Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pinnum

NCWA Optional Dual Scoring

Recommended Posts

This weekend I saw there was a dual that used this new scoring system and I meant to ask about it. Since that time I have had the chance to look it up.

 

Apprentice School 69, PSU-Mont Alto 58*

*-match used NCWA Optional Dual Scoring

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... cSVYLiZO-A

 

I am interested in what people think of this system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought of this concept before (guessing a few people have). Never really hashed out the details with anyone though to figure out the pro's and con's of it. I rationalized that this type of scoring at least rewarded the losing wrestling for the points he earned during the match, and was a little easier to understand the team score from a spectators point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it!

 

It always bothers me that an overtime win on tiebreakers is worth the same team points as a relatively dominant 5, 6, or 7 point win; this system seems to go a long way to recognize a finer degree of difference in performance. I also like that it encourages scoring right up to the final buzzer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if this happens? It doesn't seem right. (Harvard wins the dual even though they lost 10 matches!)

 

125 Harvard by forfeit over Cornell (Harvard 16, Cornell 0)

133 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 1)

141 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 2)

149 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 3)

157 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 4)

165 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 5)

174 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 6)

185 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 7)

197 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 8)

235 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 9)

285 Cornell by decision over Harvard 1-0 (Harvard 16, Cornell 10)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like it!

 

It always bothers me that an overtime win on tiebreakers is worth the same team points as a relatively dominant 5, 6, or 7 point win; this system seems to go a long way to recognize a finer degree of difference in performance. I also like that it encourages scoring right up to the final buzzer.

I couldn't agree more. Great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I would take a look at an actual close dual (a tie) that happened recently to see how it would play out.

 

 

Lehigh Bucknell

6 5 125: Paul Petrov (Bucknell) dec. Darian Cruz (Lehigh) 6-5, t.b.

10 2 133: No. 6 Mason Beckman (Lehigh) major dec. Grim Gonzalez (Bucknell) 10-2

3 2 141: Laike Gardner (Lehigh) dec. Victor Lopez (Bucknell) 3-2

4 5 149: Alex Pellicciotti (Bucknell) dec. No. 19 Mitch Minotti (Lehigh) 5-4

14 3 157: No. 10 Joey Napoli (Lehigh) major dec. Logan Kerin (Bucknell) 14-3

6 4 165: Brian Brill (Lehigh) dec. Rustin Barrick (Bucknell) 6-4, s.v.**

5 10 174: Stephen McPeek (Bucknell) dec. Elliot Riddick (Lehigh) 10-5

2 7 184: Tyler Greene (Bucknell) dec. Austin Meys (Lehigh) 7-2

3 2 197: John Bolich (Lehigh) dec. Tyler Lyster (Bucknell) 3-2

0 15 285: No. 10 Joe Stolfi (Bucknell) injury default Max Wessell (Lehigh) 0:54

* - Bucknell wins on second criteria (Combined total number of falls, forfeits, defaults and disqualifications.)

53 55

Attendance: 1,531

 

Bucknell wins 55-53 (or 54-53 with the unsportsman penalty)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a good idea, but I can't get over the only getting +1 pt for a 1 point win. Should be a minimum of +3 points for a win. A lot of late TDs are a result of a desparation try for a win and those two points can be equivalent to two 1 point wins later in the match - doesn't seem fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Let's say there are ten contested duals with one team winning 6 and the other 4 but the team that wins four gets 3 md's and a decision while the other team wins six close decisions. Instead of the team winning six bouts getting an 18-15 win, they could easily lose. Shouldn't the team that won the majority of bouts, in most instances, be the team to win the dual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am okay with a team winning less matches and winning the dual. I think this adds an interesting dynamic. We continue to read people writing that they don't support duals determining a team's strength because one super star can't take over a contest like in other sports where one guy can score a lot of points for there team. This allows a team that is better on paper, with better one on one match-ups, to have to go out and dominate in order to ensure that a few individuals from the team that doesn't match up well from carrying the team on their back and scoring a lot of points.

 

Many of those that opposed the dual determining the NCAA title were in the Penn State and Iowa camps. These individuals argued that bonus point wrestlers should not be limited in the amount of points they can score and the tournament structure, we all agree, allows them to widen the gap. I see this as a system that will allow an Ed Ruth, David Taylor, Logan Steiber, Brent Metcalf or whoever to widen the gap greatly, much like they do in tournaments, while still requiring each individual's performance to factor in to the team's performance in a dual (one of the large reasons people support a dual format over a tournament).

 

This seems to be a happy medium.

 

In addition, I see the team result seperate from that of the individual result which carry different incentives.

