Jump to content
VakAttack

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

Recommended Posts

22 minutes 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.

It continues to come up because the season is nearly 5 months long and all of the focus is on March.  That's all well and good and I am a HUGE fan of the NCAA Tournament but this has always been a concern and continues to be brought up, even after all this time, but now it's becoming more and more frustrating when those duals are not who we expect to see anymore.  There are only a few duals each year where we actually see the match ups we expect and other duals that could be amazing become a disappointment.   That is because of the ducking.  I don't think there is any way to penalize for it, it's too subjective, but having each dual matter is what will motivate less line up changes, at least the ones that can't be helped due to circumstances like injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Schuteandscore said:

It continues to come up because the season is nearly 5 months long and all of the focus is on March.

3 days in March

24 minutes ago, Schuteandscore said:

There are only a few duals each year where we actually see the match ups we expect and other duals that could be amazing become a disappointment. That is because of the ducking.

This.  I am open to any changes (including post season) that remedies this worsening  “regular season product”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hardcor_33 said:

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.

I have thought about it a lot and think bonus points just don't mean the same thing at NCAAs as they do in a dual.  Of the choices I'd be in favour of eliminating them.  In a dual both wrestlers have the same interest in the team outcome.  You'll see a losing wrestler start to think about the bonus points and try and prevent them.  That isn't so much the dynamic in a tournament and especially at NCAAs.  If you're down 8 at NCAAs near the end of the match you aren't going to try some low risk sound attack to try and get it below 8 and get this one back later in the year.  You're going to throw the kitchen sink because your season is about to end.  Only a select few wrestlers have bonus points as a significant consideration.

@Wrestleknownothing has an excellent post that shows what we all suspected, bonus points are disproportionally scored in the early rounds.  It also shows that the highest percentage are scored in the opening round.  This makes sense because the biggest mismatches happen here by design.  In the first round consolations the wrestlers should be more eqally matched with wrestlers seeded 33-17 matching up vs 1 vs 32/33.  The presence of bonus points at NCAAs creates a failure of logic that you point out with Dake and Taylor.  A team could win all their matchs and not win NCAAs.  

There have been suggestions to make bonus points more fair.  Doubling the advancement points (Askren on FRL), increasing the value by round (wrestleknownothing), half the bonuns points in consolations (Show_Me in another thread).  I think increasing them by round makes sense, but it also complicates and already complicated system.  Halving them in the consolations is less of a complication.  The reason for cutting advancement in half in the consolations is because they require more rounds to execute and one could score more advancement points in them without this.  Whilst it is true that more rounds also means more oppotunity to score bonus the wrestlers in consolation rounds are more evenly matched as a result of the seeding process.  The tables wrestleknownothing made show that more bonus points are typically scored in the championships bracket, so in theory it isn't as big of a consideration as the advancement point issue.  Finally none of these suggestions remove the possibility that a team could win all their matches and still not win the team title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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).   

I think the comparisons are important but I don't necessarily draw the same conclusions from them. 

These are all individual sports, but generally speaking there are big differences in the nature of the competition. In swimming, track/cross country, golf, and gymnastics, you compete against a field all at the same time.  Scoring in a dual meet is going to be chaotic and hard to follow in these sports.  In wrestling and tennis, you compete one-on-one every match and I think it's easier and more exciting for spectators to follow what's going on in the team setting in dual match settings.  (If we're comparing ourselves to fencing then we've got a problem.)

Because of this, I think that if you were starting on a blank sheet of paper and could eliminate practical issues like scheduling and risk of injury, a dual meet championship in wrestling makes a lot of sense on the merits.  But I always have a hard time seeing how this is going to be achievable in the real world.  The current championships are a crown jewel--three days of full NBA arenas and national TV broadcasts (acknowledging Vak's highly ironic OP that the most poorly attended session is often where the team champion clinches). 

Guys with Olympic medals remark how the atmosphere at those events doesn't even come close to NCAAs.  It strikes me as very risky to make a giant change to this successful formula in the sport's only event that gets substantial mainstream attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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).   

