Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
alliseeisgold

Years where best dual team did not win the title ?

Recommended Posts

2014 minnesota beat penn state in a dual ; then flipped in national title

2015 oh state didn't feel like a great dual team lost several duals

what other years ? gotta be a plethora here, as we all know teams fare differently in duals than tournaments. There's a troll wannabe wrestling fan who thinks since PSU was undefeated in duals and won the tournament last 4 years that the tournament champ is always the best dual team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a hard question to answer since many top teams have NOT attacked duals with remotely the same intensity as the all important NCAA Tournament.

Say, NCAA's were set up like Michigan High School Wrestling is.  Team titles are determined the week before in a dual format while team districts and regionals are done on the Wednesday before the Individual tournaments on Saturday.  Coaches will have kids weigh in under the weight they are wrestling Individual and bump guys all over the place to try to win.

Now, I know DI doesn't really allow for much weight shifting due to such high talent levels, but you would see WAAAAAY more attention paid to duals and lineups if they mattered.

Simply put, this is a loaded and truly unanswerable question.  We really DO NOT know for sure who the best dual teams are as  NO team truly every gave 100% effort into being the BEST Dual Team..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MSU158 said:

Simply put, this is a loaded and truly unanswerable question.  We really DO NOT know for sure who the best dual teams are as  NO team truly every gave 100% effort into being the BEST Dual Team..................

What utter nonsense.  The NWCA National Duals results gave ample evidence to refute that.  Several teams have been the best dual team in the country yet failed to win NCAA's.  This results from the NCAA's skewed scoring system which overvalues finalists versus AA's.

1991 PSU beat IA 19-19 cr in the semi's and Okie St in the finals 21-18.   Iowa took 3rd in the Duals yet ran away with the NCAA's with 157 points to  Okie St 108.75 and PSU 67.

1993 NE beat IA 24-20 in semi's before losing to Penn State 20-13 in the finals.  Iowa dominated NCAA's 123.75 to PSU 87.5 & NE 79.5.

1997 Okie St beat IA 21-13 in the finals, yet Iowa once again ran away with the NCAA team title 170 to OK St 113.5. 

1998 MN beats IA 18-17 for the Dual title, Iowa easily wins NCAA's with 115 to Minnies 98.5.

1999 MN beats IA 21-14 in semi's, loses to Okie St 20-17 in finals.  Iowa wins NCAA title again with 100.5 edging Minnie 98.5.

What we've seen so far is 14 Iowa titlists which skews the NCAA team scoring.  No other team is remotely close in titlists.

2000 is a rarity in that Iowa skipped the Duals.  IA St edges MN 17-16 for title.  MN ended Okie St's 73 match dual win streak two weeks earlier.  IA wins NCAA with 116.

2001 MN beats Okie St 20-12 for Dual title and shows new way to win NCAA's.  IA has two champs and 125.5 points after going 2,1,2,3,1,8,6 in the first seven weights.  Minny counters with 10 AA's and 138.5 points.  This is the first time that Iowa has lost NCAA title when it has had more titlists.

Here is a link to see the tremendous team rosters battling for the NWCA National Duals title: http://www.wrestlingstats.com/NWCA/PDF/NWCA National Duals.pdf

Share this post


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

What utter nonsense.  The NWCA National Duals results gave ample evidence to refute that.  Several teams have been the best dual team in the country yet failed to win NCAA's.  This results from the NCAA's skewed scoring system which overvalues finalists versus AA's.

1991 PSU beat IA 19-19 cr in the semi's and Okie St in the finals 21-18.   Iowa took 3rd in the Duals yet ran away with the NCAA's with 157 points to  Okie St 108.75 and PSU 67.

1993 NE beat IA 24-20 in semi's before losing to Penn State 20-13 in the finals.  Iowa dominated NCAA's 123.75 to PSU 87.5 & NE 79.5.

1997 Okie St beat IA 21-13 in the finals, yet Iowa once again ran away with the NCAA team title 170 to OK St 113.5. 

1998 MN beats IA 18-17 for the Dual title, Iowa easily wins NCAA's with 115 to Minnies 98.5.

1999 MN beats IA 21-14 in semi's, loses to Okie St 20-17 in finals.  Iowa wins NCAA title again with 100.5 edging Minnie 98.5.

What we've seen so far is 14 Iowa titlists which skews the NCAA team scoring.  No other team is remotely close in titlists.

2000 is a rarity in that Iowa skipped the Duals.  IA St edges MN 17-16 for title.  MN ended Okie St's 73 match dual win streak two weeks earlier.  IA wins NCAA with 116.

