Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JBluegill133

College conference tiered system

Recommended Posts

I have been playing with this idea for a tiered performance system for the college conferences and wanted to throw the idea out to you guys so we can discuss.  This is purely fun and just for discussion since we are out of ncaa season.  I haven't even thought it through fully and would love to hear some ideas to go along with this premise.  

 

Begin rambling...

 What if there was some kind of performance system for conferences where if your team won their respective conference lets say, 3 years in a row, you would be eligible to move to the next tiered conference and replace the last ranked team.  Something like this,  OkSt has won conference (again completely making this stat up, this is just a hypothetical) 3 consecutive years, they are now eligible to move to the big10 conference and replace Maryland, Michstate, indiana or whoever has underperformed the most in a that given time in the tier ahead.  By moving up, okstate now would receive some kind of incentive, maybe in the big10 they receive more scholarship allowancs and would receive more NCAA tournament allotments (is that a word?) and the team who moved down to the lower tiered conference would lose their ncaa allotment/scholarships.   

EX: 

Tier 1: BIG10 conference -Each weight in the BIG10 conference gets to have 10 wrestlers qualify for the NCAA championship 

Tier 2: BIG12 conference - Each weight in the Big12 conference gets to have 8 wrestlers qualify for the NCAA championship 

Tier 3: EIWA conference - Each weight in the EIWA conference gets to have 6 wrestlers qualify for the NCAA championship

Tier 4: All other conferences - Each weight only gets to qualify 3 wrestlers per weight for the NCAA championship

 

Every year (or 3) there would be an unveiling of the new conference tiers and the fans would be able to see even more of the top wrestlers/teams going against eachother. No more dodging the competition an  No more ASU cruising their way to a pac 12 title for 600 years in a row, or Cornell strolling through their conference etc. etc.

 

Could be fun to play with this idea and see what we come up with.  Or I could just shutup....whatever you guys want.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the idea is well-intended, but the conferences would never ever let something like this happen, and rewarding higher tiers with more scholarships and/or allotments would eliminate parity and decimate the smaller programs. D1 wrestling already resembles an FCS vs. FBS and SEC vs. everyone else model in football. The B1G is the SEC of wrestling and PSU is Alabama (we can debate which programs are Clemson, Oklahoma, and Ohio State). People begin to lose interest when there's a model where the rich only get richer and the poor only get poorer. 

Share this post


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

I see that the idea is well-intended, but the conferences would never ever let something like this happen, and rewarding higher tiers with more scholarships and/or allotments would eliminate parity and decimate the smaller programs. D1 wrestling already resembles an FCS vs. FBS and SEC vs. everyone else model in football. The B1G is the SEC of wrestling and PSU is Alabama (we can debate which programs are Clemson, Oklahoma, and Ohio State). People begin to lose interest when there's a model where the rich only get richer and the poor only get poorer. 

Oh yea not a chance this could ever fly...this is from a fans point of view for sure....in regards to rich getting richer point....Could you argue that if the conferences really were that upset about it they then should put more money/emphasis into their wrestling programs in the smaller conferences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JBluegill133 said:

Oh yea not a chance this could ever fly...this is from a fans point of view for sure....in regards to rich getting richer point....Could you argue that if the conferences really were that upset about it they then should put more money/emphasis into their wrestling programs in the smaller conferences?

Yah I think so, but it's a double-edged sword and the Debbie Downer in me worries that it could incentivize ADs to kill off underperforming programs. The NCAA is another hurdle when it comes to scholarship limits. IMO, the conferences have a lot of room for creativity though. The Pac-12 just put in rules for MBB that limits the way teams can schedule nonconference opponents, because they believed too many teams were packing their schedules with cupcake schools and/or "revenue games" that hurt their chances of making the NCAA tournament down the road.

Going forward, Pac-12 MBB schools can only schedule D1 teams during the regular season and a team's nonconference schedule must have a 5-year average NET (the metric that replaced RPI in basketball) score above xyz. There's some other stuff too, like limits on games where a crummy team pays you to play a home game in their arena, and minimum NET scores for nonconference opponents - I don't remember the details atm.

Anyway, wrestling could do something similar, like the B1G could create a scheduling rotation rule where teams that finished in the top half of the conference over a rolling 5 year period has to schedule duals with one another; or requiring all nonconference opponents to have an average finish in the top xx at Nationals over 5 years; or do a "B1G vs. Big XII challenge" series, matching the top B1G teams with the top Big XII teams (which I think they already do?). That would get top programs to compete with another while allowing developing programs to build up. Add onto that reforms in the way individual wrestlers are seeded for nationals and that could go a long way to create marquee matchups and  minimize ducking.

Edited by pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 No more ASU cruising their way to a pac 12 title for 600 years in a row,

um....Oregon State won 6-7 titles...then ASU won 2...then Stanford this year. 

Now that you don't know how other conferences work, what would be the criteria for a team to be in a certain tier? Aren't you just turning RPI into conferences rather than individuals....which in turn effects conferences....which in turn is back to where we are? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting idea, but I dislike the emphasis on conference accomplishment and not on wrestlers individual accomplishments in this proposal, JBluegill. What if the Big 10 is having a crap year and the EIWA is killing everybody? Don't matter, Big 10 gets 10 automatic slots per weight, poor EIWA only gets 6. That's just a "for instance".