This is a misrepresentation.  Gymnastics has a bracket with dual meets.  8 qualify for nationals.  On the first day there are semifinals with pools of 4 and the top 2 teams from each emifinal advance to the final.  Competition is as a team not an individual tournament with 60+ schools represented.

Golf also has a dual element to it.  The top u8 teams are identified after the first two days of stoke play and the teams are put into a bracket for match play.  They advance as a team.  It isn't one big individual tournament either.  Tennis is 100% duals. Beach Volleyball is 100% duals.  Not sure how fencing works.

Swimming, cross country, and track and field are different in that 8+ competitors can race at the same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

This is a misrepresentation.  Gymnastics has a bracket with dual meets.  8 qualify for nationals.  On the first day there are semifinals with pools of 4 and the top 2 teams from each emifinal advance to the final.  Competition is as a team not an individual tournament with 60+ schools represented.

Golf also has a dual element to it.  The top u8 teams are identified after the first two days of stoke play and the teams are put into a bracket for match play.  They advance as a team.  It isn't one big individual tournament either.  Tennis is 100% duals. Beach Volleyball is 100% duals.  Not sure how fencing works.

Swimming, cross country, and track and field are different in that 8+ competitors can race at the same time

I'd go a step further, it's not a misrepresentation, it's just incorrect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

This is a misrepresentation.  Gymnastics has a bracket with dual meets.  8 qualify for nationals.  On the first day there are semifinals with pools of 4 and the top 2 teams from each emifinal advance to the final.  Competition is as a team not an individual tournament with 60+ schools represented.

Golf also has a dual element to it.  The top u8 teams are identified after the first two days of stoke play and the teams are put into a bracket for match play.  They advance as a team.  It isn't one big individual tournament either.  Tennis is 100% duals. Beach Volleyball is 100% duals.  Not sure how fencing works.

Swimming, cross country, and track and field are different in that 8+ competitors can race at the same time

And with swimming and track the competitors from one heat to the next face the exact same standard. The clock is unvarying. So, it is easy to compare a result from the first heat to the last heat. Hell, I once did a swim meet by mail. 

There is another element that makes these bad comparisons. In gymnastics, swimming, track, field, and golf no one is playing defense. So to an extent, they can be performed in a vacuum and then compared.

Note: Since I was agreeing with you and attempting to expand on your statement, I responded to you rather than the original @hardcor_33 post

Edited by Wrestleknownothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

This is a misrepresentation.  Gymnastics has a bracket with dual meets.  8 qualify for nationals.  On the first day there are semifinals with pools of 4 and the top 2 teams from each emifinal advance to the final.  Competition is as a team not an individual tournament with 60+ schools represented.

Golf also has a dual element to it.  The top u8 teams are identified after the first two days of stoke play and the teams are put into a bracket for match play.  They advance as a team.  It isn't one big individual tournament either.  Tennis is 100% duals. Beach Volleyball is 100% duals.  Not sure how fencing works.

Swimming, cross country, and track and field are different in that 8+ competitors can race at the same time

This is a helpful correction since my last post was taking as accurate the descriptions given.  The changes don't change my view, though. 

Wrestling is the most like tennis and beach volleyball - direct competition by winning points directly against the opponent.  It's the least like track and swimming. Golf is closer to wrestling but not as much as tennis, you're still playing against the course more than the opponent.

I think a dual meet championship would be very exciting and makes great sense in the abstract, but this isn't the abstract -- the current tournament is a collosus, the only one in the sport, how can you mess with that.  

Also the average fan knows when he or she turns on the set on Saturday night they are seeing the two best mano a mano on the mat, ten times.  In a dual between the two best teams, you get a couple of marquee matchups like that and then a lot of subtleties about swing matches and avoiding bonus points.  The former is probably a more reliable selling point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

And with swimming and track the competitors from one heat to the next face the exact same standard. The clock is unvarying. So, it is easy to compare a result from the first heat to the last heat. Hell, I once did a swim meet by mail. 

There is another element that makes these bad comparisons. In gymnastics, swimming, track, field, and golf no one is playing defense. So to an extent, they can be performed in a vacuum and then compared.

