Qualifying slots and who earned them

[TobusRex 1,737]

1 hour ago, jchapman said:

I bet you really loved the days of the Big 5 having five bids at certain weight classes.

Not particularly. 

[VakAttack 2,500]

Again, that's your opinion, not mine. I don't think people should be rewarded for failure, even if they "earned" a spot by finishing 9th or 10th. That's "participation trophy" type stuff right there, I don't care how people try to justify it. 

This is just factually incorrect. If more of the best wrestlers are in one conference, you feel they should be penalized for being in a conference with better wrestlers?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[TobusRex 1,737]

Just now, VakAttack said:

This is just factually incorrect. If more of the best wrestlers are in one conference, you feel they should be penalized for being in a conference with better wrestlers?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

I think it's rewarding failure, that's it in a nutshell. Plus I don't think a guy who finishes 9th or 10th in a conference, even a tough one like the B1G, belongs in the premier event of the sport. Yeah, I know what you guys are saying, and it's possible the 10th place guy in the B1G is better than nearly anybody outside the B1G.  I get it, but I still don't like the idea of guys who are, basically, losers in their own conference getting a shot at NCAAs. Maybe it's too old school for some guys to get behind, but it is what it is.

Let's face the facts here, a guy who finished 9th or 10th at B1Gs will probably not even sniff AA. I asked for examples of 9th/10th place guys placing at NCAAs earlier and got no good  responses. Since those guys aren't going to place anyway, give the slots to wrestlers from smaller conferences who were borderline. Sure, they probably won't do any better, but at least it encourages those boys and their programs. In a dying sport, like college wrestling, I think that's more important than worrying about borderline B1G kids making NCAAs.  We don't have to worry about any B1G schools killing their programs, but a lot of small schools could look at the lack of any positive results on the mat and say "meh, **** it, we're done".

Anyway, you guys are free to your opinion, I'll keep mine.

[klehner 330]

14 minutes ago, TobusRex said:

 

Let's face the facts here, a guy who finished 9th or 10th at B1Gs will probably not even sniff AA. I asked for examples of 9th/10th place guys placing at NCAAs earlier and got no good  responses.

Probably because all the AA slots ahead of them were taken by the first eight guys int he B1G...

[TobusRex 1,737]

1 minute ago, klehner said:

Probably because all the AA slots ahead of them were taken by the first eight guys int he B1G...

And that would be good enough for the 9th/10th place guys not to qualify, wouldn't it?

[1032004 688]

16 minutes ago, TobusRex said:

And that would be good enough for the 9th/10th place guys not to qualify, wouldn't it?

You’re not making any sense.  How many guys do you want in an NCAA bracket?

 No, the 9th place guy may not AA, but he very well could be one of the top 33 guys in the country, which is pretty much the goal of the NCAA bracket.

[klehner 330]

40 minutes ago, TobusRex said:

And that would be good enough for the 9th/10th place guys everyone in every other conference not to qualify, wouldn't it?

FIFY.

[TobusRex 1,737]

22 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

You’re not making any sense.  How many guys do you want in an NCAA bracket?

 No, the 9th place guy may not AA, but he very well could be one of the top 33 guys in the country, which is pretty much the goal of the NCAA bracket.

I'm making perfect sense, you just don't want to hear a different opinion.

[jchapman 981]

1 hour ago, TobusRex said:

I think it's rewarding failure, that's it in a nutshell. Plus I don't think a guy who finishes 9th or 10th in a conference, even a tough one like the B1G, belongs in the premier event of the sport. Yeah, I know what you guys are saying, and it's possible the 10th place guy in the B1G is better than nearly anybody outside the B1G.  I get it, but I still don't like the idea of guys who are, basically, losers in their own conference getting a shot at NCAAs. Maybe it's too old school for some guys to get behind, but it is what it is.

Let's face the facts here, a guy who finished 9th or 10th at B1Gs will probably not even sniff AA. I asked for examples of 9th/10th place guys placing at NCAAs earlier and got no good  responses. Since those guys aren't going to place anyway, give the slots to wrestlers from smaller conferences who were borderline. Sure, they probably won't do any better, but at least it encourages those boys and their programs. In a dying sport, like college wrestling, I think that's more important than worrying about borderline B1G kids making NCAAs.  We don't have to worry about any B1G schools killing their programs, but a lot of small schools could look at the lack of any positive results on the mat and say "meh, **** it, we're done".

Anyway, you guys are free to your opinion, I'll keep mine.

And you are against participation trophy mentality?

[TobusRex 1,737]

7 minutes ago, jchapman said:

And you are against participation trophy mentality?

