Jump to content
calot

Iowa St. Open (merged topic)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Pinnum said:

Agreed.  Completely different.  

It is absurd that wrestling has wins without losses.  Amazing that forfeits in duals count as a win for one wrestler without being at the expense of another wrestler.

You know I never thought of that. If you had held me down and made me think about it I probably would have been able to but that's a great point. How in the hell are we giving victories away when somebody is not getting a loss? There's another great point that needs to be looked at. What really gets me is not the fact of what happened but the fact that a coach made a wrestler on his team take a loss for this guy to get the bouts he needed. Sithty very sithty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mat-Town II at Lock Haven imo was more in the spirit of what a Last Chance tournament should be. Mostly rostered redshirts filled out the brackets for guys who needed to boost their AQ/at-large profiles, and it's hard to dispute that the coaches had input into the brackets, but there was nothing as egregious as entering guys to step out on the mat and then immediately default to a teammate. 

I mostly paid attention to Mat Town from the Cornell perspective, but from what I can see: 

Hunter Richard went a legit 2-0 to get to .700 then dipped before facing a Maryland redshirt who is having a very good year (though he may have dipped out anyway, having achieved the result he needed). Exactly .700 may still not be enough for an allocation if he doesn't move up higher in the CR than 30.

Brandon Womack needed to wrestle within the last 30 days to be eligible for an RPI, and hasn't been on the mat since getting injured at South Beach in December, so he was matched up against Rami Pellumbi, a teammate and graduating senior wrestling in his only match of the last two years. Womack won by fall in 1:32. I don't think the result was fixed but I also don't think the result was in doubt. Then Womack skedaddled before facing a Lehigh redshirt.  RPI and win% should get him an AQ even if he isn't voted back in the CR.

Drew Phipps from Bucknell went 2-0 then MFF'd the finals against an FLWC wrestler who wouldn't have counted either way on his record. He is now so solidly above .700 that he only needs to clear the bar on either RPI or CR and should do it comfortably.

YMMV but I don't think this is nearly as bad as a Potemkin tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SamStall365247 said:

May also have to do with the Iowa finals being held on Saturday night. 

Please elaborate.

The date for the Iowa HS Finals was set well BEFORE Dresser agreed to Dual Missouri.  If that was a conflict (which I don't believe for a second), Dresser would NOT have agreed to dual Missouri on Feb.22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ugarte said:

The Mat-Town II at Lock Haven imo was more in the spirit of what a Last Chance tournament should be. Mostly rostered redshirts filled out the brackets for guys who needed to boost their AQ/at-large profiles, and it's hard to dispute that the coaches had input into the brackets, but there was nothing as egregious as entering guys to step out on the mat and then immediately default to a teammate. 

I mostly paid attention to Mat Town from the Cornell perspective, but from what I can see: 

Hunter Richard went a legit 2-0 to get to .700 then dipped before facing a Maryland redshirt who is having a very good year (though he may have dipped out anyway, having achieved the result he needed). Exactly .700 may still not be enough for an allocation if he doesn't move up higher in the CR than 30.

Brandon Womack needed to wrestle within the last 30 days to be eligible for an RPI, and hasn't been on the mat since getting injured at South Beach in December, so he was matched up against Rami Pellumbi, a teammate and graduating senior wrestling in his only match of the last two years. Womack won by fall in 1:32. I don't think the result was fixed but I also don't think the result was in doubt. Then Womack skedaddled before facing a Lehigh redshirt.  RPI and win% should get him an AQ even if he isn't voted back in the CR.

Drew Phipps from Bucknell went 2-0 then MFF'd the finals against an FLWC wrestler who wouldn't have counted either way on his record. He is now so solidly above .700 that he only needs to clear the bar on either RPI or CR and should do it comfortably.

YMMV but I don't think this is nearly as bad as a Potemkin tournament.

Because Scott Moore has integrity he just doesn't talk about it

Share this post


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

I think I can buy that Sebastian was still sick since he did take a loss.