2001 MN beats Okie St 20-12 for Dual title and shows new way to win NCAA's.  IA has two champs and 125.5 points after going 2,1,2,3,1,8,6 in the first seven weights.  Minny counters with 10 AA's and 138.5 points.  This is the first time that Iowa has lost NCAA title when it has had more titlists.

Here is a link to see the tremendous team rosters battling for the NWCA National Duals title: http://www.wrestlingstats.com/NWCA/PDF/NWCA National Duals.pdf

I love what you did there.  The ONE argument a Minnie fan still uses in an attempt to stay relevant!!!  So, you are honestly saying these teams geared their recruiting and lineups to maximize their chances to win the NWCA National Duals?  

 

Remember, I have been one of the loudest on here calling for Duals to decide the team champ.  Trust me, I wish it were the case.  But, many teams did not value National Duals all that high from a team win perspective and sure as HELL did not value it ANYWHERE NEAR they did the NCAA Tournament in March.  Methinks we would have had quite a few different outcomes if that NWCA Tournament actually decided the NCAA Team TItle......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MSU158 said:

I love what you did there.  The ONE argument a Minnie fan still uses in an attempt to stay relevant!!!  So, you are honestly saying these teams geared their recruiting and lineups to maximize their chances to win the NWCA National Duals?  

 

Remember, I have been one of the loudest on here calling for Duals to decide the team champ.  Trust me, I wish it were the case.  But, many teams did not value National Duals all that high from a team win perspective and sure as HELL did not value it ANYWHERE NEAR they did the NCAA Tournament in March.  Methinks we would have had quite a few different outcomes if that NWCA Tournament actually decided the NCAA Team TItle......................

Well, it's obvious that you are trolling me now which is a surprise.  I clearly did not say that "teams geared their recruiting and lineups" to win the Natty Duals.  What I did say is that the NCAA scoring methods are skewed to the most titlists, which allowed Iowa to win titles when they where not the best dual team in the country.  I then used results to show how that happened.

Your next statement is the most ridiculous of all.  Dan Gable will be most surprised to learn that he really didn't care that his1998 Iowa team lost to JRob's Minny for the National Duals title.  Despite the comments he may have made afterwards.

I imagine Gable told his 1991 team (Brands, Brands, Steiner, Steiner, Ryan, et al) that it was ok to lose, just go out and have fun, the real prize is in March.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jammen said:

Well, it's obvious that you are trolling me now which is a surprise.  I clearly did not say that "teams geared their recruiting and lineups" to win the Natty Duals.  What I did say is that the NCAA scoring methods are skewed to the most titlists, which allowed Iowa to win titles when they where not the best dual team in the country.  I then used results to show how that happened.

Your next statement is the most ridiculous of all.  Dan Gable will be most surprised to learn that he really didn't care that his1998 Iowa team lost to JRob's Minny for the National Duals title.  Despite the comments he may have made afterwards.

I imagine Gable told his 1991 team (Brands, Brands, Steiner, Steiner, Ryan, et al) that it was ok to lose, just go out and have fun, the real prize is in March.  

Go back and look at the part of my post you originally responded to that you called utter nonsense.  If you are NOT gearing your recruiting and lineups to win Natty duals how in the WORLD are you giving 100% effort into being the BEST dual team.  The answer is SIMPLE.  You are NOT.  So the first part of your whiny response is debunked.

As far as the scoring methods being skewed I essentially agreed with you.  I clearly said that all the focus goes into the NCAA tournament with MANY not really caring about Natty Duals.  I didn't say all.  SO that debunks your Gable teams argument.  Still, Gable may have wanted to win everything, but if you think he had his guys peaking for Natty duals the same way they were for the NCAA Tournament you are fooling yourself.

Finally, I NEVER said the best dual teams didn't usually win the Natty Duals and sometimes didn't win the NCAA Tournament.  I said that the best dual teams probably would have looked quite different many of  those years if that decided the actual team title.  This isn't rocket science.  It is common sense at its most basic..........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MSU158 said:

Go back and look at the part of my post you originally responded to that you called utter nonsense.  If you are NOT gearing your recruiting and lineups to win Natty duals how in the WORLD are you giving 100% effort into being the BEST dual team.  The answer is SIMPLE.  You are NOT.  So the first part of your whiny response is debunked.

As far as the scoring methods being skewed I essentially agreed with you.  I clearly said that all the focus goes into the NCAA tournament with MANY not really caring about Natty Duals.  I didn't say all.  SO that debunks your Gable teams argument.  Still, Gable may have wanted to win everything, but if you think he had his guys peaking for Natty duals the same way they were for the NCAA Tournament you are fooling yourself.