Note: Since I was agreeing with you and attempting to expand on your statement, I responded to you rather than the original @hardcor_33 post

Yes I agree in that racers are competing against the clock, in diving and gymnastics the same judges score everyone, and in golf you are playing against the course.  Still I would argue that in may situations the opponents matter.  This is particularly true in middle and long distance races.  Strategy and when and how much to push the pace is very dependent upon what your other racers are doing.  When there are heats in these races usually top the 4-5 in each heat move on rather than based on time.  They aren't a run as fast as your can type of race like the 100m.

Also I would argue that using scores from an individual golf tournament for the team title could result in some conflicts between doing what would be best for you individually and doing what is best for the team.  Supposing your team is in the lead and you individually are in second.  You could play the next hole more aggressively to try and catch the leader or you could play it more conservatively to maintain the team's lead.  How well your opponents play will impact the risk you must take if you want to win.  A similar thing could occur in gymnastics.  Your leading the individual competition and could close out the championship with a routine vault, but if you go for a riskier higher scoring vault your teams position could improve.  A similar dilemma can occur in a wrestling tournament when bonus points can mean the difference.   I think if Kerkvliet had pinned in his third place match at Big Tens PSU could have won the title.  By deciding the title in a dual/team format these dilemmas should not occur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, drag it said:

This is a helpful correction since my last post was taking as accurate the descriptions given.  The changes don't change my view, though. 

Wrestling is the most like tennis and beach volleyball - direct competition by winning points directly against the opponent.  It's the least like track and swimming. Golf is closer to wrestling but not as much as tennis, you're still playing against the course more than the opponent.

I think a dual meet championship would be very exciting and makes great sense in the abstract, but this isn't the abstract -- the current tournament is a collosus, the only one in the sport, how can you mess with that.  

Also the average fan knows when he or she turns on the set on Saturday night they are seeing the two best mano a mano on the mat, ten times.  In a dual between the two best teams, you get a couple of marquee matchups like that and then a lot of subtleties about swing matches and avoiding bonus points.  The former is probably a more reliable selling point. 

In a dual meet between the two best teams we could know the winner of all 10 matches before they wrestle. The competition will be to see which team gets more bonus with their favorites and which team's underdogs can prevent bonus better. Total opposite of what we see on Saturday night in the Tournament. 

We could literally get 10 consecutive non competitive matches. 

Share this post


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

I think a dual meet championship would be very exciting and makes great sense in the abstract, but this isn't the abstract -- the current tournament is a collosus, the only one in the sport, how can you mess with that.  

I think this is the thing that keeps it from happening.  Worrying that we have a winner and that we will fix it until it's broken.  I don't think it's enough of a reason, but a lot of people are afraid of it.

23 minutes ago, drag it said:

Also the average fan knows when he or she turns on the set on Saturday night they are seeing the two best mano a mano on the mat, ten times.  In a dual between the two best teams, you get a couple of marquee matchups like that and then a lot of subtleties about swing matches and avoiding bonus points.  The former is probably a more reliable selling point. 

If you're talking the top two teams in the country most likely they have somewhere around 5 AAs a piece if not more.  Those are prime time duals.  Every match won't be an NCAA semifinal but there almost all semifinal or quarterfinals with bigger stakes. The matches tend to be more wide open than the NCAA finals.  The finals can be very conservative with each wrestler not wanting to make a mistake and lose it.  Sometimes you'll also see something like at national duals when Askren went up a weight and wrestled NCAA runnerup Roger Kish.

Share this post


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

If you're talking the top two teams in the country most likely they have somewhere around 5 AAs a piece if not more.  Those are prime time duals.  Every match won't be an NCAA semifinal but there almost all semifinal or quarterfinals with bigger stakes. The matches tend to be more wide open than the NCAA finals.  The finals can be very conservative with each wrestler not wanting to make a mistake and lose it.  Sometimes you'll also see something like at national duals when Askren went up a weight and wrestled NCAA runnerup Roger Kish.

They could literally all be non competitive.