For the record I don't think any conference, including the B10, should be allowed to send more than 8 guys to NCAAs per weight. I realize this semi-contradicts what I just stated (what if that 9th place guy at 125 was having a "career year", for example), but when one realizes that only the top 8 actually PLACE at NCAAs, it seems pretty ridiculous to award a guy who finished 10th in a 13 team conference (that's called "rewarding mediocrity"). Yes, I know the 8th place B10 finisher might beat some conf champs, but I've never liked guys qualifying after finishing pretty low in conf. I'd rather give those extra berths to other conferences. Sure, the 8th place "random conf" finisher will likely get slaughtered at NCAAs, but that 10th place guy from Big 10s probably isn't going to do jack, either.

 

Frankly if a conference can send more than 8 guys per weight, might as well make NCAAs an "open"....all starting wrestlers from D1 teams are invited. Actually that would probably be a lot better than what we have now, come to think of it.

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


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

 No more ASU cruising their way to a pac 12 title for 600 years in a row,

um....Oregon State won 6-7 titles...then ASU won 2...then Stanford this year. 

Now that you don't know how other conferences work, what would be the criteria for a team to be in a certain tier? Aren't you just turning RPI into conferences rather than individuals....which in turn effects conferences....which in turn is back to where we are? 

That was obviously a joke about asu ...i just picked the first top pac-12 team i could think of....again no prior research went into this.  Just to have a fun hypothetical conversation.... 

for criteria of conferences for tiers my initial thought was to look at the amount of all-americans and national champions from the year before....maybe look at the top 10-15 teams placing wise from the national tournament and whichever conference has the most receives tier 1 ranking? What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, TobusRex said:

It's an interesting idea, but I dislike the emphasis on conference accomplishment and not on wrestlers individual accomplishments in this proposal, JBluegill. What if the Big 10 is having a crap year and the EIWA is killing everybody? Don't matter, Big 10 gets 10 automatic slots per weight, poor EIWA only gets 6. That's just a "for instance".

For the record I don't think any conference, including the B10, should be allowed to send more than 8 guys to NCAAs per weight. I realize this semi-contradicts what I just stated (what if that 9th place guy at 125 was having a "career year", for example), but when one realizes that only the top 8 actually PLACE at NCAAs, it seems pretty ridiculous to award a guy who finished 10th in a 13 team conference (that's called "rewarding mediocrity"). Yes, I know the 8th place B10 finisher might beat some conf champs, but I've never liked guys qualifying after finishing pretty low in conf. I'd rather give those extra berths to other conferences. Sure, the 8th place "random conf" finisher will likely get slaughtered at NCAAs, but that 10th place guy from Big 10s probably isn't going to do jack, either.

 

Frankly if a conference can send more than 8 guys per weight, might as well make NCAAs an "open"....all starting wrestlers from D1 teams are invited. Actually that would probably be a lot better than what we have now, come to think of it.

 

I see what youre saying in your first paragraph about the down year....what do you think a solution could be?  What if we brough back national duals at the end of the year (cael will really get behind this idea)...right before or affter individual nationals....but the teams that are invited are the conference champions and runner up from each conference.  That result, plus # of AA's and national champions from each conference  could set our tiers up for the next year?

 

ex on how to get the tiers: 

Penn state gets 1st place in the conference dual championships + 6AA's and 2NC's  = a certain amount of points for the B10 conference

Ohio state gets 2nd place in the conference dual championships + 3AA's and 3NC's = a certain amount of points for the b10 conference

Okstate gets 3rd place in the conference dual championships +5 AA's and no NC's = a certain amount of points for the big12 conference

 

so on and so forth.

 

Edited by JBluegill133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pamela said:

Yah I think so, but it's a double-edged sword and the Debbie Downer in me worries that it could incentivize ADs to kill off underperforming programs. The NCAA is another hurdle when it comes to scholarship limits. IMO, the conferences have a lot of room for creativity though. The Pac-12 just put in rules for MBB that limits the way teams can schedule nonconference opponents, because they believed too many teams were packing their schedules with cupcake schools and/or "revenue games" that hurt their chances of making the NCAA tournament down the road.

Going forward, Pac-12 MBB schools can only schedule D1 teams during the regular season and a team's nonconference schedule must have a 5-year average NET (the metric that replaced RPI in basketball) score above xyz. There's some other stuff too, like limits on games where a crummy team pays you to play a home game in their arena, and minimum NET scores for nonconference opponents - I don't remember the details atm.

Anyway, wrestling could do something similar, like the B1G could create a scheduling rotation rule where teams that finished in the top half of the conference over a rolling 5 year period has to schedule duals with one another; or requiring all nonconference opponents to have an average finish in the top xx at Nationals over 5 years; or do a "B1G vs. Big XII challenge" series, matching the top B1G teams with the top Big XII teams (which I think they already do?). That would get top programs to compete with another while allowing developing programs to build up. Add onto that reforms in the way individual wrestlers are seeded for nationals and that could go a long way to create marquee matchups and  minimize ducking.

This is a really cool idea.  Nice pamela!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...