Jump to content

nitlion60

Members
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I have no idea why I am responding because it is very apparent you do not understand the statistics of the discussion. What I care about is wrestling. My argument has been the current model is mathematically many times more accurate in identifying the best team when compared to a team dual tournament. Simple and straight forward, a math fact. The proposed model uses the first, less accurate stage to eliminate all but 2 teams. Then it resets with an arbitrated point advantage that skews the whole thing so no I do not like it at all. Ah I see, you are still feeling that your opinion of "best team" is a factual statement. It's cute though, my five year old niece thinks that all of her opinions are fact too. Try telling her that her cat is not the best cat in the world! Good Luck! you do realize that the entire tournament scoring format is already an arbitrary set of rules(a set of rules that has already changed throughout time), same as any sport? Are sports not allowed to change these arbitrary rules? Better get on the phone and tell the NFL to not move back the extra point! NBA better eliminate the 3 point shot too! Oh and sorry MLB outfielders you no longer get to use a glove, better work on catching hits off a hop! Also you say only two teams can win it, but I disagree. Didn't Penn State lose a couple duals the year they threw up 140+ points at NCAA's and beat Minnesota by almost 30? So theoretically if PSU got third in the dual phase they still win the title but in exciting fashion due to a close race! I agree starting with a lead in the second portion of the event is just unfair. How dare NBA teams come out of half time losing?!!?! Even the NFL, how is it fare that one team has a lead going into the second half? Why does Jimmie Johnson get to have his 5 wins during the "race off" carry points into the final race? Also one team in track, this team got points for a pole vaulter, when we didn't even have a pole vaulter! How are people supposed to win under these current arbitrary rules?! More data points! I rest my case! Dude, I have no idea what to make of your 5 year-old niece, but you remind me of the kid who can not grasp the simple concept of Algebra II so you sit in the back tossing spit balls and making smart remarks towards the kids who are getting annoyed because they repeatedly have to wait on your slow mental ass to catch up even though the teacher has spent the last 15 minutes explaining it to you 3 times. When you do get a chance, get that same teacher to explain to you the difference between a simple fact and an opinion. I am certain if he/she speaks slowly, uses some visual aides you may slowly grasp it. As far as offering analogies. A basketball team keeping the points they secured in the first half of a single contest is the same as contesting one competition and at the conclusion of that contest awarding points based upon placing that are applied to future competitions. I do believe your 5 year old niece would almost certainly be able to come up with a much more applicable comparison. Maybe in a couple of years you can have her explain numbers to you.
  2. I have no idea why I am responding because it is very apparent you do not understand the statistics of the discussion. What I care about is wrestling. My argument has been the current model is mathematically many times more accurate in identifying the best team when compared to a team dual tournament. Simple and straight forward, a math fact. The proposed model uses the first, less accurate stage to eliminate all but 2 teams. Then it resets with an arbitrated point advantage that skews the whole thing so no I do not like it at all.
  3. It is not flawed because it "lessens the probability the best team is identified and crowned champion." It is flawed first because coming out of the dual portion there are only 2 teams that have a shot at winning the title and one of them is given a head start. It is flawed second because going into the whole thing, underfunded, yet talented programs like Edinboro are told right up front, sorry you are not allowed to compete for a team title. You can be a bracket filler, but title contender - no! It is flawed third, because the current model is a money maker for the NCAA. The new model bleeds that profit away from the NCAA. There have been discussions about TV viewership and ESPN broadcasting. Yes there is a contract in place that ESPN is to broadcast NCAA championship events so the positive is more wrestling events on TV. However, the contract that exists does not call for any additional revenue to the NCAA if there are new championships to be broadcast. The NCAA will need to pay for the travel and lodging of participants, the facilities and officials to run the event. There certainly is no current model that indicates the NCAA can or even should anticipate a large revenue stream from ticket sells. Unless maybe if the event is hosted annually in Iowa.
