We really need to think about how this will affect the current 'lower tier' programs. The top programs are going to do well no matter how we change things.
  2. Not that simple. Watch Martinez vs. Valencia, finals of Juniors. Valencia scored a 4. Imar scored a 4 to tie it. They each had the same number of high value moves. Imar scored last. Nobody was sure who was winning but Imar and his coach Mark Perry thought he had it (I did too). Even Flo announcers who had been tracking the score thought so. Valencia won because he had one more 2-pointer than Imar. Imagine scoring Ruth vs. Foster this way. They each scored 12 points. They each scored a 4-pointer. Who is going to remember how many 2s they each scored? it turned out to be the same, and Foster won on last points scored (he got one extra point when Ruth's corner challenged the scoring and lost). My solution is simple: 1st criterion: whoever scored a big move (4-pointer) wins. (If they both scored at least one big move, go to 2nd criterion) 2nd criterion: last point scorer wins. I understand that it's not just the highest point value move, you have to work through them in descending order. I did watch the match and I wasn't confused as to who won but I was confused as to why everyone else was confused. ;) I still think it's not that complicated and if there are coaches that don't understand it, that's on them. Criteria has been this way (with the exception of the cautions previously) for quite a few years hasn't it? If you can't remember, it's not hard to keep a little piece of paper with the scores on it. I think one of the primary duties of one of the corner coaches during a match is keeping track of score and time. Especially in a match of this importance. I don't trust scorekeepers or clock operators to get everything right. Unless you run those scoreclocks/computers a LOT, it's easy to miss scores in a flurry or not quite click on the stop/start button. So under your proposal if I score 4, opponent scores 4, opponent scores 2, I score 4, opponent scores 2, I lose? 4, 4 for me, 4,2,2 for my opponent. Also, even given all the above, I would like to see at least a short OT period and if still tied, then go to criteria. And I think whatever criteria is used should reward the one that took risk (if possible).
  3. Personally I don't think the current criteria is really that complicated - 1. Most high value moves 2. Last point scored. Not really that complicated and it rewards risk (bigger moves). A takedown beats two pushouts which I think it should.
  4. That works for me, too. It's an inconsistent enforcement that bothers me. Show me logic and I'm fine with it but then apply the same logic everywhere. That's all I ask.
  5. Even better.... I think in the general population of college-age students, there are more males than females. Imagine if we capped female enrollment at colleges and recruited male students to achieve the proportionality of male/female in the general population. I don't see that as being any different than trying to force sports participation to match the general population of the school. Lets make the population of the school match the general population and cite Title IX. That would drive a lot of those activists crazy.
  6. Why would you expect little participation at an open tournament when there are 50+ teams looking for places to compete? I think that teams that are unlikely to make the team tournament will plan to host events during that time (a couple of years ago when they had 4 duals regionals, F&M hosted a dual meet event for teams that didn't qualify for regionals), teams that aren't OK State, Iowa, Penn St, Minnesota and Cornell will add these events (or the NCO) to their schedules and if it turns out they make the team tournament they either won't attend or just send their redshirts. Travel, scheduling, budgets, etc. are all going to affect participation at a tourney that no one knows who will be there until shortly before the tourney. It's a scheduling and budgeting nightmare for a coach of a team that is on the edge of being in the dual phase. Do I schedule and budget to go to the dual tourney or other stuff during that time period or try and schedule both and hope that somehow I can make the schedule and budget work? For the have-nots of this sport, scheduling and budgeting of funds are some of the most important things a coach has to do. Can't afford a mistake here. And, if you're traveling, you can't just send your redshirts. By rule the school cannot pay for travel or entry fees for a redshirt to go to a tourney. Let's pick a school like Arizona State since they've been in the news recently. They wouldn't have made the dual portion. So, what does Zeke do for his schedule in a couple years? They have virtually no schools near them that have wrestling so will probably have to travel, and most likely fly, to something. What is that something going to be for a 3 week period? Don't want to schedule anything at home unless you can find someone that would be OK with you cancelling it on the chance you make the dual portion. Not sure many opposing coaches would agree to that. But you need to get something so your kids, especially your better kids, can get some good competition in prior to the NCAA tourney. If you were a coach, how would you handle it? Seems to me to be a BIG problem for many teams. On the east coast, it might not be as much of a problem when you have a multitude of teams within a decent driving distance but again, according to many, this is supposed to be helping wrestling and especially the "lesser" teams with this format. I'm just not seeing it. What I see is the strong programs getting a good competition boost right before NCAAs and the "lesser" teams having to make do somehow. Doesn't seem to me to be helping out. Of course it's possible I'm missing something here. Convince me it's good for teams 35-77. I love duals and especially dual tourneys so I like the idea of National Duals. BUT, not at the expense of other wrestling programs.
