Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
D3UC157

We need a bigger slide...

Recommended Posts

I don’t hate OP’s idea.  I’d say the other problem it “solves” is guys getting bad draws in the consis.  For example in this scenario Marinelli still could’ve had a chance to place 5th right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the saying....."If it ain't broke, don't fix it".  We've got enough issues to work on right now with things like "the hands to the face" call, video review/bricks thrown in, etc.  Personally, I think there are so many good wrestlers now, and they work so hard, that seventh and eighth place deserve to be all-americans.  We went from 4 to 6 in 1963, and from 6 to 8 in 1979.....we've given 8 places for 40 years, now we're going to go backwards?.....all those guys score points too wrestling out to those places.  Fadz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about other places, but in Pa swimming - 16 places are recognized in each event, (for each of the 2 size classifications, for each gender) I don't know if 9-16 get medals, they are not on the stand. There are far fewer swimming teams than wrestling in Pa, although there a lot more kids swimming "independently", training at YMCAs or other schools (my own HS certainly has never had a swimming team, but maybe a half dozen kids medaled in swimming states. Of course there have been a couple independent wrestlers, Carlton Hasselrig the most prominent.

In large rowing regattas, there are 12 places. Like swimming there is a grande finale after a petite finale.

I am not saying NCAA should go to more than 8 places. And I don't think semi losers should finish lower than sixth. I do think that those of the opinion that PIAA should emulate NJ, going to three or more classifications for duals but one class of 32 or 40 individuals. Possibly such a tourney would be more acceptable if we went from 16 medalists in two classifications to 12 in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GockeS said:

top 25% is too much? 

I’m fine with top 8, it’s an appropriate proportion.

I’m not a fan of how we figure out 5-8. Which I now see puts me in the minority, that’s fine.

 

The suggestion of only placing 6 eliminates my issue so that would have been a solution as well.

But I’d rather 8 places with an extra match.

 

21 minutes ago, Zebra said:

 

I think it's a "solution" in search of a problem. 

I’d say that is most apt. I do not see it as a “problem”, I merely don’t like the way it is done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JasonBryant said:

What “problem” are we solving here?

 Not every criticism is a “problem”.

Wrestling and its inferiority complex, always be on the defensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GockeS said:

why does he deserve it?

he was supposed to be the bad draw...

OP’s point is that right now the only difference between 5th and 7th is what point in time you lost.

I guess it doesn’t mean much but both of the guys Marinelli lost to, each beat guys White lost to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, D3UC157 said:

 Not every criticism is a “problem”.

Wrestling and its inferiority complex, always be on the defensive.

Bring some merit to the argument and people won’t be dismissive. This is attempting to change something that actually has worked and been adapted over time. Until 1996, we didn’t even have full wrestlebacks. Unlike some things in wrestling that are “the way they are,” the consolation bracket format has evolved into a very good, functional and workable system to determine the top right wrestlers. There’s nothing to fix. There is a method to it that’s logical and is easy for fans to follow, save when there is a cross bracket depending on the size of the draw. 

There is nothing inferior with the consolation draw as it exists, mainly because it has evolved over time, as stated above by someone else, the loss structure is simple. 0-1-1-2-2-3-2-3 (with seventh only taking two losses compared to sixth and three. 

This part of the sport isn’t broke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system has been adapted up to this point and it’s worked out. Why would we stop considering further adaptations? 

Discussing and disagreeing on ideas promotes growth and advance. It’s actually more advantageous to disagree. If everyone agrees there are no more attempts at improvement.

Also, discussing these ideas can lead to other improvements or bring light to items we had not before noticed.

There is certainly merit in my argument even if no one else agrees with my stance. There is a point where 4 wrestlers each have two losses: however only two are eligible for 5/6. 

I understand it does not fit nicely into the current system, which does work well. But it’s a small part I disagree with.

 

... side tracked/ah-ha moment

 

Perfect example of disagreeing. You’ve shown me exactly where my issue falls

“ 0-1-1-2-2-3-2-3”

7th has fewer losses than 6th because of the Semi special

Four losses is a lot but puts everyone in order. Adds two losses but also adds two wins.

0-1-1-2-2-3-3-4

 

Different strokes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the grind of the tournament isn’t hard enough for some people I guess.

I’m dismissive not because wrestling and it’s identity problem, rather this has little to no merit for 7 of the 8 places ... we going to legislate that wrestlers who lose to those with seeds should get more matches because their draw was tougher too?

The 7th place guy lost to someone who placed 3-4-5-6 in the previous round. They are there because they LOST ... earlier and they lost to someone directly ahead of them. You are seeking to penalize wrestlers who make the semifinals. They get to place a minimum of sixth because they WON where others who lost before them ... LOST.

This ain’t broke. And yes, I’m dismissing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we fix something that isn't broke, I already mentioned looking at hands to the face, video review/bricks, more important than changing the bracket system and number of placers, how about tweeking our seeding committee, as I think we will all agree there were some big question marks in the final seeding right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not in agreement with the original post I do have one question. Why is it the placement of wrestlers into the consolation bracket differs from tournament to tournament? By and large it's the same but not always. That also can have a huge impact on placement or All American or top eight or whatever you want to call it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 1032004 said:

OP’s point is that right now the only difference between 5th and 7th is what point in time you lost.

I guess it doesn’t mean much but both of the guys Marinelli lost to, each beat guys White lost to.

the difference between every placement is when you lost... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GockeS said:

top 25% is too much? 

It's not actually the top 25%. It's the top 25% of the wrestlers who qualified for the tournament. It's actually the top 10% of D1 starters overall. As others have stated, this is a solution in search of a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×