But was it  just dumb luck that Coleman was placed in the bracket where he was the only one able to get 4 matches in the winner's bracket?  In addition to Coleman, at 149 and 157, Degen and Carr of ISU were also participants in the only first round match.   Seems convenient to say the least.

Its not "convenient" or a "coincidence".

Its premeditated "bracket fixing" to achieve Dressers desired matchups/outcome. 

Share this post


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

Agreed.  Completely different.  

It is absurd that wrestling has wins without losses.  Amazing that forfeits in duals count as a win for one wrestler without being at the expense of another wrestler.

So how would you decide who is the guy in a dual that gets the loss? In college, anyone that weighed in at the same or lower weight and didn't wrestle is eligible (other than 285 where you have to weigh 183 or more).

The tournament situation is different. I believe I came up with the general idea behind medical forfeits back in the 90s. My only thought behind it was to differentiate between forfeits. Forfeits can eliminate all points scored, mffs (as originally thought of) were excusable forfeits and just allowed people to bow out cleanly if needed. At some point they added the win but no loss factor. If done with good reason it made sense but has been gamed.

Legally, a default is when the coach simply says the match is over. He doesn't have to explain anything. Obviously, this was gamed this weekend.

Share this post


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

The Mat-Town II at Lock Haven imo was more in the spirit of what a Last Chance tournament should be. Mostly rostered redshirts filled out the brackets for guys who needed to boost their AQ/at-large profiles, and it's hard to dispute that the coaches had input into the brackets, but there was nothing as egregious as entering guys to step out on the mat and then immediately default to a teammate. 

I mostly paid attention to Mat Town from the Cornell perspective, but from what I can see: 

Hunter Richard went a legit 2-0 to get to .700 then dipped before facing a Maryland redshirt who is having a very good year (though he may have dipped out anyway, having achieved the result he needed). Exactly .700 may still not be enough for an allocation if he doesn't move up higher in the CR than 30.

Brandon Womack needed to wrestle within the last 30 days to be eligible for an RPI, and hasn't been on the mat since getting injured at South Beach in December, so he was matched up against Rami Pellumbi, a teammate and graduating senior wrestling in his only match of the last two years. Womack won by fall in 1:32. I don't think the result was fixed but I also don't think the result was in doubt. Then Womack skedaddled before facing a Lehigh redshirt.  RPI and win% should get him an AQ even if he isn't voted back in the CR.

Drew Phipps from Bucknell went 2-0 then MFF'd the finals against an FLWC wrestler who wouldn't have counted either way on his record. He is now so solidly above .700 that he only needs to clear the bar on either RPI or CR and should do it comfortably.

YMMV but I don't think this is nearly as bad as a Potemkin tournament.

There were a couple of desired wrestle-offs requested but they were legitimately wrestled AFAIK and even they weren't pigtails. They had to win a match or two to get there.

I can't find it in my notes but I thought there was a third one so it was likely Womack Pellumbi (software wouldn't have done that randomly). 

There was thought of setting up a match between teammates after the fact since one wrestler needed a certain number and legitimately received an mff based on a dq and resulting injury in lead-in bout. But it was dismissed.

 

Personally, I think the problem is magnified by having drop dead limits for some of these stats. When they lowered the threshold this year they inadvertently did two things. 1. Brought the level to a different group of wrestlers needing that number instead of the other. 2. Allowed some wrestlers to wrestle two fewer bouts putting them back at or near the limit. I think the solution is along the lines of a sliding scale approach. Take 17 as a limit (for example). If 16, take 98%. If 15, 95%. (Numbers are without any thought or research)  This should allow many of these a chance to get what they need and the marginal improvement would hopefully prevent too much gaming. Possibly never count teammate matches although the two or three mentioned above also wouldn't count which is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

So how would you decide who is the guy in a dual that gets the loss? In college, anyone that weighed in at the same or lower weight and didn't wrestle is eligible (other than 285 where you have to weigh 183 or more).