  4. Since our 'best selling point' isn't getting any teams added, why do we insist on sticking with it? How many more teams need to get dropped before we admit that the current system isn't getting the job done? The half empty stadiums most bowl games get played in doesn't seem to be having much of a negative affect. I have seen you present this "unknown" as an argument for the duals several times. The loss of programs since I first stepped onto a college campus as a student has been vast. I saw Jim Bennett wrestle for Corry High school in Pennsylvania and later Jim won an NCAA title for Yale. A coach from my high school (before my time) was Yale's head wrestling coach for a number of years. Yale no longer has a wrestling program. I also was able to see Gene Mills wrestle for Syracuse, Syracuse no longer a program. Washington, UCLA, Slippery Rock and on and on. Several programs have almost been lost, only to be saved by alumni pressure and support. Usually the rescued program is a shell of what it was. With the current model in place the number of wrestling teams has taken a beating. The first problem with your argument is there is no way to know if the popularity of the current model is the reason we have 77 programs and not 21? The second is since it is apparent your reasoning for moving forward with the duals proposal is well we only have 77 programs left, how in your mind do you see this proposal doing anything to increase the number from 77 to whatever, say just 85?
  5. I appreciate the talent that Alan Fried was, but to just kind of dismiss Logan's possible (probable) superiority because I am guessing he is closer to your time is kind of like people who have tell you back in my day, 6 feet of snow, 2 miles uphill I walked to school and then the world reversed and I had the same exact challenge just to get home. Logan as a probable 4 time champion gets my nod as probably the better talent.
  6. If the Lions were to not win their 5th NCAA championship, and I could pick the team who would displace the Lions I would choose Cornell. Not that I care much for the little red sweaters with their cute little c, but a non Big-10 school. A title winner from the EIWA should help to continue the growing interest in the sport.
  7. Your opinion being the NCAA tournament format is the best way to determine a team champion is your opinion. In your opinion, the result of an individual tournament point scoring system is the accurate way to determine a team championship. Your determination of accuracy is still a reflection of your opinion. I will agree that any sample size that has more data size, is more likely to create a consistent result time after time so I understand what you are trying to say, but you are still just using the data set to reinforce your opinion. My opinion is that the current NCAA tournament is not the best or most accurate way to determine a team champion. Your opinion disagrees with mine. That is fine. As both of ours are merely opinions. You for what I can only guess is a complete inability to grasp the point continue to argue the difference between opinion and fact. Fact = current model more accurate in determining best team. opinion = i like current system better than proposed dual involvement. opinion = you believe you would like the dual format better. you even believe it is a better way to crown a team champion. opinion = i do not believe the dual format is a better format. Done discussing this point the difference between fact and opinion.
  8. i dont understand the fixation on the NWCA Dual Tournament. the interest in that tournament will not tell you what the interest in a dual meet NCAA championship tournament will be. to assume it would would be the same as looking at the interest in the scuffle or midlands or CKLV and then saying we should cancel the NCAA tournament because there will the same amount of interest and its not enough to cover the costs. i also still dont understand your point that tying the team championship to a dual meet tournament is a gimmick to make all the teams show up. i mean, sure, call it a gimmick if you want, but thats like saying the NCAA awarding the team title to the winner of the basketball tournament is just a gimmick to force all the teams to attend that tournament rather than the NIT, and therefore the basektball tournament can not stand on its own feet. if it wasn't for the gimmicky lombardi trophy, no teams would show up for the super bowl. Perfectly well said. I couldn't have said it better. Only one thing, that I fixed in the quote...it's the NWCA National Duals, not NCWA. The NCWA is a totally separate organization. Good Lord Pirate, I would hope you could do better. While Jaroslav almost always posts something that is articulate and easy to follow as far as making a point, this particular post was a bit more than a desperate reach to make a point that is not available to make.
  9. if penn state was in the dual meet finals, only 2,500 people would show up? only 50,000 would watch on tv? sorry, that's not a reasonable assumption. You guys think Penn State is the magical answer and if only Cael would come out and play everything would magically be better. If the dual tournament is held in Columbus, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City or anywhere not in Iowa or State College PA - yeah. 2,500 show up. If Penn State wrestles in the championship, due to PA's population and the size of Penn State's Alumni Association, the TV numbers probably get a bump but it is not going to be exponential.