  7. My son wrestles for a Nike sponsored college and he didn't like the newer shoes at all but did like the Freek shoe. Fortunately for him, he has a big foot and the team had 5 or 6 pair of the Freeks in the closet that were left over from previous years and he has been using those for the past 5 years. He blew out his last pair of Freeks in this years conference tourney and had to wear a new pair of Inflicts (?) at NCAAs. He doesn't like them near as well as the Freeks. Not nearly as flexible.
  8. My whole problem with this proposal is: What do the 50+ teams not participating in the duals portion do during that time period. And don't tell me they can start their own open tourneys. Too expensive, too much work, with what will probably be little participation. If you are a halfway decent team that has expectations to compete, then you can't schedule anything during that time. I don't see that BIG break right before the individual NCAA tourney as being anything but detrimental to the teams and individuals not invited to participate. It will work out really well for the teams that are annually the top teams as they know they will qualify or be invited and get those good matches right before the NCAA tourney. Not so good for the rest. In my opinion the rich get richer and will hurt the lower tier teams. Not a way to increase the sport unless something is done about this.
  9. My son just finished his college wrestling career and I have downloaded all of the match video from his college teams video warehouse and will be creating a couple DVD's of all his college matches for him as a gift. Our high school also filmed all matches and at the end of the year the coach compiled them all and every wrestler got a tape/CD/DVD of all their matches so he already has those. When you're young you don't think about things like that but as you get older and have kids, it's pretty cool to watch them together. My kids usually laugh at my old wrestling tapes, though. They are all MUCH better than I ever was. Good for a laugh, though.
  10. I think that is probably the same for almost any sport. Compare D1 basketball to D2 basketball - talk about a MASSIVE drop off support. Football, baseball appears to be the same. I don't think it's limited to wrestling.
  11. In that issue there is a MAJOR difference. Montel was kicked off the team and was required to follow a list of requirements before he would even be considered for reinstatement. In the case of Long, he was kicked off a DIFFERENT team for NOT following a similar list required by ISU. He was then recruited to PSU. Now I have NO clue what Sanderson required of Long when he transferred in, but comparing the 2 situations is a MAJOR stretch. Maybe a stretch, not sure we could definitely say a MAJOR stretch since we don't know the requirements that Long was under when coming to PSU. We can make assumptions but.........
  12. He did say it was his sophomore year. Usually younger kids like that are still developing their style of wrestling. I'm guessing DF hadn't fully developed his style yet at that point.
  13. Cael started a kid who had been kicked off a team for multiple alcohol offenses. Brands started a kid who had been kicked off a team for multiple alcohol offenses. Difference????
  14. I agree with this 100%. Let's pick a team like Arizona State. Where are they going to go to an open? If they sponsor one, who is going to show up? No one is close to them and what teams (of the 'have-nots' that are not in the dual tourney) are going to fly in for an open, especially one that is not an established tourney. "Hey let's sponsor an open, get a few matches against not top tier opponents and also lose money on it." That sure sounds like a way to enable the "lesser" teams to advance their programs, which is what many proponents of the dual championship have stated it will do. If you're currently not making the dual championship, you have a BIG hole in your schedule immediately prior to the most important event of the year. Don't see how that HELPS the current "lesser" teams.
  15. Hasn't USA Greco won a team title at the World Championships more recently than USA Freestyle? I can't remember the dates and too lazy to look it up.