Under my reform of the structure of the sport that I designed...

As a part of the weigh-in process, every team must declare an athlete for each weight.  This means that every weight must have an athlete declared for the weight class.  There can be more than one athlete to weigh-in at a weight but one is responsible for the weight and they are locked in as the default representative.  So when an athlete weighs-in for a dual they are the athlete for that weight who will take the loss if an athlete from the team does not take to the mat. 

With one-hour weigh-ins, it makes a team enter an athlete into the dual and declare them as the rep responsible for the weight.  If the coach decides that the dual is lost and the athlete is banged up and they don't want him to wrestle, the athlete will still take a loss still.

If no athlete weighs in for the weight class and there is a surplus of lower weight individuals, the coach can declare one of those athletes as the designated athlete for the weight class.  (Note: They don't have to wrestle in that weight--the coach could decide to shuffle the weights differently than was originally declared but there is an athlete declared that will take the loss if the weight is not wrestled by the team).

If there is no athlete declared for a weight at the weigh-ins, then the team loses that weight by "no contest" which awards seven points to the other team.  The points are awarded before any wrestling takes place.  There is no athlete from the other team that takes the mat and has their hand raised--the weight is simply skipped in the wrestling.  The "No contest" is worth the equivalent of six points for the loss and one point for an unsportsman penalty.  (Tough it's not actually an unsportsman penalty against the team.)

Of course, this plan is also coupled with other reforms that make it so that teams would care more about the dual results and the margin of victory.

Example:  You weigh in two athletes at 125 but no one at 133.  The coach declares one as the athlete at 125 and the other athlete is declared at 133.  If either weight is forfeited then the athlete that was declared for the weight will take the loss on their record as an official match. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

The tournament situation is different. I believe I came up with the general idea behind medical forfeits back in the 90s. My only thought behind it was to differentiate between forfeits. Forfeits can eliminate all points scored, mffs (as originally thought of) were excusable forfeits and just allowed people to bow out cleanly if needed. At some point they added the win but no loss factor. If done with good reason it made sense but has been gamed.

Legally, a default is when the coach simply says the match is over. He doesn't have to explain anything. Obviously, this was gamed this weekend.

This is a great concept and it should remain.  But other structural reforms I would make would address this.  We all know that this isn't really a problem early in the season when teammates see each other in opens.  And part of the reason is because no coach is confident who will be the one they want to have the inflated record come the end of the year.

Part of the issue is the lack of a true season structure and the haphazard scheduling nature of college wrestling where most programs are actually competing in 30-40 events but most are only represented by a few athletes.

All of these problems are solvable.  But they can't be looked at individually.  They are addressed through holistic reforms that together solve the problems.

My structural change proposal calls for standardizing scheduling and using a points system for D1 teams that continues to allow for matches for guys in the room but removes the issues we saw this past weekend.  It makes the teams more cohesive too which is easier for fans.  It also would help non-D1 four year programs (though that is merely an ancillary benefit and not the goal of the design).

Share this post


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

Under my reform of the structure of the sport that I designed...

As a part of the weigh-in process, every team must declare an athlete for each weight.  This means that every weight must have an athlete declared for the weight class.  There can be more than one athlete to weigh-in at a weight but one is responsible for the weight and they are locked in as the default representative.  So when an athlete weighs-in for a dual they are the athlete for that weight who will take the loss if an athlete from the team does not take to the mat. 

With one-hour weigh-ins, it makes a team enter an athlete into the dual and declare them as the rep responsible for the weight.  If the coach decides that the dual is lost and the athlete is banged up and they don't want him to wrestle, the athlete will still take a loss still.

If no athlete weighs in for the weight class and there is a surplus of lower weight individuals, the coach can declare one of those athletes as the designated athlete for the weight class.  (Note: They don't have to wrestle in that weight--the coach could decide to shuffle the weights differently than was originally declared but there is an athlete declared that will take the loss if the weight is not wrestled by the team).