  10. i dont understand the fixation on the NCWA Dual Tournament. the interest in that tournament will not tell you what the interest in a dual meet NCAA championship tournament will be. to assume it would would be the same as looking at the interest in the scuffle or midlands or CKLV and then saying we should cancel the NCAA tournament because there will the same amount of interest and its not enough to cover the costs. That is the model we have to work with, as well as other state dual tournaments. I am unfamilar with other state's and the fan support their dual tournament receives. Because of the popularity of wrestling in PA I believe the state is a good barometer. The PIAA tournament receives great fan support, the dual tournament not at all. Not even when Central Daulphin (the high school is about a 15 minute drive from the Hershey Giant Center) was wrestling in the championships with their great teams. The difference between the PIAA and the NCAA is the PIAA allows team champions in both tournaments, the NCAA has said either or. The comparison between the dual tournament placers carrying points from the dual tournament to the Championship tournament, and the NCAA giving the basketball March madness winner a trophy is a really weak analogy. I am also certain you realize that. A more accurate analogy would be to have a H-O-R-S-E competition, and to ensure participation depending on how you place in the H-O-R-S-E competition you will begin every NCAA Championship Basketball game up or down so many points. The argument would be, more TV exposure for basketball. Try flying that through the basketball committee. As far as the Lombardi Trophy and teams showing up for the NFL Championship Game (or Super Bowl). Since the NFL-AFL championship game was played before they came up with the Lombardi Trophy idea and the teams did show up. Oh nevermind. When you get to the point that you need to make ridiculous, and even incorrect statements to support your point - you have no points to make.
  11. Just based upon experience I do know if you want to change something and you want to build it on a solid foundation - one step at a time, promoting the shyt out of it every step of the way. Force feeding it upon an unwanting audience guarantees a failed result.
  12. No, my opinions are opinions. I do not like the idea of the dual tournament determining the team champion. That is my opinion. From a math point of view - the current model using many more data points is much more accurate than a dual format (with many fewer data points) is not an opinion. It is mathematical fact. Based on your OPINION of the best way to determine a team championship, your opinion states that the individual format, with more data points, is the better way to determine team strength. This is your opinion, not mathematical fact. It is a mathematical fact that an individual tournament has more data sets as opposed to a dual format, but that does not mean your opinion of an individual tournament being the best way to determine team strength is fact. You use that mathematical fact to reinforce your opinion, which again is just an opinion and everyone has one. Nope. Pay attention. I said the NCAA Championship model is more accurate due to the many more data points. That is not an opinion, it is fact. I believe the current model wrestled out in front of 16, 17, 18 or 20,000 fans and half a million more on TV is a much better way for college wrestling to crown a team champion than to wrestle our team championship in front of 2,500 fans with maybe 50,000 more watching on TV. That is an opinion.
  13. the idea that objective data suggests that a dual mean championship could not stand on its own two feet is incorrect. if that is not what you meant to imply than i apologize for the misinterpretation of your thoughts. In my post you were responding to, I said based upon the lack of ticket sales, the lack of attendance and the lack of TV viewers (I am guessing because I have no idea what the BTN got for their coverage of the dual semi-final and final matches) I do not believe the Dual tournament is getting a whole lot of consideration. Without reading backwards, i assume you are referring to my post about the necessary gimmicky the dual tournament proposal uses in an effort to force all programs to participate. I will stick with my opinion that if you need to gimmick the thing up attempting to give it validity, that screams it is without the necessary self-support to stand on its own feet.
  14. This is a very good post. Who thinks it would be more interesting and fan friendly to go with match scores as team points? You win 2-1, your team gets 1 point. You win 15-0, your team gets 15 points. Add bonus points as necessary (pins, placing...). *** On a related note, no matter how you slice it, a tournament score will give you a clearer read on the quality of your lineup than a one-off dual meet. The individual tournament is the better indication of which team is best, the dual meet tournament has the greater chance for upsets. This is why we should determine the national champion through a dual meet tournament -- it's easier to market and you can create more hype. Will the wrong team often win? Probably. So what? It doesn't seem to hurt college football or basketball. Try proposing a change to how they determine the NCAA basketball champion. Before anybody throws in the NCAA football example. There has been a loud cry for a very long time by many to change the football format. No, the comparison between football and wrestling is not similar. Ours so far has not been a long time debate, nor based upon fan interest towards the NWCA dual tournament a chane a large percentage of wrestling fans give a hoot about.
  15. likewise, a round robin is a mathematically "better" way to determine an individual champion than a tournament. but we all seem to be able to accept a little less accuracy in determining who the best is in that regard. Yep. Of course the same argument about ticket sales, attendance and TV viewership numbers would be applicable to not changing to the more accurate round-robin. There is a place for tradition, especially when tradition works.
×
×
  • Create New...