Jump to content
Wrestleknownothing

Did ISU coach Kevin Dresser admit to an NCAA rules violation on Flo today?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Well apparently you are actually allowed to seed however you want.  It’s his deliberate placement of the byes that appears to be against the rules (he also admitted to doing this with Colbray in addition to answering CP’s question about Coleman).

I do have to give credit to CP for asking some direct questions.

The funny thing is he probably could have “seeded” it so that the byes were not “placed randomly” and his guys got the first round matches, but did not.  

There are some guidelines in the rulebook for seeding. Perhaps the rules are vague enough to allow seed 'however you want'. Let's consider that. 

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to define a *bye* as an imaginary wrestlers that serves only as a place holder, as opposed to a real live human being who intends to compete for placement in the tournament.These, I think, are the only two entries in a bracket that need to be defined; maybe the NCAA rules will have to be rewritten to include real live human beings who wish to be entered in the bracket but have no intention for competing for placement.

The rules do state how to determine that number of byes; this is straightforward enough. There were 7 imaginary wrestlers entered into a 16 man bracket, just as should be.

Next, we consider the first guideline for seeding,

Quote

23.2.a. When there are two outstanding wrestlers in any class, it is recommended that they be placed in opposite halves of the drawing bracket.

It would appear, at least on paper, that Coleman and Sebastian meet this criteria - they both are 'attached' and have wrestled D1 varsity matches, as opposed the the rest of the field who are listed as Unattached (except Steffen, but I didn't see that he's have a meaningful number of varsity matches this year). 

That is not how the brackets were drawn; instead, Sebastian is given a position that implies a seed lower than all but one unattached wrestler,  and is in the same quarter bracket as Coleman.

Quote

23.2.a In cases in which several seeded wrestlers are of equal ability, their seeded positions should be determined by drawing.

Also in 23.2a is this guideline

Stotts was assigned the 16 seed position in the bracket. It is possible, but extremely unlikely, that Stotts would have been placed here by random draw; that is, a random draw that seeds all wrestlers equally, including the 7 imaginary placeholder wrestlers. We could also interpret the bracket, in light of this guideline, as that Stott was determined to have ability below that of an imaginary placeholder wrestler - that is, the imaginary wrestlers were randomly assigned to seeds 9-15.

If all the wresters were rated of equal ability and seeds randomly assigned, we would expect that some of the  7 imaginary placeholder wrestlers were assigned seeds 1-8; that didn't happen.

We might accept that unattached wrestlers should be consider of higher ability than unattached, at least for the purposes of seeding, then we consider the next guideline

Quote

23.2b. If there is one outstanding wrestler in any class and also two others who are distinctly superior to the remainder in that class, those wrestlers should be seeded in different quarter-brackets of the half-bracket opposite from the outstanding wrestler.

This, I think, would have place Steffen and Sebastian in the same quarter bracket, and it would have been Steffen, perhaps, that got the benefit of Sebastians Inj default.

We should note that the next guideline is not as vague

Quote

c. Consideration for determining seeded wrestlers, but not necessarily in this order, is given to: (a) a competitor's won-loss record; (b) head-to-head competition; (c) common opponents; (d) coaches' rankings; (e) RPI; and (f ) wins over ranked opponents.

Clearly, non of these criteria were used to seed this bracket.

Finally, I'll repeat a rule quoted earlier

Quote

23.3d. Tournaments may use alternate methods for assigning byes in the first round of a tournament, as long as byes and/or resulting first-round pigtail matches are distributed randomly and no institution is unfairly helped or harmed by the resulting assignment.

This rule follows the rules for seeding, and it should be understood, I think, that the preferred method of assigning byes follows from the guidelines for seeding wrestlers. The alternate method that was used for this tournament failed to distribute byes randomly, by any definition of random that I'm aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't know that Lance Armstrong was Russian.
Marion Jones, Justin Gaitlin, Tyson Gay, Roy Jones Jr., Mark McGwire: all Russians? I had no idea.
Barry Bonds is Russian?!?! Who would have thought it!
They're pikers compared to the Russian STATE run PED program.



Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

He claims anyone who says they don’t do it is lying. 
  
interesting 

But even if that’s true how many D1 programs host open tournaments where they can do this? Less than 10%?

Share this post


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

Didn't know that Lance Armstrong was Russian.

Marion Jones, Justin Gaitlin, Tyson Gay, Roy Jones Jr., Mark McGwire: all Russians? I had no idea.

Barry Bonds is Russian?!?! Who would have thought it!

The difference in these cases is that they were not orchestrated by the US government, and in several of the cases, were actually prosecuted by the Feds.

Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MDogg said:

But even if that’s true how many D1 programs host open tournaments where they can do this? Less than 10%?

He specifically stated in the FRL interview that the premier programs like Iowa and PSU don't hold or participate in these sort of open tournaments. I thought that was a pretty clear indication of what kind of program he is running.

Share this post


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

Didn't know that Lance Armstrong was Russian.