  16. Lots of truth right here. Kyle Dake can wrestle, we know that. What does he know about dealing with donors, scheduling, marketing his program, motivating his team, managing his assistants, working with administration, evaluating talent, recruiting, program funding, etc., etc. ???? There is a LOT more to being a head coach than wrestling. Actually, the wrestling part is very minimal compared to all the other administrative/program work. That's why you have young assistants and volunteer assistants in the room. Dake may end up being a good head coach some day but I'm guessing he does not have the required experience or skills to be a head coach at a major program right now.
  17. sbdude

    Howe

    I agree with this 100% and this is what I was telling my group after the finals. Perry is one of the best I have seen at match tactics and strategy and doing what it takes to put himself in a position to win. He always seems to control the pace and positions of a match and it seems like he knows exactly what he wants to do. It may not always be pretty but the guy gets his hand raised.
  18. Just being able to do the same things 4 years later means you have improved. If you have the target on your back, like a Taylor, Ruth, Dake, etc., then you get scouted heavily and opponents look to take away your strengths. If, after 4 years of scouting, you can still do the same things, then you have obviously improved on the details that allows you to continue doing those things despite the best efforts of others to take them away. Take Cael for example. After a while, everyone knew the pick was coming but he still got it. He HAD to improve his technique, setups, etc. in order to still get it when everyone knew it was coming. May not have looked like he improved because he got it before and was still doing it but he had to improve just to be able to still do it. If any of that makes sense.......
  19. Don't remember seeing this discussed on here but this is a good story. Northeastern Oklahoma A&M (NEO) had dropped their wrestling program prior to the 1995 season. Late in 2012, they decided to re-instate the program, built a nice, new multi-million dollar facility for the team and, most importantly (in my opinion), hired Joe Renfro as their new coach. This year was the first year for the new program and they won the NJCAA National Championship. Not a bad first year for a program. This is Coach Renfro's 3rd consecutive NJCAA National Championship after winning in 2012 and 2013 at Labette CC in Kansas and his 4th overall in 13 years as a head coach. Congrats to all involved.
  20. It looks legal from those pictures. Not really turning the head.
  21. Our room is warm but not hot. Excess heat interferes with their ability to work hard the entire practice. Extra heat does not do anything for conditioning but actually diminishes it as they can't work as hard for as long. And if they get too hot, they lose focus and technique suffers.
  22. A few observations after reading through this thread, which was quite entertaining. Don't really care about either of these, just was interesting as Rhoads was a wrestler I knew when he was in high school. 1. Rhoads is just barely 2 years older than Marsteller - 4/15/93 for Rhoads and 7/9/95 for Marsteller. At the time of the match mentioned, Rhoads was 18 (a few days short of his 19th birthday) and Marsteller was 16, about 3 months short of his 17th birthday. Not quite a 3 year older 'man' as quoted a few times. Does Marsteller have a beard in that video? Doesn't appear to be physically immature. 2. One D1 coach said the sophomore Marsteller would have beaten the NCAA champ Molinaro? Yet, as a sophomore he couldn't beat a freshman backup with a record of 6-4? Something isn't lining up here. 3. In relation to the above - Marsteller didn't have the strength to finish technique on a lanky freshman but would be able to do so against a senior Molinaro? I'm willing to bet that the senior Molinaro was quite a bit stronger than the freshman Rhoads. 4. The first thing high school kids find out when they get to college is: You can get to a college wrestler's legs with whatever you did in high school, but finishing is a whole different matter. This is where possibly Superold was talking about technique?? There have been numerous threads on this board with former college guys that were REALLY good talking about how long it took them to get their first TD in the room. To do so, they had to refine their technique from what was succesful in high school. Maybe this is what Superold is saying, but he was a little more blunt in his observations. 5. Never seen him wrestle except for a couple videos, but from all accounts and achievements, it sure appears that Marsteller should be a very good college wrestler. Lot of factors come into play in college so making any kind of predictions is always a shot in the dark. I wish him the best in his college career.
  23. Unfortunately, Bret Baumbach suffered a season (and career) ending knee injury late in the season during a dual. Really a sad thing, Bret is a great kid and a very good wrestler. I'm pretty sure he would be in the tourney had the injury not happened. Hate to see a career end like that.
  24. Maybe, maybe not. But we do know from the dual result that Penn State is twice as good as Iowa.
×
×
  • Create New...