The lack of importance of the team scoring again put on front Street today

[Show_Me 341]

7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

make the regular season better.

Agree.  This is primarily what I am interested in.  The regular season product could be SO much better.

[4awrestler 72]

I’ve never read such passion and argument to NOT get to watch more wrestling… we all hate how the conference tournaments no longer matter much and there are MFF left and right.

An event that makes the best of the best wrestle each other and you guys don’t want to see it? Baffling…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Husker_Du 882]

21 minutes ago, Show_Me said:

Agree.  This is primarily what I am interested in.  The regular season product could be SO much better.

can you tell me how it would do so? 

[Show_Me 341]

5 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

can you tell me how it would do so? 

Not looking for an argument Willie.  We should all be open to ideas to improve the overall product of D1 College Wrestling.

I am not advocating that we change the championship format, but I am open to any and all ideas.  The regular season product is getting worse with fewer matches, teams opting out of CKLV/Midlands/Scuffle and increased ducking.  Maybe you have some suggestions ?  I would like to hear.

[1032004 1,514]

36 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

that's not true.and there's 17 pages of such behind you to refute that.

national duals existed for a gazillion years and never attracted the fanfare ncaa's does.

 

 

Again, why do you keep wanting to compare it to the current tournament?  Most of us are suggesting to have it in addition to the current tournament, changing nothing about the current tournament except for removing the team score.  That would barely reduce the “fanfare” if at all.

And National Duals never decided the official team champion.  
 

10 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

can you tell me how it would do so? 

Because the regular season would decide who got into the playoff, so it would mean more in the first place and as a result there would be less guys sitting out.  Some guys still would, but not as many as we see sitting out now.

[Husker_Du 882]

26 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Again, why do you keep wanting to compare it to the current tournament?  Most of us are suggesting to have it in addition to the current tournament, changing nothing about the current tournament except for removing the team score.  That would barely reduce the “fanfare” if at all.

And National Duals never decided the official team champion.  
 

i asked this earlier in the thread but...

so you think a national duals format w/ a ncaa title slapped to it would make it wildly popular?

second point (and maybe this is why i appear to be a prick and dismiss some things)

A duals tournament for the NCAA title and an individual tournament a week or two later

is never ever ever gonna happen.

nor should it.

don't suggest it. don't use it as an assumption or a starting point.

it 100% is not going to happen.

i'm not saying that because i don't want it to. i'm saying b/c it's not feasible (for a myriad of reasons).

so i think anyone here proposing to have both needs to start with the 'when' question.

i assume that you know my stance - i'm all for national duals at the right time. 

Edited March 31 by Husker_Du

[1032004 1,514]

Just now, Husker_Du said:

i asked this earlier in the thread but...

so you think a national duals format w/ a ncaa title slapped to it would make it wildly popular?

second point (and maybe this is why i overlook some things)

A duals tournament for the NCAA title and an individual tournament a week or two later

is never ever ever gonna happen.

nor should it.

don't suggest it. don't use it as an assumption or a starting point.

it 100% is not going to happen.

i'm not saying that because i don't want it to. i'm saying b/c it's not feasible (for a myriad of reasons).

so i think anyone here proposing to have both needs to start with the 'when' question.

i assume that you know my stance - i'm all for national duals at the right time. 

The NCAA finals on ESPN had 630k viewers.

A “meaningless” dual between PSU and Iowa on BTN had 360k viewers.

I’d be pretty confident an NCAA finals dual on ESPN (or maybe even ESPN2 or ESPNU) would get ~400k+.

Earlier I suggested about a month before the conference tournaments.

[TBar1977 4,602]

1 hour ago, 4awrestler said:

I’ve never read such passion and argument to NOT get to watch more wrestling… we all hate how the conference tournaments no longer matter much and there are MFF left and right.

An event that makes the best of the best wrestle each other and you guys don’t want to see it? Baffling…

I will play devil's advocate here. Which is more wrestling:

A) An 8 team dual tournament

B) An 8 team dual tournament + another separate dual in a different location that will draw a lot of fans to that dual. 

