Jump to content

AlexSteenTOM

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

187 profile views
  1. I believe 2014-15 was the one year (it may have been 2) where they eliminated reaction time completely for takedowns. It led to nonsense like this which is why it quickly changed back. Under the current rules, that is not a takedown, but it was then.
  2. The only situation where there is no reaction time on a takedown is when a wrestler has standing neutral control of their opponent and a hand touches. Every other instance requires control beyond reaction time. From the rulebook: Section 2. Takedowns Art. 1. Match Takedowns. A takedown shall be awarded when, from the neutral position, a competitor gains control by taking the opponent down to the mat in bounds beyond reaction. Exception: Rule 4.2.2 Art. 2. Hand-Touch Takedown. To award a takedown, reaction time is not required in instances in which a wrestler has standing neutral control of their opponent and the defending wrestler's hand comes in contact with the mat. (See illustrations) Art. 3. Neutral Danger Zone Takedown. When in the neutral position, the referee shall announce a neutral danger signal (NDS) anytime a wrestler exposes their shoulders to the mat at any angle less than 90 degrees (neutral danger zone). The danger zone utilizes near fall criteria outlined in Rule 4.5.1, but replaces 45 degrees with any angle less than 90 degrees. The NDS announcement shall occur anytime a wrestler is voluntarily or involuntarily in the neutral danger zone, beyond reaction time, and will continue until the wrestler is out of the danger zone or a takedown is awarded.
  3. I had not heard it that way either but, from the post season points of emphasis distributed to the officials: 2. Hands to the Face: If deliberate or intentional, make the call. Again, we’re not over-officiating this situation…if incidental, no call. Let the wrestlers wrestle, use good judgement, make the call, when warranted. https://ncaawrestling.arbitersports.com/Groups/107525/Library/files/Post Season POE's for Officials 2-21-19.pdf This is going to be a cluster.
  4. (Win% * 0.25) + (OppWin% * 0.50) + (OppOppWin% * 0.25)
  5. If Joe Smith wins the Big 12 tournament, he will, at most, have 4 matches under his belt at 165. This means he will not have a coaches ranking AT ALL since you need at least 5 matches to qualify for one. With no RPI, no coaches ranking, and very few quality win points, he is going to get a very poor seed. He might be better off drawing a first round match against Ashworth, losing a close one, then wrestling back for 3rd. It would give the coaches the chance to vote him into the rankings, though it would, of course, hurt his win percentage and conference finish.
  6. If Spencer Lee loses to Rivera (or anyone else) at Big Tens, he probably won't get the 3 seed and could fall quite a bit. With Jack Mueller (Virginia) and Vito Arujau (Cornell) still undefeated for seeding purposes (Vito's loss was at 133), if those two win their conference tournaments, they are almost certainly ahead of a 3-loss Lee who didn't win his. Ronnie Bresser (Oregon State) as a Pac-12 champ with 1-loss probably gets ahead as well. So, Lee could realistically be the 6-seed with Rivera, Picc, Mueller, Arujau, and Bresser in front of him barring conference tournament upsets.
  7. To be eligible for an at-large, they'd need 2 of the following: .700 win % Top 33 RPI Top 33 CR (which is revised post conference tournament so Jacobe and Geer could enter the rankings) .700 win % against all competition 1 win against a wrestler who qualified by earning a preallocated position Qualifying event placement 1 below automatic qualification Of course, that just gets you in the at-large pool. You then have to be one of the best to earn a bid. Jacobe's wins over Skatzka and Seldon Wright might be enough depending on what others do around the country. An injury to Geer would be costly. Then again, any injury at a conference tournament is a serious problem.
  8. No minimum # of matches to compete, but the Big 12 was looking at the distinct possibility of having just 1 qualifying spot at 157. With Sheets meeting the # of matches to get an RPI, he will likely have a top 30 CR and top 30 RPI which would earn the conference a 2nd bid.
  9. To be clear, Brian Smith has done an amazing job at Missouri and even if they never performed to seed at the NCAA tournament (which isn't quite the case), it wouldn't diminish that. At the end of the day, the finish is what matters and the Missouri program is finishing much better than they ever did before Smith. It isn't even close. Some of us simply find it interesting to see which programs out-perform their seeds on a regular basis and which don't. There are noticeable trends in this area both good and bad. Dakotajudo did a nice job outlining some of the potential causes of this several posts back. What makes this a particularly interesting case is that Missouri was on the come up in the Big 12, then continued to improve after their transition to the MAC. This makes it even more difficult to pin down a root cause. It is always more fun to debate a question when the answer isn't obvious. In many ways, the scrutiny of their NCAA tournament performances is a sign of how far the Tigers have come. Missouri had one top-10 national finish in program history (10th in 1984) before Brian Smith arrived. They've had 8 in the last 12 years with top 6 finishes in each of the last 4 seasons. They are now a top-level program on a consistent basis. When an oddity like this is noticed, it is going to be discussed. No one was concerned with Missouri's performance at nationals before, it wasn't a relevant discussion. Now it is.
  10. I've been doing something similar using the placement of every seed since the weights changed to generate an expected value (both for likelihood of becoming an All-American and avg placement when they do) over time, then comparing each team each year to that standard. As you know, the larger sample size helps smooth over the impact of one particular wrestler. Doing that, Missouri is consistently (starting long before the current seeding methodology) one of the worst performing top teams at the NCAA tournament with the notable exception of 2017 when they dramatically over-performed.
  11. T-shirts and a trophy, what more could you ask for? https://bigten.org/news/2018/2/10/penn_state_claims_outright_big_ten_dual_championship.aspx
  12. No one is arguing it is significant, but it does exist.
  13. To get back to the OP, the Michigan camp is bringing in Sarah Hildebrandt. The more opportunities for women to get paid to do camps, the better. I also think once the NCAA recognizes the sport with emerging sport status, this conversation will be more relevant. As much as I'd like to see the big DI schools be leaders by establishing teams, these are not exactly institutions which move quickly or come anywhere close to the cutting edge. I know many of the DI coaches want to see teams at their schools, but they have no power to make that happen. If they can support women's wrestling in this way in the interim, I'm okay with them making a buck off it too.
×
×
  • Create New...