 

The Cornell vs Harvard example is a good one because I think that dual, given the proposed scoring, would make for a very exciting dual but at the same time Cornell would ultimatley be rewarded greater with individual successes as they are likely to qualify a lot more wrestlers to nationals.

 

Personally, I think you would see more action in matches. Wrestlers winning would have an incentive to (and the coaches would likely demand) they widen the gap. While at the same time, a wrestler could be losing but will continue to attack to get a takedown just to win back the one point that may be the difference in the dual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to weigh in here:

 

Why are so we insecure that we always use some extreme example of "what could" happen? Everything on this earth is a possibility, but we need to make rules with the 3 sigma rule in mind -- capture 99% of all possible outcomes and not worry about the occational outlier.

 

How many times in football does a team with 50 yards of total offense beat a team with 500 yards of total offense? But wait, it "could" happen if you scored all defensive touchdowns and the other team was only able to drive the length of the field each time with the ball, only to miss a field goal. What if you only have one good player in basketball and they are able to score 90% of the team's points and the other guys are just there for defense? What if? What if?

 

This is a great alternative. Not saying it's perfect, but worth consideration if we want to market the sport and remain relevant in a changing entertainment landscape.

 

I would seriously like to see some historical figures and find me how many times, with this scoring, a team with only 1 or 2 wins would have won the dual. I'm guessing the answer is close to ZERO. And this is using actual examples, not made up what-ifs.

 

Pinnum, great commentary. My sentiments exactly. I'd love to see us move out of the stone age and start using something like this to make every point matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add, I like how a forfeit is 16 points but an injury default or fall is worth 15. This means that a team is actually worse off not wrestling a wrestler. No matter who you send out you are better off than not wrestling someone which is good for the sport. This, however slight, penalty for not wrestling is good for the health of the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Pinnum steals my thunder ... was actually working on this story as we speak.

 

Sorry about that. Still look forward to seeing your story.

 

For what it is worth, as you probably know, it was following your dual results that lead me to this info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one with Stanford/Air Force:

 

ACTUAL

Stanford 30, Air Force 4

149: Maxwell Hvolbek (S) fall Natrelle Demison (AF), 6:46

157: Bret Baumbach (S) dec. No. 15 Josh Kreimier, 6-4

165: Jim Wilson (S) dec. Jesse Stafford (AF), 5-1

174: Kyle Meyer (S) dec. Konner Witt (AF), 5-0

184: Thomas Kimbrell (S) dec. Scott Reilly (AF), 7-4

197: Dan Scherer (S) dec. Greg Isley (AF), 3-1 (OT)

285: Josh Marchok (S) dec. Marcus Malecek (AF), 3-2

125: No. 10 Josh Martinez (AF) maj. dec. Evan Silver (S), 9-1

133: No. 3 Ryan Mango (S) dec. Greg Rinker (AF), 8-2

141: Peter Russo (S) dec. David Walker (AF), 7-5

 

OTS

Stanford 60 - Air Force 28

149: Maxwell Hvolbek (S) fall Natrelle Demison (AF), 6:46 (15pts)

157: Bret Baumbach (S) dec. No. 15 Josh Kreimier, 6-4

165: Jim Wilson (S) dec. Jesse Stafford (AF), 5-1

174: Kyle Meyer (S) dec. Konner Witt (AF), 5-0

184: Thomas Kimbrell (S) dec. Scott Reilly (AF), 7-4

197: Dan Scherer (S) dec. Greg Isley (AF), 3-1 (OT)

285: Josh Marchok (S) dec. Marcus Malecek (AF), 3-2

125: No. 10 Josh Martinez (AF) maj. dec. Evan Silver (S), 9-1

133: No. 3 Ryan Mango (S) dec. Greg Rinker (AF), 8-2

141: Peter Russo (S) dec. David Walker (AF), 7-5

 

OTS in this case gives a more realistic account of what happened, considering many of Stanford's wins were narrow margins. Twice as many point (60 vs 28) is a lot more indicitave than 7x as many points (30 vs 4). Now Stanford won 9 of 10 matches, so they still won the dual easily. But I think they were losing 5-0 at 149 so if you make that a 5-0 win for Air Force, now you have a 45-33 score with Stanford having 8 wins and Air Force only 2. One more big win for Air Force could have won them the match in this scoring scenario, OR we see a push to score more points when you are winning, which is exactly what the system is designed to reward and create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

penn state last 2 losses

 