A or B. Which is more wrestling? 

Edited March 31 by TBar1977

[VakAttack 4,042]

4 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

haha. told ya. 

Told ya...what?  Upsets are a feature of the best sports playoffs (NFL; college football; college basketball).  My favorite team is just as, if not more likely, to suffer in this than Penn State.  It was Iowa that nearly lost a dual to a non-Penn State team at your event in Florida, Penn State dominated pretty much every dual except the Iowa won, which they still won pretty comfortably.

[Billyhoyle 2,500]

5 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

i asked this earlier in the thread but...

so you think a national duals format w/ a ncaa title slapped to it would make it wildly popular?

second point (and maybe this is why i appear to be a prick and dismiss some things)

A duals tournament for the NCAA title and an individual tournament a week or two later

is never ever ever gonna happen.

nor should it.

don't suggest it. don't use it as an assumption or a starting point.

it 100% is not going to happen.

i'm not saying that because i don't want it to. i'm saying b/c it's not feasible (for a myriad of reasons).

so i think anyone here proposing to have both needs to start with the 'when' question.

i assume that you know my stance - i'm all for national duals at the right time. 

Top 6 teams qualify for the dual championship.  The Big 10, Pac12, EIWA, and Big 12 dual conference champions get an automatic qualification, and there are two at large spots (maybe you do four at large spots if you want 8 teams).  You hold the dual tournament over the course of two days at a neutral site in the 3rd week of February. Then you go into the individual conference tournament 2 weeks later and individual NCAA tournament 1 week and 4 days after that. 

 

All of a sudden the Iowa vs PSU, Iowa vs Ohio State, PSU vs Ohio state  regular season duals become very important since the Big 10 will realistically get 2 or at most 3 teams into the dual tournament.  And for conferences like the EIWA or Pac 12, which probably won't get an at large spot, every regular season dual is critical because qualifying for the dual playoff is a big deal. 

 

Your early January duals will now have implications on who qualifies for the playoffs, and people will have reason to pay attention to the outcome.

Edited April 1 by Billyhoyle

[BerniePragle 441]

If I'm not mistaken, I see a lot of the naysayers on this thread pointing to something like "not enough time between a dual championship and whatever".  I'm gonna interpret this as meaning not enough time to lose unhealthy amounts of weight for a specific event, recover and repeat (à la MMA) .
Maybe we would see more realistic matchups and healthy wrestlers??  What a novel concept.
And... before anyone asks, no, I did not wrestle after high school, and never lost more than a couple pounds back then.  Ok, Release the hounds!!
 

[4awrestler 72]

I will play devil's advocate here. Which is more wrestling:
A) An 8 team dual tournament
B) An 8 team dual tournament + another separate dual in a different location that will draw a lot of fans to that dual. 
A or B. Which is more wrestling? 

More wrestling is more than what we’re currently getting, where guys have 9 flippin matches going into the tournament… the limited season matches the ducking and whatnot are all a product of having nothing count during the regular season other than slightly affect seeds.

I’m not suggesting changing anything about the current NCAA tournament. Do I think attendance would drop at the NCAA tournament if a separate dual team tournament was held like the national duals was in January? No not at all. In fact I think you’d add another event that would showcase the best of the best… I think in order for it to be taken seriously though it would have to have an official title to the winner as in a National Dual Champion recognized by the NCAA.

I think having both the individual team title and the dual team title would be the best of both worlds. It’s probably a pipe dream but I just want to see more wresting and the current state while still solid at the tournament, has lost a lot of ground to what it used to be during the regular season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TBar1977 4,602]

21 minutes ago, 4awrestler said:

More wrestling is more than what we’re currently getting, where guys have 9 flippin matches going into the tournament… the limited season matches the ducking and whatnot are all a product of having nothing count during the regular season other than slightly affect seeds.

I’m not suggesting changing anything about the current NCAA tournament. Do I think attendance would drop at the NCAA tournament if a separate dual team tournament was held like the national duals was in January? No not at all. In fact I think you’d add another event that would showcase the best of the best… I think in order for it to be taken seriously though it would have to have an official title to the winner as in a National Dual Champion recognized by the NCAA.