Marion Jones, Justin Gaitlin, Tyson Gay, Roy Jones Jr., Mark McGwire: all Russians? I had no idea.

Barry Bonds is Russian?!?! Who would have thought it!

State orchestrated is completely different. They aren’t comparable at all. 
  
countries endorsing their athletes cheating should be banned. Individuals who cheat should also be banned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to quote DakotaJudo's entire post but here is the header of the rule.

Section 23. Tournaments — Bracketing and Seeding Art. 1. Drawings and Optional Bracketing. 

The rules below it don't really discuss it but bracketing has always been left to the TD and coaches. There's nothing in the book about round robins but they are used.

I'm not defending the Last Chance tournament but just explaining that we shouldn't criticize the bracketing as much as the results that seem to have been predetermined.

 

Share this post


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

There are some guidelines in the rulebook for seeding. Perhaps the rules are vague enough to allow seed 'however you want'. Let's consider that. 

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to define a *bye* as an imaginary wrestlers that serves only as a place holder, as opposed to a real live human being who intends to compete for placement in the tournament.These, I think, are the only two entries in a bracket that need to be defined; maybe the NCAA rules will have to be rewritten to include real live human beings who wish to be entered in the bracket but have no intention for competing for placement.

The rules do state how to determine that number of byes; this is straightforward enough. There were 7 imaginary wrestlers entered into a 16 man bracket, just as should be.

Next, we consider the first guideline for seeding,

It would appear, at least on paper, that Coleman and Sebastian meet this criteria - they both are 'attached' and have wrestled D1 varsity matches, as opposed the the rest of the field who are listed as Unattached (except Steffen, but I didn't see that he's have a meaningful number of varsity matches this year). 

That is not how the brackets were drawn; instead, Sebastian is given a position that implies a seed lower than all but one unattached wrestler,  and is in the same quarter bracket as Coleman.

Also in 23.2a is this guideline

Stotts was assigned the 16 seed position in the bracket. It is possible, but extremely unlikely, that Stotts would have been placed here by random draw; that is, a random draw that seeds all wrestlers equally, including the 7 imaginary placeholder wrestlers. We could also interpret the bracket, in light of this guideline, as that Stott was determined to have ability below that of an imaginary placeholder wrestler - that is, the imaginary wrestlers were randomly assigned to seeds 9-15.

If all the wresters were rated of equal ability and seeds randomly assigned, we would expect that some of the  7 imaginary placeholder wrestlers were assigned seeds 1-8; that didn't happen.

We might accept that unattached wrestlers should be consider of higher ability than unattached, at least for the purposes of seeding, then we consider the next guideline

This, I think, would have place Steffen and Sebastian in the same quarter bracket, and it would have been Steffen, perhaps, that got the benefit of Sebastians Inj default.

We should note that the next guideline is not as vague

Clearly, non of these criteria were used to seed this bracket.

Finally, I'll repeat a rule quoted earlier

This rule follows the rules for seeding, and it should be understood, I think, that the preferred method of assigning byes follows from the guidelines for seeding wrestlers. The alternate method that was used for this tournament failed to distribute byes randomly, by any definition of random that I'm aware.

It seems the seeding comments are more "recommendations" and things that "should" happen, but maybe not hard and fast rules.  For example, this statement is before all the items you listed:

Art. 2. Seeding. The tournament committee is responsible for the development of seeding criteria.

The last comment about byes seems pretty straightforward though.

BTW FRL today gave themat forums a shoutout on this rule and basically agreed that Dresser probably violated it.     Not only were they not random, ISU was "unfairly" (CP did question if the"unfairly" part was true) helped.   I saw someone mention on the ISU board that technically they could argue it wasn't ISU being helped, it was the entire Big 12 but that's probably a stretch.

Share this post


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

I didn't want to quote DakotaJudo's entire post but here is the header of the rule.

Section 23. Tournaments — Bracketing and Seeding Art. 1. Drawings and Optional Bracketing. 

The rules below it don't really discuss it but bracketing has always been left to the TD and coaches. There's nothing in the book about round robins but they are used.

I'm not defending the Last Chance tournament but just explaining that we shouldn't criticize the bracketing as much as the results that seem to have been predetermined.

i mostly agree with this. it's the bad-faith entry of wrestlers who intended to default that is the bigger issue but adding a convalescent as a 9th wrestler to artificially create an extra round was shady too.

Share this post


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

Didn't know that Lance Armstrong was Russian.

Marion Jones, Justin Gaitlin, Tyson Gay, Roy Jones Jr., Mark McGwire: all Russians? I had no idea.

Barry Bonds is Russian?!?! Who would have thought it!

Didn't know the US government systematically and repeatedly put the motions in place for them to be able to cheat, as well as creating a system where they tried and tried to prevent them from getting caught for cheating, then forged documents and manipulated date to try and cover up that government was involved in the cheating.  Who would have thought it!

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Dresser is brazen and rudderless.  One minute the dude is loudly and  publicly denigrating their work ethic and the next he is fixing competitions for them so they can get what they earned through, presumably, hard work.  Maybe his AD should suspend him.