If there is no athlete declared for a weight at the weigh-ins, then the team loses that weight by "no contest" which awards seven points to the other team.  The points are awarded before any wrestling takes place.  There is no athlete from the other team that takes the mat and has their hand raised--the weight is simply skipped in the wrestling.  The "No contest" is worth the equivalent of six points for the loss and one point for an unsportsman penalty.  (Tough it's not actually an unsportsman penalty against the team.)

Of course, this plan is also coupled with other reforms that make it so that teams would care more about the dual results and the margin of victory.

Example:  You weigh in two athletes at 125 but no one at 133.  The coach declares one as the athlete at 125 and the other athlete is declared at 133.  If either weight is forfeited then the athlete that was declared for the weight will take the loss on their record as an official match. 

 

 

 

And if you forfeit at 125 instead? Or weigh in 3 in your scenario?

Edited by gimpeltf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

And if you forfeit at 125 instead? Or weigh in 3 in your scenario?

I knew this would be asked...

To make sure I understand the question:  Two athletes are weighed in at 125 and one is declared at 125 and one at 133 but the coach decides to hold out the declared 125 and wrestle the 133?  This means the, rather than having seven points awarded at the start of the dual, and the weigh skipped, the official calls for each side to send out their 125s to wrestle and the coach declines to send out a 125.

Under this scenario, the coach is hit with an unsportsman like penalty and the athlete that was declared at 125 is still charged with a loss.  Under this scenario, the match is assumed to be started at the point that the athlete was declared at the weight and the official called them to the mat.  An athlete was committed to compete.  If that athlete, or another athlete does not take to the mat, then the athlete still takes the loss and the coach is hit with an unsportsman like penalty.

What happens if they weigh-in three athletes at 125?  The same thing.  But an athlete doesn't have to be declared for a weight.  If they have A, B, and C weigh-in, they can declare A at 125 and B at 133 and C is still able to be sent out at any weight class where they are permitted to compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

I knew this would be asked...

To make sure I understand the question:  Two athletes are weighed in at 125 and one is declared at 125 and one at 133 but the coach decides to hold out the declared 125 and wrestle the 133?  This means the, rather than having seven points awarded at the start of the dual, and the weigh skipped, the official calls for each side to send out their 125s to wrestle and the coach declines to send out a 125.

No, I wasn't clear. If 2 are weighed in at 125 but they forfeit there. Forget about 133. They wrestle there. I was changing your scenario.

 

Pre-declaring at a weight eliminates any jockeying possibilities. And what if they don't have anyone at all? In HS if your scenario arises (sort of, 2 at 126, 1 at 132, none at 138). If the 132 wrestles 132 the 126s aren't eligible for 138. No one allowed to take the loss.

 

I don't have a problem with team penalties but there's no simple solution. And even if something like your changes were adopted, teams could just weighin scrubs to take the losses.

Edited by gimpeltf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

I knew this would be asked...

To make sure I understand the question:  Two athletes are weighed in at 125 and one is declared at 125 and one at 133 but the coach decides to hold out the declared 125 and wrestle the 133?  This means the, rather than having seven points awarded at the start of the dual, and the weigh skipped, the official calls for each side to send out their 125s to wrestle and the coach declines to send out a 125.

Under this scenario, the coach is hit with an unsportsman like penalty and the athlete that was declared at 125 is still charged with a loss.  Under this scenario, the match is assumed to be started at the point that the athlete was declared at the weight and the official called them to the mat.  An athlete was committed to compete.  If that athlete, or another athlete does not take to the mat, then the athlete still takes the loss and the coach is hit with an unsportsman like penalty.

What happens if they weigh-in three athletes at 125?  The same thing.  But an athlete doesn't have to be declared for a weight.  If they have A, B, and C weigh-in, they can declare A at 125 and B at 133 and C is still able to be sent out at any weight class where they are permitted to compete.

