How do we incentivize scoring vs winning?

[tigerfan 228]

This is admittedly out of the box, but as I reflect on the finals specifically, and college wrestling more generally, it occurs to me that we might be able to do better. The following idea is really just brainstorming and is full of problems, but is intended to start a conversation. I realize there are lots of hardcore purists out there that will dismiss my ideas as ridiculous. If that’s you, no need to respond to this, you won’t be contributing anything constructive. 
Is it possible that we could score team points based on match points, win or lose? If a match ends 12-8, both teams would receive 12 and 8 points, respectively. Falls would be worth 30 points for the winner, the loser would still get their points scored prior to getting pinned. In tourneys, advancement would be worth 20 points, divided by the round it occurred, so first round win at NCAA’s would be 20\5 = 4 points, semifinals win would be 20/2 = 10 points, etc. consolations would remain halved. 

Fans drive sport survival, and fans want scoring, even in losing efforts. There are a lot of benefits to something like that, but this post is already too long. Of course there are potential drawbacks as well, but ultimately who wouldn’t rather lose 11-10 than 2-1? Our zero mistake mentality stifles risk taking and ultimately scoring. Maybe I’m the only one, but hand fighting and riding are boring. NO one cheers when their wrestler clears a wrist or stalemates a front headlock. Fans want scoring, and wrestling needs fans. Feel free to flame away. 

[4awrestler 72]

I agree it’s what’s both awesome about the sport and the downfall...scoring going up would make it more entertaining. I personally love the idea of 4 point near fall when it was introduced but now it seems to devalue the tech. I know it’s a different point than you were making but I’d like to see a 20 point tech now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tigerfan 228]

3 minutes ago, 4awrestler said:

I agree it’s what’s both awesome about the sport and the downfall...scoring going up would make it more entertaining. I personally love the idea of 4 point near fall when it was introduced but now it seems to devalue the tech. I know it’s a different point than you were making but I’d like to see a 20 point tech now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, techs seem not be what they used to be. 

[Jim L 328]

3 minutes ago, 4awrestler said:

I agree it’s what’s both awesome about the sport and the downfall...scoring going up would make it more entertaining. I personally love the idea of 4 point near fall when it was introduced but now it seems to devalue the tech. I know it’s a different point than you were making but I’d like to see a 20 point tech now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think 4 point fall worse point is that it devaluates the TD

[wrestlingphish 1,035]

2 minutes ago, Jim L said:

I think 4 point fall worse point is that it devaluates the TD

Escapes devalue TD's not nearfall.

[VakAttack 4,042]

Increasing scoring always plays well. Just having touchdowns worth 6 points (an arbitrary number) makes football seem more high scoring than it is.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[4awrestler 72]

I think 4 point fall worse point is that it devaluates the TD

I think 4 point near fall has done a lot for guys with superior top game to incentivize turns, to me it’s done what it was supposed to do... with that said it ends some matches too soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Show_Me 341]

I have always had a problem with Consolation bonus being the same as Winners bracket bonus.

A Conso 32, C24, or C16 earns as many bonus as a QF or Semi.  This never was logical to me and rewards wrestlers that are bounced to the Consolations early.

Lastly, I hate the medal round forfeits resulting in wrestlers tripling their points (1 point for a win, 3 points if you receive a mff).  Cheap points (not earned) in my opinion.

[Jim L 328]

4 minutes ago, 4awrestler said:

I think 4 point near fall has done a lot for guys with superior top game to incentivize turns, to me it’s done what it was supposed to do... with that said it ends some matches too soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't disagree. I just would rather see neutral wrestling emphasized more. Event without the techs falls, one turn pretty much decides the match

Edited March 21, 2021 by Jim L

[4awrestler 72]

I have always had a problem with Consolation bonus being the same as Winners bracket bonus.
A Conso 32, C24, or C16 earns as many bonus as a QF or Semi.  This never was logical to me and rewards wrestlers that are bounced to the Consolations early.
Lastly, I hate the medal round forfeits resulting in wrestlers tripling their points (1 point for a win, 3 points if you receive a mff).  Cheap points (not earned) in my opinion.

Well that is kind of done with the placement points and I agree I don’t like giving max points for med forfeit you’d run into the issue of guys med forgetting to protect points if you took it away.

I’d be in favor of changing consolation bonus points scale


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigboi Trained 24]

2 hours ago, wrestlingphish said:

Escapes devalue TD's not nearfall.

Exactly. Especially after a person had two takedowns and a kid get two escapes and is only one score from match being tied up. The first 2nd takes down should be 3 points 

[Full Nelson 69]

2 hours ago, Jim L said:

I think 4 point fall worse point is that it devaluates the TD

Ding Ding Ding

Plus trading 2-for-1 is such a bad exchange in college wrestling.  