I think that is unlikely. They signed him to a 7 year, $2.25 million contract to win. And he is trying to do just that. Perhaps a stern talking to. Kind of like Brad Pitt's character in Inglorious Basterds "More like chewed out. I've been chewed out before".

Share this post


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

Dresser is brazen and rudderless.  One minute the dude is loudly and  publicly denigrating their work ethic and the next he is fixing competitions for them so they can get what they earned through, presumably, hard work.  Maybe his AD should suspend him.

that’s not what happened. His team wrestled enough matches. There is a stupid rule that only matches in your weight class count, so when 174 and 184 swapped, neither would’ve had enough matches for an AQ spot. It hurts them, ISU and the Big12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Housebuye said:

that’s not what happened. His team wrestled enough matches. There is a stupid rule that only matches in your weight class count, so when 174 and 184 swapped, neither would’ve had enough matches for an AQ spot. It hurts them, ISU and the Big12

You can't count someones matches at another weight for RPI.And you also can't allow them to only enter 11 matches at 184 into the RPI when everyone else enters 15 matches.The data points have to remain consistent.You can argue that 15 matches is to many but that doesn't change what Dresser did.

Edited by calot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally listened. That was beyond brutal. 

The willingness to openly express that kind of cynicism while patting yourself on the back for candor is a black eye not just for college wrestling but for the whole concept of Division 1 sports.

Not going to recount a blow by blow. The bottom line is that when asked straight up by Askren about how fair this is to the student athlete on the other team who gets bumped if his guy makes the tournament, his answer was basically that his guy is really good and should have been in if the rules were fair and if he hadn't had bad luck, so that makes it ok. 

I thought he was supposed to be the prototypical CEO.  If he's not spending time on the mat with his wrestlers, but instead is focusing on being the mastermind and public face of the program, then next time he goes to CEO PR school he should make sure not to skip the session on when it is better to stay silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lurker said:

Didn't know the US government systematically and repeatedly put the motions in place for them to be able to cheat, as well as creating a system where they tried and tried to prevent them from getting caught for cheating, then forged documents and manipulated date to try and cover up that government was involved in the cheating.  Who would have thought it!

Not yet. But we're moving in that direction.

Edited by silvermedal

Share this post


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

There is a stupid rule that only matches in your weight class count, so when 174 and 184 swapped, neither would’ve had enough matches for an AQ spot.

How can you grant bids to athletes (at the expense of other athletes) if you don’t know how they compare to the field at a weight?

Share this post


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

How can you grant bids to athletes (at the expense of other athletes) if you don’t know how they compare to the field at a weight?

The required number of matches is ridiculous. It would be very easy for one of the wrestlers, since they are young guys, to still be growing during the season. Say halfway through the season he finds himself struggling to maintain, oh, 157 pounds. So he moves up to 165. Ooops! Now he's only going to have 10 matches at the new weight and, well, got to screw him over, even if he's 10-0 in those matches. I think it stinks to high heaven. Joe Smith getting Marinelli in the first round last year was ridiculous, and I'm not the biggest Joe lover in this forum I can assure you.

Share this post


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

The required number of matches is ridiculous. It would be very easy for one of the wrestlers, since they are young guys, to still be growing during the season. Say halfway through the season he finds himself struggling to maintain, oh, 157 pounds. So he moves up to 165. Ooops! Now he's only going to have 10 matches at the new weight and, well, got to screw him over, even if he's 10-0 in those matches. I think it stinks to high heaven. Joe Smith getting Marinelli in the first round last year was ridiculous, and I'm not the biggest Joe lover in this forum I can assure you.

So you don’t think there should be a match requirement and coaches should just project how they think someone would compare against a field?

I understand the complaint.  But I don’t see a good alternative here.  I mean guys are getting 30 or more matches before qualification.  Is it too much to ask for you to compete at a weight for a third of those matches to be eligible for an allocation?   It is t like they still can’t qualify if they miss the allocation.  They can steal a bid or be awarded an at-large. 

Share this post


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

So you don’t think there should be a match requirement and coaches should just project how they think someone would compare against a field?

I understand the complaint.  But I don’t see a good alternative here.  I mean guys are getting 30 or more matches before qualification.  Is it too much to ask for you to compete at a weight for a third of those matches to be eligible for an allocation?   It is t like they still can’t qualify if they miss the allocation.  They can steal a bid or be awarded an at-large. 

Stealing bids when they should be earned is bad for the conferences. 
  
the system should allocate appropriately. If the solution is to steal a bid For a top wrestler, it means they are admitting the system needs to be improved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aim is to have objective measures to determine qualifiers and I think all would support that.  That is much better than each coach saying ‘my guy deserves it because of X’.  
 

Sounds like some think the current approach can be improved.  Worth a discussion and debate.  
 

That said, if this blatant manipulation and the horrible leadership example displayed by Dresser go unpunished, it will be a huge black eye for the ISU administration.

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...