Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zhawk

NCAA proposal would radically alter championships structure

Recommended Posts

From a copyrighted story in the Des Moines Register this morning:

 

The NCAA wrestling committee is proposing groundbreaking change to its championship format, the Des MoinesRegister has learned.

 

A model presented Tuesday to the NCAA’s Division-I sports management cabinet, if approved, would fuse the individual tournament and dual-meet tournament into a single national title event.

 

Anthony Holman, NCAA associate director of championships and alliances, presented the revised model that would enable teams to accumulate points through a 24-team dual tournament that they could carry into the individual NCAA Championships.

 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130613/SPORTS/130613002/NCAA-proposal-would-radically-alter-wrestling-championships?Sports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't like giving points in an event for accomplishments that are not part of the event or are not the same format as the event.

 

Additionally, this ruins the concept of peaking for the top teams. Under this proposal, you have to peak at the conference tournament so you can qualify enough guys for the NCAA tournament to be a contender. Then you have to peak the following two weekends in order to earn enough points by winning dual meets to keep you in contention for a championship. Then, you have to peak for a grueling three day NCAA individual tournament. That's four straight weekends (or maybe 4 out of 5 if there's any break) of trying to be at your absolute best so your team has a shot at a trophy.

 

We could see a lot of championships determined more by health than the quality of the wrestlers.

 

Everyone keeps talking about making duals matter. They already matter. Nobody wants to lose dual meets; no individual wrestler doesn't care about his matches in duals. Sometimes a wrestler who is not 100% is left out of a dual meet because the postseason is more important. Would you rather see him wrestle at 85% and aggravate an injury so he isn't at his best in March? I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, this ruins the concept of peaking for the top teams.

 

There is no such thing as "peaking". It is a tautology; Those that do well are "peaking" while those that do poorly are not.

 

Sometimes a wrestler who is not 100% is left out of a dual meet because the postseason is more important.

 

You mean because protecting the seeding is more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't like giving points in an event for accomplishments that are not part of the event or are not the same format as the event.

 

Additionally, this ruins the concept of peaking for the top teams. Under this proposal, you have to peak at the conference tournament so you can qualify enough guys for the NCAA tournament to be a contender. Then you have to peak the following two weekends in order to earn enough points by winning dual meets to keep you in contention for a championship. Then, you have to peak for a grueling three day NCAA individual tournament. That's four straight weekends (or maybe 4 out of 5 if there's any break) of trying to be at your absolute best so your team has a shot at a trophy.

 

We could see a lot of championships determined more by health than the quality of the wrestlers.

 

Everyone keeps talking about making duals matter. They already matter. Nobody wants to lose dual meets; no individual wrestler doesn't care about his matches in duals. Sometimes a wrestler who is not 100% is left out of a dual meet because the postseason is more important. Would you rather see him wrestle at 85% and aggravate an injury so he isn't at his best in March? I wouldn't.

 

It doesn't seem to change anything time-wise from the original proposal which was met with some resistance in this regard. Just moves the conferences ahead of the dual part instead of the other way around. Timeline wasn't very clear though so maybe there was a couple of breaks in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be interesting to see when more details come out. Also going back a few years would it have altered the team championship standings at all? Probably hard to tell because it wouldn't be apples to apples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Be interesting to see when more details come out. Also going back a few years would it have altered the team championship standings at all? Probably hard to tell because it wouldn't be apples to apples.

 

No way to tell because at least one top team has sat out pretty much every year in recent memory. Ignoring that fact, we would have to wait until the assign the point values to figure out if it would have made a difference or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no such thing as "peaking". It is a tautology; Those that do well are "peaking" while those that do poorly are not.

I disagree with you completely on this. The concept of peaking here is setting up your training cycle so that you are best prepared to compete at the highest level possible when it matters most. Ask top wrestling coaches if they set up their training to peak at a specific time. It's a process, not a postmortem analysis of results.

 

 

Sometimes a wrestler who is not 100% is left out of a dual meet because the postseason is more important.

You mean because protecting the seeding is more important.

I know what I meant, and it was what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that anyone could even remotely support this concept without some kind of agenda.

 

Look, even if your position is that there is a need for the National Duals to be important, this is just ridiculous. I would think that pursuing a Dual championship would be more viable, but that is just my opinion. Obviously, most of the people involved in "management" at the NCAA AND the various governing bodies of wrestling don't really think like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll believe that people do peak in some sports...track & field and swimming & diving most notably, where competitors only have to hit their marks or times once prior to NCAA's...in wrestling, I really don't think the peak is anything more than subtle.