Now this is what we need to grow the sport!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

No, I wasn't clear. If 2 are weighed in at 125 but they forfeit there. Forget about 133. They wrestle there. I was changing your scenario.

Two athletes are weighed in at 125 (so one is declared at 125) and they decide to forfeit?  Then the declared wrestler takes the loss and the official hits the coach with an unsportsman like penalty for failing to wrestle the declared weight class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

Pre-declaring at a weight eliminates any jockeying possibilities. And what if they don't have anyone at all? In HS if your scenario arises (sort of, 2 at 126, 1 at 132, none at 138). If the 132 wrestles 132 the 126s aren't eligible for 138. No one allowed to take the loss.

 

I don't have a problem with team penalties but there's no simple solution. And even if something like your changes were adopted, teams could just weighin scrubs to take the losses.

Just saw this edit.

No, the jockeying is still possible.  You're free to jockey.  As I said, any athlete can still wrestle any weight that they were permitted to wrestle before.  This is just a commitment not to forfeit a weight and if you do, you're hit with a penalty and the committed athlete takes the loss--removing the incentive to duck and not wrestle a weighed-in athlete.

But you're still able to jockey.

My example already addressed when they don't have a weight.  If you don't have someone at that weight, you can't declare anyone for the weight.  That means that there is a "no contest" and seven points are awarded before wrestling starts in the dual and that weight can not be wrestled.

This is not a proposal for high school but for college.  Where there is an expectation that a program be able to field a team.  (But another part of my restructuring proposal actually addresses another issue that causes some of the problem there too).

I agree that teams could weigh-in scrubs to take losses.  And that is actually a good thing!  You are not forcing a team to take their scrubs with them.  They are making an investment into other athletes that they are at least wrestling kids on the roster rather than taking a loss without a match being wrestled.  Isn't that great?

And another benefit of the scrub having to take the loss is that now the scrub's record is factored into the RPI.  The athlete who got the win would have the record of the scrub factored into their RPI since the RPI factors in opponents and opponents-opponents winning percentages.   It is impossible consider the RPI as a resinous record when you're able to have a win without someone else having a loss.  The whole premise of the RPI is that someone has to take a loss for every win. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, goheels1812 said:

I wonder if it’s worth it to send a mass email to this group of coaches. I’m sure they have an idea of what happened, but if a bunch of fans from around the country start sending emails with concerns about gaming the system they may be more likely to bury Coleman in the coaches ranking. Just a thought. 

Those coaches will not care what fans think.  They are probably thinking the same thing, but they are not going to be swayed by pissed off fans from a wrestling talk forum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised to see Iowa State take their own action on this.  I expect the athletic department and university leadership to have their own expectations for coaches of students.  The example provided here by the head coach is one of poor ethics and poor sportsmanship.  
 

Then again, I also won’t hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ugarte said:

Brandon Womack needed to wrestle within the last 30 days to be eligible for an RPI, and hasn't been on the mat since getting injured at South Beach in December, so he was matched up against Rami Pellumbi, a teammate and graduating senior wrestling in his only match of the last two years. Womack won by fall in 1:32. I don't think the result was fixed but I also don't think the result was in doubt. Then Womack skedaddled before facing a Lehigh redshirt.  RPI and win% should get him an AQ even if he isn't voted back in the CR.

Dresser tries to be subtle about it but basically claims that Pellumbi took a dive on FRL. I don't know one way or the other - no video AFAIK - curious to see if Koll responds.

The excuses for Coleman's string of 0:01 Inj. Def. is not convincing at all. Most egregiously, he basically admitted to Askren that he seeded Sebastian against Coleman for Sebastian to immediately bail out for their mutual benefit. That kind of back-scratching should be called out and invalidated by the NCAA.

Also a lot of bull****ting justification for why the Big 12 should steal a bid from another conference by faking matches for Coleman since Coleman is good enough to deserve a bid anyway. Not a great showing.

Edited by ugarte

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...

×
×
  • Create New...