Should College Wrestling Adopt Cumulative Dual Scoring?

[Marcus Cisero 340]

This involves adding a point to the team score for every point scored on the mat. 

This concept may prevent a wrestler from getting a small lead and hanging on while watching the clock. You could be the best guy lighting up the score board vs. a guy with only a few escape points, yet both guys are now motivated to score points for themselves, and their team. Even a second string guy could benefit from this as opposed to just going in to fill a void for a starter who’s injured or sick for a particular match.

Should college wrestling adopt cumulative dual scoring?

What’s your thoughts?

[russelscout 1,573]

5 minutes ago, Marcus Cisero said:

This involves adding a point to the team score for every point scored on the mat. 

This concept may prevent a wrestler from getting a small lead and hanging on while watching the clock. You could be the best guy lighting up the score board vs. a guy with only a few escape points, yet both guys are now motivated to score points for themselves, and their team. Even a second string guy could benefit from this as opposed to just going in to fill a void for a starter who’s injured or sick for a particular match.

Should college wrestling adopt cumulative dual scoring?

What’s your thoughts?

My thoughts are that it is interesting. I would have to see it to form a solid opinion. I like the idea though. What would you do for a pin?

Edited March 15, 2019 by russelscout

[D3UC157 97]

Sounds good at first but... you could have three marquee matchups all decided by close margins. Say one team takes all 3. The next match is a MD against the team that just won three bouts, now they’re down 5?

That system would only reward blowouts.

[russelscout 1,573]

2 minutes ago, D3UC157 said:

Sounds good at first but... you could have three marquee matchups all decided by close margins. Say one team takes all 3. The next match is a MD against the team that just won three bouts, now they’re down 5?

That system would only reward blowouts.

There ya go. Sorry Marcus, I'm out on this one.

[gowrestle 628]

No

[Marcus Cisero 340]

22 hours ago, D3UC157 said:

Sounds good at first but... you could have three marquee matchups all decided by close margins. Say one team takes all 3. The next match is a MD against the team that just won three bouts, now they’re down 5?

That system would only reward blowouts.

I'm just throwing it out there. Obviously it would need some tweaking.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Marcus Cisero

[dmm53 435]

If I'm not mistaken, Wade Schalles has been advocating something like this for years.  Check out his blog for his arguments on reforming wrestling. 

http://wadeschalles.com/a-point-scored-is-a-point-earned/

[JasonBryant 1,593]

Check the series of episodes from On The Mat where Andy Hamilton and Kyle Klingman come up with a system based on "Point Differential Index" 
They count falls as 22, since (barring a penalty point) a traditional tech fall max is 21 points. Then you get the points you get. 

They've tried to break them into pieces, but the main point is why is a 7-0 score treated the same as a 3-2 score? I tend to agree. I want to see reasons why this could and should work. If "dual meets don't matter," then who cares how we score them, right? Let's try something different. Let's see if the guy up 3-1 with riding time with 20 seconds to go takes a shot to give his team two extra points. Right now, they just put it in cruise control and breeze through it. 

Mix it up, try it out. It's not like it's any more arbitrary than the system we have currently. 

[TobusRex 1,735]

Sounds ridiculous. You have guys like Nolf who can pretty much name the score. Why bother pinning a guy when you can beat him 30-3 and put 30 points on the scoreboard for your team?

Edited March 16, 2019 by TobusRex

[WillieBoy 712]

If it will help get rid of the damned Tech Fall - go for it. Make them wrestler a whole match if they can't get a pin.

Make a Pin worth a specific value - but let it be more than that if the mat score was higher than that value before the pin - then double the value. At a minimum a pin should be worth double what the actual points were at the time of the pin.

[AKHUNTER 279]

I like some form of this idea. BUT we need to get pins to have more value. It's hard to pin and takes a lot of work. Pins used to have much more value in duals. a decision was 3 pts. pins were 6 pts. as they put in majors and tech's it made it, not worth the effort to gain just one point more than tech's. Pins should have been given more value. If tech could garner 21, as stated above,  lets make pins worth 26 or somewhere in that range. This to make it worth it to work for the pin. Which is supposed to be the goal.

If you don't believe me......ask Wade Schalles......... or Nolf or Nikal for that matter.

[JasonBryant 1,593]

Sounds ridiculous. You have guys like Nolf who can pretty much name the score. Why bother pinning a guy when you can beat him 30-3 and put 30 points on the scoreboard for your team?

Kyle and Andy’s system still keeps the tech fall and puts the premium on pins. Our current system is ridiculous if we look at it right now. We score our events two different ways ...

[spladle 179]

In theory, 2 lopsided wins could win a dual if the losses were all 1 pointers.

[JasonBryant 1,593]

Just now, spladle said:

In theory, 2 lopsided wins could win a dual if the losses were all 1 pointers.

"In theory" ... let's find one instance where it has. You also have to factor in if these rules are in place, the athletes know they're in place and will be, in theory, more willing and able to score more points. Andy and Kyle have been looking for any 8-2 scenario this could happen. They've been unable to find it, so the theory goes both ways in this regard. 

Im going to try to put together one single episode that gathers their entire format so they can go through it rather than point to 10 separate episodes where they discuss it. 