125 - Team A Prohibitive Favorite

133 - Team A Prohibitive Favorite

141 - Team B Prohibitive Favorite

149 - Team B Prohibitive Favorite

157 - Team A Prohibitive Favorite

165 - Team B Prohibitive Favorite

174 - Team B Prohibitive Favorite

184 - Team A Prohibitive Favorite

197 - Team A Prohibitive Favorite

285 - Team B Prohibitive Favorite

Each team has 5 prohibitive favorites.

 

OR

 

The best team is much better than the 2nd best team and the only slim chance for the 2nd best team is an upset at each of two weights. The first weight they don't get the upset 80 percent of the fans change the channel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

They could literally all be non competitive.

Each team has 5 prohibitive favorites.

OR

The best team is much better than the 2nd best team and the only slim chance for the 2nd best team is an upset at each of two weights. The first weight they don't get the upset 80 percent of the fans change the channel. 

Yes, this is possible.  A dual can have a lower ceiling for entertainment. Your first example is still a compelling competition.  No one knows who will win that and would watch until the end.  The later is less entertaining, but there are likely still interesting matches.  This does not seem to be a worry for any other sport thoug and a blowout final can happen in literally any sport.  I have never seen another sport change to a point system because the finals haven't been competitive enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fishbane said:

Yes, this is possible.  A dual can have a lower ceiling for entertainment. Your first example is still a compelling competition.  No one knows who will win that and would watch until the end.  The later is less entertaining, but there are likely still interesting matches.  This does not seem to be a worry for any other sport thoug and a blowout final can happen in literally any sport.  I have never seen another sport change to a point system because the finals haven't been competitive enough.

Plus, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the current method of counting the team championship points is almost always a foregone conclusion way more often than duals are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2022 at 1:09 PM, 1032004 said:

How do you know no one serious wants a dual championship to decide team champ?  Apparently the majority of coaches wanted it in 2012.

On 3/31/2022 at 1:33 PM, Husker_Du said:

that's false. 

 

Willie, your website has a story reporting this - https://intermatwrestle.com/articles/10572?.  What is false?  It says all 77 D1 coaches were there and 39 were in favour, 36 opposed and 2 abstained. 39 is a majority of 77.  What part did the press release get wrong?

Share this post


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

Plus, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the current method of counting the team championship points is almost always a foregone conclusion way more often than duals are.

I am not sure that is entirely true, but let's accept it as true. It would make sense because it rewards the best team and most people know who the best team is thru simple observation. They turn out to be right as the best team wins because the cream always rises to the top. Isn't that the goal, to identify the best? By golly, Vak, I think it is!

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goal is to crown a champion. It’s sports, best team doesn’t always win. Just like the individual weights - best guy in the weight isn’t always standing at the top of the podium. We are fine with that happening as many as 10 times individually.
Exactly. Nobody batted an eye when the Bengals made the Super Bowl. Or when my beloved Giants upset the undefeated Patriots. Or when Paul Donahoe beat Sam Hazewinkle (a personal thorn) or Rob Rohn beat Josh Lambrecht. On and on.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

And hes done it by winning a boatload of individual championships. He doesnt do it by pulling off 3rd place finishes.

Correct, by winning enough individual championships that they have enough points to win.  Not just by “winning more individual championships than any other school” like they did in 2021.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Correct, by winning enough individual championships that they have enough points to win.  Not just by “winning more individual championships than any other school” like they did in 2021.

Like they have done since 2011. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/caelsanderson/status/1510071293844066306/photo/1

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TBar1977 said:

Like they have done since 2011. 

Correct.  Cael wins team titles largely by winning individual titles. But he doesn’t claim to win the team title when he really didn’t (don’t think you did, but BTF did).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Correct.  Cael wins team titles largely by winning individual titles. But he doesn’t claim to win the team title when he really didn’t (don’t think you did, but BTF did).

Cael rarely claims much of anything. He does an interview with JB prior to PSU v. Ok St for the 2017 iteration of NWCA National Duals. You can get a sense of what his values are in that podcast. 

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...