Mostly. Depends on the level. I have no problem rewarding the little guys (elementary kids) if it keeps them happy and involved in the sport. College kids, not so much. It appalls me that the standards can be so low that a 10th place kid in conference can make it. Standards need to be higher, don't you think? Perhaps the brackets ought to be skinnied up a little if we're inviting half the kids from the student body to NCAAs. This is hardly a new complaint from me, I've been bitching about this very thing for years. It reminds me of the regional tournaments in HS (usually 16 man when I was a kid). By NCAA standards 12 guys from one regional might make it to state, and 2 from the other. Seems goofy and unfair to the other conferences.

For NCAAs I think it would be better just to invite all the D1 starters and have it out rather than the subjectivity used for selection that we currently have. Would be a wild, fun weekend of wrestling. Can you imagine seeding 70 guys? Plus, seeding 16 people is just flat out goofy in a 33 man bracket. But, I won't get myself started on seeding.

[jchapman 981]

13 minutes ago, TobusRex said:

Mostly. Depends on the level. I have no problem rewarding the little guys (elementary kids) if it keeps them happy and involved in the sport. College kids, not so much. It appalls me that the standards can be so low that a 10th place kid in conference can make it. Standards need to be higher, don't you think? Perhaps the brackets ought to be skinnied up a little if we're inviting half the kids from the student body to NCAAs. This is hardly a new complaint from me, I've been bitching about this very thing for years. It reminds me of the regional tournaments in HS (usually 16 man when I was a kid). By NCAA standards 12 guys from one regional might make it to state, and 2 from the other. Seems goofy and unfair to the other conferences.

For NCAAs I think it would be better just to invite all the D1 starters and have it out rather than the subjectivity used for selection that we currently have. Would be a wild, fun weekend of wrestling. Can you imagine seeding 70 guys? Plus, seeding 16 people is just flat out goofy in a 33 man bracket. But, I won't get myself started on seeding.

I’m for getting everyone to the National tournament.  

[1032004 688]

24 minutes ago, TobusRex said:

Perhaps the brackets ought to be skinnied up a little if we're inviting half the kids from the student body to NCAAs. This is hardly a new complaint from me, I've been bitching about this very thing for years. It reminds me of the regional tournaments in HS (usually 16 man when I was a kid). By NCAA standards 12 guys from one regional might make it to state, and 2 from the other. Seems goofy and unfair to the other conferences.

For NCAAs I think it would be better just to invite all the D1 starters and have it out rather than the subjectivity used for selection that we currently have. Would be a wild, fun weekend of wrestling. Can you imagine seeding 70 guys? Plus, seeding 16 people is just flat out goofy in a 33 man bracket. But, I won't get myself started on seeding.

I agree with just inviting everyone.   

But it seems weird to say that immediately before saying "perhaps the brackets ought to be skinnied up a little" - although at least that thought process would coincide with your theory of not allowing the B10 9th place finisher.

 

Edited February 29 by 1032004

[Cptafw164 96]

6 hours ago, TobusRex said:

Again, that's your opinion, not mine. I don't think people should be rewarded for failure, even if they "earned" a spot by finishing 9th or 10th. That's "participation trophy" type stuff right there, I don't care how people try to justify it. 

I don’t think you understand how qualifier slots are earned in the conferences.  Those 9 people did SO WELL during the season that they earned their conference a qualifier slot.  
 

 

[TobusRex 1,737]

1 minute ago, Cptafw164 said:

I don’t think you understand how qualifier slots are earned in the conferences.  Those 9 people did SO WELL during the season that they earned their conference a qualifier slot.  
 

 

Oh I understand it, I just don't think it's a legit system. Kinda like reperchage in international events: I understand it, but I don't like it.

Edited February 29 by TobusRex

[Cptafw164 96]

1 minute ago, TobusRex said:

Oh I understand it, I just don't think it's a legit system. Kinda like reperchage in international events: I understand it, but I don't like it.

We could counter your argument of how many B10 9/10 sniff AA with “how many SOCON 1/2 sniff AA”. Let’s say R12?  
 

Allowing lesser conference 1-4 automatically qualify regardless of them doing well enough to qualify a slot and be ranked in the top 33 in the nation is MORE like a PARTICIPATION mentality than rewarding high performers.  
 

You are basically advocating for a participation trophy for those who FAIL to earn a slot at the expense of those who performed much better during the season.  

[ugarte 279]

1 hour ago, TobusRex said:

Plus, seeding 16 people is just flat out goofy in a 33 man bracket. 

they seed all 33 now

[Show_Me 259]

Looks like Artalona (Penn) just missed an AQ at 157 with a .700 WP (threshold of .710) & RPI of 17.

He was R12 last season at 149.  Hoping he is healthy enough to go at EIWA as he hasn't wrestled since Jan.10

[Bronco 89]

Frankly I think they ought to sidestep all of this nonsense and make the NCAA wrestling field, at each weight class, with a similar amount that competes in the NCAA men's and women's basketball tournament.   I don't follow basketball (at all) but I believe currently they have 68 teams compete in the NCAA basketball tournament.  Are there even 68 NCAA Division I wrestling teams?   If not then just invite all Division I wrestling teams to compete and have 10 wrestlers (or less) compete at the NCAA tournament.    Doing so would only involve one or two more rounds (at most).