Gotta make TDs 3 points.    There seems to be a lot of consensus on this yet it never happens.

[4awrestler 72]

I would be fine with the first td being worth 3 then the rest is 2

 

And a 20 point tech

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigTenFanboy 1,790]

47 minutes ago, Full Nelson said:

Ding Ding Ding

Plus trading 2-for-1 is such a bad exchange in college wrestling.  

Gotta make TDs 3 points.    There seems to be a lot of consensus on this yet it never happens.

Because theres not a consensus on a 3 point takedown. Not even close, just a vocal minority.

[AHamilton 1,026]

39 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

Because theres not a consensus on a 3 point takedown. Not even close, just a vocal minority.

There has been discussion of this as a national rule.  No matter what happens, you definitely can't have a situation where a takedown is worth more because it is your first.

[AHamilton 1,026]

I think the ruleset that we are wrestling by now is pretty good.  recent years finals have been great to watch.  If there were a couple boring matches last night, is it possible that the shortened season is more to blame than the rules?

[4awrestler 72]

There has been discussion of this as a national rule.  No matter what happens, you definitely can't have a situation where a takedown is worth more because it is your first.

It’s not your first it is the first one of the match would get 3. To me it would spur guys to want to score first. I can’t see with that scoring system though guys wanting to score right away then try to coast, stalling would need to be called more aggressively and consistently which I think most of us would be in favor of more stall calls to ensure there’s always action


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AHamilton 1,026]

Just now, 4awrestler said:

It’s not your first it is the first one of the match would get 3. To me it would spur guys to want to score first. I can’t see with that scoring system though guys wanting to score right away then try to coast, stalling would need to be called more aggressively and consistently which I think most of us would be in favor of more stall calls to ensure there’s always action


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point is : that on;y confuses things.  Make them all three if you are going to change anything.  Simplify things, don't complicate.

As far as aggressive stall calls; many of the complaints on this board over the last few days were about aggressive stalls.  And yes, they do need to be more consistent.

[jross 538]

Give me step outs, the 3pt take down, and passivity...  hell has frozen over... do away with overtime...

[4awrestler 72]

My point is : that on;y confuses things.  Make them all three if you are going to change anything.  Simplify things, don't complicate.
As far as aggressive stall calls; many of the complaints on this board over the last few days were about aggressive stalls.  And yes, they do need to be more consistent.

I don’t think anyone would be opposed to more stalling calls as long as they were consistent in how they call them. Maybe I’m wrong but more stall calls to me would force guys to want to have a bigger lead if they want to hold on at the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AHamilton 1,026]

14 minutes ago, 4awrestler said:

I don’t think anyone would be opposed to more stalling calls as long as they were consistent in how they call them. Maybe I’m wrong but more stall calls to me would force guys to want to have a bigger lead if they want to hold on at the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"3 point takedown."

"Stalling against RBY"

[GreatWhiteNorth 556]

I've been thinking about this since the Fix v RBY match. I really wanted to see those guys let it rip. Still would like to.

But that match was a snooze fest. I get it, both wanted to win and were using 'strategery' - but I really wanted to see them light it up. 

[Gantry 1,872]

I've harped about this before but I might as well again since I like to hear myself  talk.  IMO you can't fix stalling - it's a broken rule and the refs will never want to make judgement calls that decide the outcome of a match.   It will never ever be consistent because of the nature of the rule.  Never....

They had a chance to minimize the impact of stalling but they decided to make the OOB stalling a judgement call instead of a push out.   And look at what has happened, the refs never call it late to determine a match.   It's always action unless REALLY egregious in a close match late. 

ALL rules that involve a judgement call from a ref are bad ones.  Danger rule has been great, five second auto stall has been great, this OOB stall stinks precisely because it isn't black and white.

I've been following folkstyle wrestling over 20 years now and every year people give the "if the refs would only call it more" - they won't, they never have and they never will.  People want to act like Mike Allen in the 80s was the peak of "good" stall calls but that is BS.  I mean Gable has a statue berating refs for a stall call for Pete's Sake.   It's ALWAYS been a problem, coaches and fans NEVER stop complaining about it - people need to stop blaming the refs and start blaming the rule.   Stalling cannot be fixed, make rules that have to be applied every time instead.

[ISUChip 69]

No points in the first period -- double stall warning.

Reach for the floor/carpet off the edge -- stalling.

Grab/pull the edge of the mat -- stalling.

Lose a challenge -- 1 point for opponent. Cut down on the frivolous lung timeout "challenges."

[Jajensen09 23]

4 hours ago, BigTenFanboy said:

Because theres not a consensus on a 3 point takedown. Not even close, just a vocal minority.

only iowa gets 3 point takedowns hahahah