[spladle 179]

Scoring systems are arbitrary anyway, so the question is what benefit is added to the product with this kind of change.  Will fans find it friendly enough?  Will coaches and powers that be buy in?

Edited March 16, 2019 by spladle

[Cooch1 146]

The problem is scoring "transfer" and"range." Most sports don't transfer or have much range. Baseball/hockey/soccer have a range of 1. Basketball has a 3-2-1 range. Football has 6-3-2-1 range.  By keeping the range tight, the better team usually wins. Also, team sports allow the successful interaction and ability of the team members in pursuit of one goal-- home plate, end zone, net, basket, etc. You don't get extra point values to transfer over for a first down, block, rebound, double play, triple play, etc.
But wrestling is unique in that members can't interact, goals are multiple, and the individual scoring range is so huge, from a pin to a tight decision. The "transfer and range" problem prohibits a direct individual-to-team score unless you don't mind strange results every now and then, and ridicule in the press, because team balance would be snuffed out by a few big bonus matches.

[TobusRex 1,735]

2 hours ago, JasonBryant said:

Kyle and Andy’s system still keeps the tech fall and puts the premium on pins. Our current system is ridiculous if we look at it right now. We score our events two different ways ...

That's because in tournaments it's impossible to compete against every other team at every other weight. Plus in tournaments the points are pretty simple. A guy can't score 15 pts for his team just by advancing to the next round, for example.

[JasonBryant 1,593]

Of the 18,000 fans who attend each session at D1, I’d say less than 100 can score the NCAA tournament by hand or even know how. nothing says growth like clinging to scoring systems that can’t even be scored by the majority of its fans, let alone understood by the drive-by sports fan

[drag it 229]

27 minutes ago, JasonBryant said:

Of the 18,000 fans who attend each session at D1, I’d say less than 100 can score the NCAA tournament by hand or even know how. nothing says growth like clinging to scoring systems that can’t even be scored by the majority of its fans, let alone understood by the drive-by sports fan

Agree, it's hard to argue with this basic point. Different issue and not directly on point  but another thing I find frustrating is tournament scheduling when it's very hard to get a read on when certain main draw rounds are going to start because of wrestlebacks. Again for drive-by fans you're making it hard for them to engage when they don't know when to tune in for a match that interests them. 

[davenowa 17]

this is brought up every few years, and while it probably won't happen, the following is an attempt to reward all points scored while maintaining the value of a pin and a tech fall.  unfortunately, it loses some people with the implementation of decimals (but with scoring computerized, and tournaments already including 1/2 pts, it shouldn't be such a mental obstacle). it also converts tourney scoring to replicate duals (no advancement, but increased placement)...

Implement “Margin of Victory” bonus.  

a. 3 pts remain for a win (including any OT win), plus 0.1 to 1.4 for MOV (for a “Margin of Victory from 1 pt to 14 pts), resulting in team pts of 3.0 to 4.4 for any decision, with TF still 5 (for MOV or match lead of 15 pts or more) and pin or default 6, but perhaps a forfeit at a weight class with a wrestler becomes 7 points (especially if accompanied by locked line-ups).  Note: a 2nd option that encourages scoring also includes “action” points for # of points scored by the winner, with base wins now being worth 2 team points, the same MOV bonus and an additional “action bonus” for actual number of pts scored by winner, ranging from 0.1 (for 1 point) up to a max of 1.5 for a winner scoring 15 pts or more. Wins would then range from 2.2 (for a 1-0 win) to 4.9 pts (for a 15-1 win). 

b. For tournaments, eliminate advancement points and simply award team pts as shown above, with consi bracket points cut in half, maintaining placement points (slightly adjust along all placement point charts to ensure that 2nd place finisher who pins to finals does not exceed champion who has all decisions--difference between 1st and 2nd would need to be increased).  Byes (when followed by a win) would be worth 3 points on championship side and 1.5 points in consi bracket.

As an additional benefit, 99.7% of all dual meet ties would be eliminated.

[Plasmodium 1,451]

It is tournament scoring that is broken.

[buckshot1969 424]

So a team wins eight matches by two points each but loses a MD and TF and loses the dual?

Makes sense.

[SetonHallPirate 780]

Maybe you could bracket it 1-4 worth 3 points, 5-9 worth 4, 10-14 worth 5, 15+ worth 6, and a fall (or current six-point victory) worth 7...not sure you'd want the discrepancy to go any further than that though. With that formula, if you win seven matches, you're still guaranteed (barring point deductions) to win the dual, albeit by criteria in this case. Not sure you want to say any team that wins over two-thirds of its matches should lose the dual, something such a rubric would (barely, admittedly) maintain.

[JasonBryant 1,593]

So a team wins eight matches by two points each but loses a MD and TF and loses the dual?
Makes sense.

Find an example of this happening ... there’s theory, and there’s results. Let’s find instances where this has occurred. We already have a system that allows 4 wins can beat 6 in a dual. Let’s find one that exists and analyze. Data-driven stuff will move the needle here, not hypotheticals. Duals don’t matter anyway, right? (sarcasm)

[spladle 179]

We don't need to find results.  The sheer fact that it could happen is enough of a detraction.  If we went through the history of all college duals and found a single instance would that satisfy you?