Finally, I NEVER said the best dual teams didn't usually win the Natty Duals and sometimes didn't win the NCAA Tournament.  I said that the best dual teams probably would have looked quite different many of  those years if that decided the actual team title.  This isn't rocket science.  It is common sense at its most basic..........................

The question isn't who could have hypothetically had the best dual team if they geared their lineup and recruiting to maximize dual scoring. The National Duals give us some indication of who the best dual team was under the current landscape, so we can at least have a debate about the best dual team vs. best tournament team.

That said, teams match up differently, so the winner of National Duals may not necessarily be able to defeat every team. I feel like Mizzou in 2015 would be an example of this. While they would have been at least close with any team in the county, I am hesitant to say they were the best. But they did win, yet had no chance to win the NCAA tourney that year.

Edited by Crotalus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the National Duals results for the years I posted you'll find that it was the very same 4-5 schools in contention for the NCAA title.  Iowa, Okie St, MN, IA St, PSU.

So to summarize:  National Duals= OK ST 3, MN 3, PSU 1, IA St 1.    NCAA titles= IA 6, MN 1, Ok St 1

There have been many years when the school that won the NCAA title was not the best dual team in the country.  This is because of the NCAA skewed scoring system, and  not because the teams entered didn't care if they won the National Duals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jammen said:

If you look at the National Duals results for the years I posted you'll find that it was the very same 4-5 schools in contention for the NCAA title.  Iowa, Okie St, MN, IA St, PSU.

So to summarize:  National Duals= OK ST 3, MN 3, PSU 1, IA St 1.    NCAA titles= IA 6, MN 1, Ok St 1

There have been many years when the school that won the NCAA title was not the best dual team in the country.  This is because of the NCAA skewed scoring system, and  not because the teams entered didn't care if they won the National Duals.

Yes, there is skewed scoring in the NCAA meet. No one seems to care. People see a mediocre dual team with 3 champs and zero consy AAs outscore a team of seven or eight AAs and a dual record of 18-1, and the rationale is "Hey, the prestige!! Those champs! That's what it's all about!" But is a scoring system based on one thing, (gold medal prestige) better than one that measures balance and depth , i.e. coaching, recruiting, and intrinsically, academic eligibility, citizenship, a full lineup, etc. 

As a coach would you rather have three gold medalists and the runnerup trophy, or 8 AAs and the team title?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 'skewing' depends on the bonus and placing.  6 3rds  a 4th and a 5th beats 3 champs all day.  A bunch of 6ths and lowers? Not so much.

How does scoring break down?  Anout like this?

1: 25- 30 points

2: 20-25

3: 18-22

4: 14-18

5:12-18

6:10-15

7:8-12

8:6-10

Doesn't seem a lot more skewed towards bonus than a dual.

 

 

Share this post


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

This 'skewing' depends on the bonus and placing.  6 3rds  a 4th and a 5th beats 3 champs all day.  A bunch of 6ths and lowers? Not so much.

How does scoring break down?  Anout like this?

1: 25- 30 points

2: 20-25

3: 18-22

4: 14-18

5:12-18

6:10-15

7:8-12

8:6-10

Doesn't seem a lot more skewed towards bonus than a dual.

 

 

Your low end scoring range for several places is rather high, considering 25 is more of a Retherford/Nolf/Lee performance than a Joseph/Hall/Heil type.

For clarity, this is the range without including bonus possibilities in a pig tail match:  bonus is as follows- 1 extra for MD, 1.5 for TF and 2 for FALL

1st-20-30  The base for first is 16 placement points + 4(4 championship) advancement points totaling 20.  That expects 5 matches with a chance for bonus in each.

2nd-16-24  The base for 2nd is 12 placement points +4(4 championship)advancement points totaling 16.  That expects 5 matches with a chance for bonus in 4.

AMOUNT OF MATCHES CAN RANGE 1 or 2 for the remaining placements:  Advancement points are worth 1 point on championship side and .5 on consolation side.

3rd-13.5-27.5  The base for 3rd is 10 placement points + 3.5(3 championship and 1 consolation) advancement points totaling 13.5  However, that assumes 6 matches with a chance for bonus in 5.  But, it is possible to win 1st round, lose and then win 6 straight matches to take 3rd.  This would allow for up to 14 bonus pts and 3.5(1 championship and 5 consolation) advancement points totaling 27.5.