I think having both the individual team title and the dual team title would be the best of both worlds. It’s probably a pipe dream but I just want to see more wresting and the current state while still solid at the tournament, has lost a lot of ground to what it used to be during the regular season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand your point about guys with 9 matches, but there is already a solution for that and it is more common sense within the seeding committee. 

[TBar1977 4,602]

8 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

Top 6 teams qualify for the dual championship.  The Big 10, Pac12, EIWA, and Big 12 dual conference champions get an automatic qualification, and there are two at large spots (maybe you do four at large spots if you want 8 teams).  You hold the dual tournament over the course of two days at a neutral site in the 3rd week of February. Then you go into the individual conference tournament 2 weeks later and individual NCAA tournament 1 week and 4 days after that. 

 

All of a sudden the Iowa vs PSU, Iowa vs Ohio State, PSU vs Ohio state  regular season duals become very important since the Big 10 will realistically get 2 or at most 3 teams into the dual tournament.  And for conferences like the EIWA or Pac 12, which probably won't get an at large spot, every regular season dual is critical because qualifying for the dual playoff is a big deal. 

 

Your early January duals will now have implications on who qualifies for the playoffs, and people will have reason to pay attention to the outcome.

Unless that is NCAA sanctioned it would carry little weight, and the NCAA has already weighed in on this topic.

[MSU158 2,038]

3 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Unless that is NCAA sanctioned it would carry little weight, and the NCAA has already weighed in on this topic.

Yeah, they weighed in with full support as long as the NWCA fully supported it and removed the team title from the Individual Tournament.  So STOP acting like the NCAA didn't want it.  They were all for it and originally, more than half of the coaches were on board, as evidenced by an initial, visible to the public vote.  Inevitably, Cael and Brands teamed up and were to strong for Koll and Ryan to take on and they eventually derailed it.

But STOP acting like it was so "NONSENSICAL" that it had basically NO support.  That is SO FAR from the truth it is laughable... 

[4awrestler 72]

I understand your point about guys with 9 matches, but there is already a solution for that and it is more common sense within the seeding committee. 

When will we see said common sense?? Every year there are situations of ducking and MFFs that don’t probably penalize and carry the weight that they should what makes you think they’re going to deviate from the precedence the last few years?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TBar1977 4,602]

53 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

Yeah, they weighed in with full support as long as the NWCA fully supported it and removed the team title from the Individual Tournament.  So STOP acting like the NCAA didn't want it.  They were all for it and originally, more than half of the coaches were on board, as evidenced by an initial, visible to the public vote.  Inevitably, Cael and Brands teamed up and were to strong for Koll and Ryan to take on and they eventually derailed it.

But STOP acting like it was so "NONSENSICAL" that it had basically NO support.  That is SO FAR from the truth it is laughable... 

If the NCAA wanted it then we'd have it. It has the support of a handful of people that can't carry sway over the rest of the wrestling world. 

EDIT: No joke. The vocal group right here that supports this should cobble together and write a farking proposal if they think they have something. Every several years this silliness gets revisited and shot down. The NCAA Tournament has stood the test of time. If you think you have something then put your words on paper like a real business proposal and have all your friends submit it to the people in charge and see what happens. 

There is nothing stopping you. Go for it. You can become a real hero to all those many people you claim want this. Stop being the msg. board peasant you (and the rest of us) are and start being a hero. Ball is in your court.

Edited April 1 by TBar1977

[TBar1977 4,602]

48 minutes ago, 4awrestler said:

When will we see said common sense?? Every year there are situations of ducking and MFFs that don’t probably penalize and carry the weight that they should what makes you think they’re going to deviate from the precedence the last few years?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have no idea. 

[1032004 1,514]

2 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

I understand your point about guys with 9 matches, but there is already a solution for that and it is more common sense within the seeding committee. 

I forgot, how did Berge's seed work out?   He even got beat by Robb who was one of the guys where there was an argument that Berge should've been seeded over.