 

It may not be as obvious as in some of the sports you mentioned but peaking is more than just what you seem to think. Think of it this way, you have just put the most difficult part of the schedule one week after the other. There is more cause for concern about injuries at this time and the general wear and tear will clearly take its toll. The performance of a lot of these guys will actually drop in this time frame as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'peaking' is absolutely a real thing.

 

and it's significant, not subtle.

 

ask any coach

So how do you think (for example) the Kyle Dake that showed up at the Southern Scuffle would have done if he had shown up in identical form at Nationals? (just trying to get a rough estimate for how significant that "peak" is from somebody who's been in wrestling rooms far more than I have)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amen, pipe.

 

SHP - there was an interview on FLO where Dake states that he tried to peak each year in March and explained his approach. i know a lot (all?) of coaches tailor their workout and training regime beginning/middle/end of the year accordingly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a potential logistical issue that may not have been considered. The proposed timetable will surely impact the championship schedule in other divisions, most probably at least in officiating. There is a limited pool of qualified officials. How far will they go down the list if the NCAA has two championship events on the same weekend (DI Dual Championship and DIII Championship - for example)?

 

Will it be harder for host schools/cities of lower division championships to succeed if their event conflicts with a major Division I event. Hypothetically, if Iowa is hosting the regional Division I dual championship the same weekend as a Division III championship in Cedar Rapids, won't this make it tougher for the DIII event. York is rumored to be a prime candidate to host the 2015 DIII championships. What are their chances for a great turnout if Penn State is hosting a dual regional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a potential logistical issue that may not have been considered. The proposed timetable will surely impact the championship schedule in other divisions, most probably at least in officiating. There is a limited pool of qualified officials. How far will they go down the list if the NCAA has two championship events on the same weekend (DI Dual Championship and DIII Championship - for example)?

 

Will it be harder for host schools/cities of lower division championships to succeed if their event conflicts with a major Division I event. Hypothetically, if Iowa is hosting the regional Division I dual championship the same weekend as a Division III championship in Cedar Rapids, won't this make it tougher for the DIII event. York is rumored to be a prime candidate to host the 2015 DIII championships. What are their chances for a great turnout if Penn State is hosting a dual regional?

 

Excellent point, Jim. But then, the machinations of the NCAA and NWCA have never been about wrestling at the DII, DIII, NAIA, women, or anything but DI. From their point of view fix the DI schedule (in order to "save" wrestling) and everybody else--other divisions, high schools, etc. must fall in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carp, I don't feel your statement is completely fair. The NWCA has the multi-divisional duals that takes plenty of time and effort to have that brings positive light on all the non-D1 programs. It is well run and a wonderful event. Also, the NWCA's All Star Classic includes competitors from other divisions, including youth and NCWA. My understanding the NWCA also pays to have each of these events televised.

 

Not to mention the Scholastic Duals for high school underclassmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peaking is significant. iowa State under Harold Nichols would come into the Big 8 and would look out of shape. They'd qualify all 10 (that was when there were 7 teams) for the NCAA. Then two weeks later they didn't even look like the same team. They would be in top form and would win the NCAA title most years. This was post-Gable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peaking is significant. iowa State under Harold Nichols would come into the Big 8 and would look out of shape. They'd qualify all 10 (that was when there were 7 teams) for the NCAA. Then two weeks later they didn't even look like the same team. They would be in top form and would win the NCAA title most years. This was post-Gable.

 

Most years? ISU has won 4 national titles since Gable graduated and he was still in Ames working out for one of them. 3 titles from 1973-1987 isn't exactly "most years".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard one thing that does help some so will reserve further judgment for a while. Sounds like there might be another rest week between conf and regions besides the one after nat duals and before NCAAs. We now jump beyond my level of understanding of periodization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be interesting to see the points/mechanics with regards to the duels, and how they add them to the teams for the NCAA Individual Championships. Also looking forward to Cael's, Brands and others.. Sharing their thoughts.

 

Plus in some ways, IMO ... That may even broaden the difference from the Big guys and the Little guys.

 

I just really get all the fuss. What exactly is wrong with having 2 national Champions? One for the Individuals/Team race that we have now, and the Dual Team Championships as we also have right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What exactly is wrong with having 2 national Champions? One for the Individuals/Team race that we have now, and the Dual Team Championships as we also have right now.

 

Agree, that would be a win-win; but I guess that would be too easy? :roll:

 

I for one would have no problem with having, lets say, the "NCAA Tournament Champion", and the "ESPN (sponsor name here) Duals Champion".

 

Somehow, putting the two events together seems too much like the BCS! :|

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...