Jump to content
Wrestleknownothing

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Housebuye said:

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. 

Every team and conference faces this potential issue.  This isn’t unique to ISU.  
 

But sure the whole concept of stealing bids isn’t great.  There should t be any allocations—only at large bids and conference champion bids.  
 

The system does allocate properly.   You’re just of the opinion that a wrestler should be worthy of a bid despite not being able to justify it with actual results at the weight.  That is a slippery slope.   
 

it would be horrible for coaches to be able to use success at one weight to justify getting a bid at a completely different weight. 
I recall one wrestler I followed closely a while back changing weights and not being selected for the at-large.  He missed out on the bid and likely would have done well at the NCAAs.  It was unfortunate but I completely understood it.  

You can only compare athletes to others in the weight class and for that you need matches at that weight.  

What you’re arguing is that if I have two good 125s, I should wrestle them both in tournaments and duals during the season at 125 and not bother having one wrestle at 133 to fill out the lineup.   Then at the end of the season, the one that losses the wrestle-off for 125 should be submitted at 133 and get credit for all of their wins at 125 and steal the bid from someone who actually won matches at 133.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pinnum said:

Every team and conference faces this potential issue.  This isn’t unique to ISU.  
 

But sure the whole concept of stealing bids isn’t great.  There should t be any allocations—only at large bids and conference champion bids.  
 

The system does allocate properly.   You’re just of the opinion that a wrestler should be worthy of a bid despite not being able to justify it with actual results at the weight.  That is a slippery slope.   
 

it would be horrible for coaches to be able to use success at one weight to justify getting a bid at a completely different weight. 
I recall one wrestler I followed closely a while back changing weights and not being selected for the at-large.  He missed out on the bid and likely would have done well at the NCAAs.  It was unfortunate but I completely understood it.  

You can only compare athletes to others in the weight class and for that you need matches at that weight.  

What you’re arguing is that if I have two good 125s, I should wrestle them both in tournaments and duals during the season at 125 and not bother having one wrestle at 133 to fill out the lineup.   Then at the end of the season, the one that losses the wrestle-off for 125 should be submitted at 133 and get credit for all of their wins at 125 and steal the bid from someone who actually won matches at 133.

Just because there are loopholes to be exploited doesn’t mean the matches shouldn’t count. We should find ways to close the loopholes. 
  
The goal is to identify the top X number of wrestlers who deserve a spot. Ignoring results because it was 10lbs lighter doesn’t help find the top X number of wrestlers. 
  
If Spencer Lee wrestled 133 his last match of the season and entered at 133, he should get an allocation spot. He is one of the top 133 pound wrestlers in the country even though in this scenario he is 1-0 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Housebuye said:

The goal is to identify the top X number of wrestlers who deserve a spot. Ignoring results because it was 10lbs lighter doesn’t help find the top X number of wrestlers. 
  
If Spencer Lee wrestled 133 his last match of the season and entered at 133, he should get an allocation spot. He is one of the top 133 pound wrestlers in the country even though in this scenario he is 1-0 

The goal is to identify who has earned a bid at a weight based on their body of work on the season.  The goal is not to simply pick you the committee or coaches think are the best wrestlers.  There is a reason the committee only gets a few at-large selections and the coaches rankings are a minority criteria.  
 

I am perfectly fine with Spencer Lee not getting an allocation under your example.  You need uniform standards and there will always be edge cases but the standards make for better policy.  
 

Anyone can get a bid at a weight.  You don’t need an allocation.  But if you want an allocation you need success at the weight during the season.  

Share this post


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

The goal is to identify who has earned a bid at a weight based on their body of work on the season.  The goal is not to simply pick you the committee or coaches think are the best wrestlers.  There is a reason the committee only gets a few at-large selections and the coaches rankings are a minority criteria.  
 

I am perfectly fine with Spencer Lee not getting an allocation under your example.  You need uniform standards and there will always be edge cases but the standards make for better policy.  
 

Anyone can get a bid at a weight.  You don’t need an allocation.  But if you want an allocation you need success at the weight during the season.  

The goal is to get the best 33 wrestlers to NCAAs 

 They have tried many strategies to do this. One of the current strategies is the process you know well (better than I). 
  
Im suggesting a further tweak of the process for situations like Colbrey’s. 
  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2020 at 8:09 AM, jackwebster said:

Surprised? This is the same guy who had Robie go audition Kyle Snyder at a home gym near Manassas, VA.  The same guy who had hs kids working out regularly with VT wrestlers. The same guy who had a NJ pipeline to stock the Xtiansburg line-up year after year. 

honest question.  are HS kids not allowed to wrestle with college kids?  or why is that bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, fiveontwo said:

honest question.  are HS kids not allowed to wrestle with college kids?  or why is that bad?

There is a try-out rule.  Coaches are not allowed to conduct try-outs.  They can't even watch a recruit workout while they are on campus as part of an official visit.

A coach going and working out with a recruit violates the try-out rule.

However, this is common and many coaches do it but they get around the try-out rule by going to the club or high school and performing a camp or clinic or to use the RTC workout for those recruits in the region.  The coach will perform a clinic and just happen to workout with their target recruit during the visit.

The issue isn't that high school kids can't workout with college kids but rather that college coaches aren't suppose to be conducting workouts for high school kids as part of the recruitment process.

The rule is designed to prevent an advantage to the programs that are able to get in the door and personally evaluate recruits.  This rule is for all D1 sports.  It isn't a wrestling rule.  Wrestling probably has the most legal loopholes to the rule though which can make it seem like the rule isn't really there.  