According to one UNDATED webpage there are 78 NCAA division I wrestling programs.   But since there is no date on this webpage I have no idea if that is accurate or not:

https://www.ncsasports.org/mens-wrestling/division-1-colleges

[ugarte 279]

i wouldn't mind an all-teams tournament but i also don't mind having qualification standards. i like the way it plays out even though i always see at least one of my bubble guys fall short every year. getting in feels like a real accomplishment, a reward for a season or a cinderella hot streak. was it FRL that pointed to sa'derian perry and kyle conel as great examples of the latter? because they are.

[kionga 21]

One fact that is not being acknowledged in the above conversations is that total points scored in the tournament determine team placement, including who makes the podium.  If the ninth or tenth place finisher in the Big 10 tournament qualifies for the national tournament and wins a match or two, their contributions to team placement could be significant even though they did not have a realistic chance of finishing top eight.

[buf87 75]

I am against the huge difference in the qualifiers.  The So Conf & Pac 12 are a joke

[Gantry 1,529]

As someone who attends NCAAs every year, I absolutely 100% do NOT want to have double the participants in the NCAA tourney - the current system works pretty darn well and minor tweaks are all that's needed. 

The tournament is the perfect length now, doubling the participants would be a logistical nightmare - for participants, for referees, for table workers, for the # of sessions, for the free time between sessions, for fans spending time in the stands, for the # of days, for the sheer amount of extra volunteers and workers needed, for the extra thousands of people who will want to buy tickets if 350+ more people participate, etc. 

Does it stink that  few deserving people stay home?  Absolutely, but the alternative of making it a 650-700 person tournament instead of 330 just adds too much.   

[Bronco 89]

14 minutes ago, buf87 said:

I am against the huge difference in the qualifiers.  The So Conf & Pac 12 are a joke

Thanks for sharing your ignorant opinion here.  INSTA-IGNORE

[VakAttack 2,500]

I think it's rewarding failure, that's it in a nutshell. Plus I don't think a guy who finishes 9th or 10th in a conference, even a tough one like the B1G, belongs in the premier event of the sport. Yeah, I know what you guys are saying, and it's possible the 10th place guy in the B1G is better than nearly anybody outside the B1G.  I get it, but I still don't like the idea of guys who are, basically, losers in their own conference getting a shot at NCAAs. Maybe it's too old school for some guys to get behind, but it is what it is.
Let's face the facts here, a guy who finished 9th or 10th at B1Gs will probably not even sniff AA. I asked for examples of 9th/10th place guys placing at NCAAs earlier and got no good  responses. Since those guys aren't going to place anyway, give the slots to wrestlers from smaller conferences who were borderline. Sure, they probably won't do any better, but at least it encourages those boys and their programs. In a dying sport, like college wrestling, I think that's more important than worrying about borderline B1G kids making NCAAs.  We don't have to worry about any B1G schools killing their programs, but a lot of small schools could look at the lack of any positive results on the mat and say "meh, **** it, we're done".
Anyway, you guys are free to your opinion, I'll keep mine.

So you want inferior wrestlers to make the tournament to try to keep the sport alive? Isn't that similar logic as to why there are two bronze medals at world events now?

Either way, I understand your logic, I disagree with it.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[royalfan 2]

On 2/28/2020 at 5:41 PM, TobusRex said:

I think it's rewarding failure, that's it in a nutshell. Plus I don't think a guy who finishes 9th or 10th in a conference, even a tough one like the B1G, belongs in the premier event of the sport. Yeah, I know what you guys are saying, and it's possible the 10th place guy in the B1G is better than nearly anybody outside the B1G.  I get it, but I still don't like the idea of guys who are, basically, losers in their own conference getting a shot at NCAAs. Maybe it's too old school for some guys to get behind, but it is what it is.

Let's face the facts here, a guy who finished 9th or 10th at B1Gs will probably not even sniff AA. I asked for examples of 9th/10th place guys placing at NCAAs earlier and got no good  responses. Since those guys aren't going to place anyway, give the slots to wrestlers from smaller conferences who were borderline. Sure, they probably won't do any better, but at least it encourages those boys and their programs. In a dying sport, like college wrestling, I think that's more important than worrying about borderline B1G kids making NCAAs.  We don't have to worry about any B1G schools killing their programs, but a lot of small schools could look at the lack of any positive results on the mat and say "meh, **** it, we're done".

Anyway, you guys are free to your opinion, I'll keep mine.

You asked if anyone that finished 9th or 10th ever won the NCAA tournament or a top 5 even was how you put it.  That is quite different than being an all american.