Honestly the seeds ended up being pretty accurate.  There was only 1 20+ seed that AA'd (Hoffman, in a weight where we already knew there was a lot of parity and his seed was not due to lack of matches), and only 1 other AA that was seeded 16-20 (Willits, who also did not have a lack of matches).

[TBar1977 4,602]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

I forgot, how did Berge's seed work out?   He even got beat by Robb who was one of the guys where there was an argument that Berge should've been seeded over.

Honestly the seeds ended up being pretty accurate.  There was only 1 20+ seed that AA'd (Hoffman, in a weight where we already knew there was a lot of parity and his seed was not due to lack of matches), and only 1 other AA that was seeded 16-20 (Willits, who also did not have a lack of matches).

I don't think the man's concern is over any single wrestler. 

[1032004 1,514]

1 hour ago, TBar1977 said:

I don't think the man's concern is over any single wrestler. 

Yours was (well maybe 2, Hildebrandt, who also wrestled to his seed)

[steamboat_charlie v2 1,175]

You can't fabricate tradition.  Simple as that.  

[1032004 1,514]

On 3/20/2022 at 4:46 PM, BigTenFanboy said:

The individual titles are what matter. The team title is the cherry on top.

"I came to Penn State to win team championships.  I mean there's no question about that"

[hardcor_33 1]

On 3/19/2022 at 3:53 PM, VakAttack said:

 

Penn State won the team title 2 hours ago in front of me and about 3k people. It's silly and detrimental to the sport. Dual tournament should decide the team title.

I'm never going to understand why the same conversations happen every year with wrestling about needing a dual tournament to determine the national title.  Almost every sport I can think of that awards individual national titles, like in wrestling, has one big tournament at the end of the year that awards points based on how the individuals do and presents a team title.  Gymnastics, track & field, swimming, golf, fencing, and cross country all work that way.  The only individual style sport I can think of that doesn't use this method is tennis (I think).   

Personally I like the current format.  I would be ok with scoring tweaks though.  I don't like that bonus points in the consolation bracket count for the same amount as bonus points in the more difficult championship bracket.  One wrestler can win the national title scoring regular decisions all the way through and score fewer points for his team than a wrestler that gets 3rd or 4th but racks up a bunch of bonus wins in the consolations.  I remember the year that Dake beat Taylor in the finals but ultimately D.T. scored more team points for Penn State than Dake for Cornell.  I'm not a fan of any system where the loser can earn more points for his team.  That would be like in track & field having the 2nd place finisher getting more points because he/she dominated more in the preliminary heats.  Just my 2 cents for what they are worth.

[1032004 1,514]

1 hour ago, hardcor_33 said:

I'm never going to understand why the same conversations happen every year with wrestling about needing a dual tournament to determine the national title.  Almost every sport I can think of that awards individual national titles, like in wrestling, has one big tournament at the end of the year that awards points based on how the individuals do and presents a team title.  Gymnastics, track & field, swimming, golf, fencing, and cross country all work that way.  The only individual style sport I can think of that doesn't use this method is tennis (I think).   

Personally I like the current format.  I would be ok with scoring tweaks though.  I don't like that bonus points in the consolation bracket count for the same amount as bonus points in the more difficult championship bracket.  One wrestler can win the national title scoring regular decisions all the way through and score fewer points for his team than a wrestler that gets 3rd or 4th but racks up a bunch of bonus wins in the consolations.  I remember the year that Dake beat Taylor in the finals but ultimately D.T. scored more team points for Penn State than Dake for Cornell.  I'm not a fan of any system where the loser can earn more points for his team.  That would be like in track & field having the 2nd place finisher getting more points because he/she dominated more in the preliminary heats.  Just my 2 cents for what they are worth.

Tennis is probably most like wrestling though because it's a series of competitions between 2 (or maybe 4) people.   I guess fencing too but no clue how their championships work...taking a quick glance it looks like it is a combo of men + women into one team?   

But swimming, track, cross country, golf are more truly individual sports to start with.