Share this post


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

The goal is to get the best 33 wrestlers to NCAAs  

i don't think this is really the goal, in part because "best" isn't meaningful in the abstract. If you want to determine the "best" take a poll. If you want to determine a champion, you have criteria and follow them. You qualify for the NCAA tournament by competing during the season, not by existing as the guy everyone knows is the best. Allocations with reserved at-large bids are a way to do it that (a) rewards performance over the course of the season, (b) keeps the conference tournament meaningful for the people that don't earn allocations because they can steal bids while (c) providing a safety net for wrestlers who performed well all season but had a bad weekend.

In the hypothetical where Spencer Lee bumps to 133 for Big 10, he shouldn't be allocated a spot. The *conference* doesn't deserve an extra spot at 133 because *Iowa* changed his weight class. Iowa doesn't have an allocation chip at 125 that is transferable to 133. When he steals a bid in that scenario, as he likely would, it's his own conference that suffers, not the rest of the conferences.

I think there should be a spirit-of-the-rule that would have penalized ISU and Wisconsin; I would even be comfortable if they extended the rule to include how Cornell got Womack eligible even though I find it far less egregious. Last chance tournaments are a good idea, and I think they should continue, but it doesn't serve the sport well to have them be this shameless.

Share this post


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

I think there should be a spirit-of-the-rule that would have penalized ISU and Wisconsin; I would even be comfortable if they extended the rule to include how Cornell got Womack eligible even though I find it far less egregious. Last chance tournaments are a good idea, and I think they should continue, but it doesn't serve the sport well to have them be this shameless.

I don't really see an issue with what Wisconsin did assuming you're referring to Sebastian.  He entered a tournament but injury defaulted out, taking a loss in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

I don't really see an issue with what Wisconsin did assuming you're referring to Sebastian.  He entered a tournament but injury defaulted out, taking a loss in the process.

yeah, it's fake! it's not the worst in the world but it was premeditated. he was injured before he started, he didn't get injured during the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 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 don't have a problem with match requirements as long as it's reasonable. Here's a hypothetical: say a kid is #3 at 157 all year, real tough kid. He moves up to 165 because he's actually grown a little, and only gets in a couple matches at 165 (both of which he handily won, albeit against unranked guys). Any coach with any common sense would look at the kid's record and say "well, he might not have started at 165 but he's an elite wrestler and will probably do quite well", but in the current system there is no room for common sense.  Too carved in stone. 

They should eliminate the WEIGHT requirement as long as the kid has the required number of qualifying matches under his belt under the required level of competition. Like I said earlier, Joe Smith getting seeded #33 was ridiculous, plus I think it's an obvious indication that something is broken in the system. 

Share this post


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

I don't have a problem with match requirements as long as it's reasonable. Here's a hypothetical: say a kid is #3 at 157 all year, real tough kid. He moves up to 165 because he's actually grown a little, and only gets in a couple matches at 165 (both of which he handily won, albeit against unranked guys). Any coach with any common sense would look at the kid's record and say "well, he might not have started at 165 but he's an elite wrestler and will probably do quite well", but in the current system there is no room for common sense.  Too carved in stone. 

They should eliminate the WEIGHT requirement as long as the kid has the required number of qualifying matches under his belt under the required level of competition. Like I said earlier, Joe Smith getting seeded #33 was ridiculous, plus I think it's an obvious indication that something is broken in the system. 

So tell me what is reasonable?

You think getting only two matches at a weight is reasonable? 

In your example, you say that they only have two matches and those are against guys not ranked.

So where should the #3 guys at 157 get ranked at 165 based on no real data?  Do you rank him #3 or #10?

How about another hypothetical.  The kid was ranked #25 at 157 and now moves up and only has two matches? 

10 matches seems reasonable to me.  If it were to be lowered (say to five), I would then think there should be a requirement that those matches happened in duals.  That way we know they were at least against starters and in real team scoring matches. 

 

Share this post


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

i don't think this is really the goal, in part because "best" isn't meaningful in the abstract. If you want to determine the "best" take a poll. If you want to determine a champion, you have criteria and follow them. You qualify for the NCAA tournament by competing during the season, not by existing as the guy everyone knows is the best. Allocations with reserved at-large bids are a way to do it that (a) rewards performance over the course of the season, (b) keeps the conference tournament meaningful for the people that don't earn allocations because they can steal bids while (c) providing a safety net for wrestlers who performed well all season but had a bad weekend.

In the hypothetical where Spencer Lee bumps to 133 for Big 10, he shouldn't be allocated a spot. The *conference* doesn't deserve an extra spot at 133 because *Iowa* changed his weight class. Iowa doesn't have an allocation chip at 125 that is transferable to 133. When he steals a bid in that scenario, as he likely would, it's his own conference that suffers, not the rest of the conferences.

I think there should be a spirit-of-the-rule that would have penalized ISU and Wisconsin; I would even be comfortable if they extended the rule to include how Cornell got Womack eligible even though I find it far less egregious. Last chance tournaments are a good idea, and I think they should continue, but it doesn't serve the sport well to have them be this shameless.

Fair enough. 
  
I view the goal differently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's think of another case.

Kyle Snyder.  Everyone knew he was the best athlete at his weight.  Even if someone would have thought that he wasn't THE best, they would have said that he was without a doubt one of the best wrestlers in college.

But no one thought he should have been given a bid just because everyone knew he was so good.  He had to earn his bid through results in college wrestling.

There are multiple paths for athletes to earn their bid.

We like to complain when an athlete has an injury or something that makes it hard for them to earn a bid but that is part of life.  It is good to have uniform standards.  The exceptions aren't made for people like Kyle Snyder and they aren't made for people who might possibly make the round of 12 or podium.

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...