4th-12.5-24.5  The base for 4th is 9 placement points +3.5(3 championship and 1 consolation) advancement pts totaling 12.5.  However, as you see with 3rd place that assumes 6 matches with a chance for bonus in 4.  But, it is possible to lose 1st round and then win 6 straight, before losing, to take 3rd.  This would all for up to 12 bonus pts and 3.5(1 championship and 5 consolation) advancement points totaling 24.5.

5th-10-22  The base for 5th is 7 placement points + 3(2 championship and 2 consolation) advancement pts totaling 10.  However, somewhat similar to 3rd/4th that assumes 6 matches with a chance for bonus in 4.  But, it is possible to win 1st round, lose 2nd round, win 4 in a row, lose and then win 1 more time.  This would allow for up to 12 bonus points and 3(1 championship and 4 consolation) advancement totaling 22.

6th-9-19  The base for 6th is 6 placement points +3(2 championship and 2 consolation) advancement pts totaling 9.   Just to stop using however, 6th is the same as 5th except you lose the chance to bonus in 1 match since you lose the 5th place match and placement is 1 less.  So that  allows for  up to 10 bonus points and 3(1 championship and 4 consolation) advancement totaling 19.

7th-6.5-16.5  The base for 7th is 4 placement points +2.5(2 championship and 1 consolation) advancement pts totaling 6.5.  But, you can win your 1st match, lose your 2nd, win 3 in a row, lose and then win 1 more.  That allows for up to 10 bonus pts and 2.5 advancement points totaling 16.5.

8th-5.5-13.5  The base for 8th is 3 placement points +2.5(2 championship and 1 consolation) advancement pts totaling 5.5  But, you can win your 1st match, lose your 2nd, win 3 in a row and then lose your last 2.  That allows for up to 8 bonus pts and 2.5 advancement points totaling 13.5.

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2020 at 6:56 PM, jammen said:

Well, it's obvious that you are trolling me now which is a surprise.  I clearly did not say that "teams geared their recruiting and lineups" to win the Natty Duals.  What I did say is that the NCAA scoring methods are skewed to the most titlists, which allowed Iowa to win titles when they where not the best dual team in the country.  I then used results to show how that happened.

Your next statement is the most ridiculous of all.  Dan Gable will be most surprised to learn that he really didn't care that his1998 Iowa team lost to JRob's Minny for the National Duals title.  Despite the comments he may have made afterwards.

I imagine Gable told his 1991 team (Brands, Brands, Steiner, Steiner, Ryan, et al) that it was ok to lose, just go out and have fun, the real prize is in March.  

For starters, Dan Gable was not the coach in 1998, Jim Zalesky was. Secondly, in all the years you mention, the National Duals took place in January. Dan Gable was a master at having his wrestlers peak in March, so there were many years that Iowa wasn't the best team in January, Dual or otherwise, but was in March. Also there were times when the line-up at National Duals was not the line-up in March for injury or other reasons. There has never been a true, end-of-season Dual National Champion, so there is no way to know if the best Dual team won the tournament title.

I'm sorry if some of this has been pointed out further down the thread, as I skipped from the quoted post to my reply. I'm going back to read more now.

Also, I really miss the old format National Duals. Even if they weren't an NCAA sanctioned championship, they made for a very fun weekend. Especially at Cedar Falls, with all the divisions in one building, where you could watch whatever matches you wanted to. I miss those.

Edited by TNTwrestle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 9:34 AM, jammen said:

If you look at the National Duals results for the years I posted you'll find that it was the very same 4-5 schools in contention for the NCAA title.  Iowa, Okie St, MN, IA St, PSU.

So to summarize:  National Duals= OK ST 3, MN 3, PSU 1, IA St 1.    NCAA titles= IA 6, MN 1, Ok St 1

There have been many years when the school that won the NCAA title was not the best dual team in the country.  This is because of the NCAA skewed scoring system, and  not because the teams entered didn't care if they won the National Duals.

On a related note - although the winner of the B1G is a good predictor of who will win the National title, the same phenomenon happens sometimes at the conference championship level. In recent history:

  • Ohio State wins the B1G Championships in 2017 & 2018 but places 2nd at NCAAs to PSU both times
  • Logan Stieber's senior year, Iowa wins B1Gs but places 2nd at NCAAs behind tOSU
  • Taylor's senior year, Minny finishes a distant 3rd at B1Gs and places 2nd at NCAAs just 5.5 points behind PSU
  • The year Caldwell beat Metcalf in the finals, tOSU finished like 6th at B1Gs but lost the NCAA team title to Iowa by 4.5 points
Edited by 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...