 

wt psu iowa

125 1 2

133 0 15

141 2 12

149 18 8

157 3 4

165 12 2

174 3 4

184 21 10

197 8 3

285 9 2

team 77 62

 

wt psu minnesota

125 2 6

133 5 14

141 6 19

149 16 10

157 4 9

165 11 1

174 15 0

184 1 6

197 4 3

285 0 5

team 64 73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not arguing against it, but think it needs some tweaks. Really should be +3 for a minimum with any win. I just don't see an 11-8 win or a 7-4 win being three times as important as a 2-1 win. Also, I get rewarding the pin, but +15 seems a little excessive. How about +12? Then I'm all in to give it a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but I do not see how ANY system, regardless of the odds, should allow for a team to win 1 out of 10 matches and win the dual. I don't even think winning 3 out of 10 should see the team with 3 wins win the dual. In the end the INDIVIDUAL wins are what CONTRIBUTE to the team. You are out there by yourself. Telling 5 guys who wrestled their absolute best with each beating a very tough opponent 7-4 that their total combined contribution TIES the 15-0 tech the other team's stud did to your true freshman is ABSURD.

 

This system has some MAJOR flaws. This isn't like Basketball where both teams score by the EXACT same way, putting a ball in a hoop. I understand the proponents of this scoring system want to make this sport more exciting. Do you really think it will? Do you think your 165 lbr, who is ranked 3rd, is going to go out against the #7 ranked wrestler, who he has barely beat in a few few closely contested matches, and go for broke, risking his ranking, to try to recoup the points his freshman teammate lost to a highly ranked opponent? Do you think a 7-4 win where both wrestlers are AA's is worth 12 points less than an AA teching the weak link?

 

I am not close minded. I am all for someone trying to find a way to improve the current system. I simply DO NOT see this system as an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry but I do not see how ANY system, regardless of the odds, should allow for a team to win 1 out of 10 matches and win the dual. I don't even think winning 3 out of 10 should see the team with 3 wins win the dual. In the end the INDIVIDUAL wins are what CONTRIBUTE to the team. You are out there by yourself. Telling 5 guys who wrestled their absolute best with each beating a very tough opponent 7-4 that their total combined contribution TIES the 15-0 tech the other team's stud did to your true freshman is ABSURD.

 

This is pretty much how we determine the NCAA team championship right now, isn't it? Three super stars can outscore 10 solid guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry but I do not see how ANY system, regardless of the odds, should allow for a team to win 1 out of 10 matches and win the dual. I don't even think winning 3 out of 10 should see the team with 3 wins win the dual. In the end the INDIVIDUAL wins are what CONTRIBUTE to the team. You are out there by yourself. Telling 5 guys who wrestled their absolute best with each beating a very tough opponent 7-4 that their total combined contribution TIES the 15-0 tech the other team's stud did to your true freshman is ABSURD.

 

This system has some MAJOR flaws. This isn't like Basketball where both teams score by the EXACT same way, putting a ball in a hoop. I understand the proponents of this scoring system want to make this sport more exciting. Do you really think it will? Do you think your 165 lbr, who is ranked 3rd, is going to go out against the #7 ranked wrestler, who he has barely beat in a few few closely contested matches, and go for broke, risking his ranking, to try to recoup the points his freshman teammate lost to a highly ranked opponent? Do you think a 7-4 win where both wrestlers are AA's is worth 12 points less than an AA teching the weak link?

 

I am not close minded. I am all for someone trying to find a way to improve the current system. I simply DO NOT see this system as an improvement.

 

I think the football comparison is apt, in this instance. The way I look at a dual it is very much similar to football. Two teams line up and their athletes battle one on one against each other. Some athletes move their opponent down the field while others get moved back by their opponents. The net difference is the team score. What does it matter if it is a miss match that blew a deadlock wide open? Isn't that part of having a good team? In basically every sport you want to attack a team's weakest link and I don't see how that should be any different in wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry but I do not see how ANY system, regardless of the odds, should allow for a team to win 1 out of 10 matches and win the dual. I don't even think winning 3 out of 10 should see the team with 3 wins win the dual. In the end the INDIVIDUAL wins are what CONTRIBUTE to the team. You are out there by yourself. Telling 5 guys who wrestled their absolute best with each beating a very tough opponent 7-4 that their total combined contribution TIES the 15-0 tech the other team's stud did to your true freshman is ABSURD.

 

This is pretty much how we determine the NCAA team championship right now, isn't it? Three super stars can outscore 10 solid guys.

 

First off, I am a proponent of a Dual Format deciding the NCAA team champs. I have always thought the Dual Format more accurately decides which (ALL 10 men) team is better AT THAT TIME. I don't want to turn this into the which is better NCAA championship format. I only say this because I want you to understand that I don't like how a team is currently determined the winner.

 

Now to answer your question. Define solid guys? Define superstars? For your scenario to work all 10 solid guys would need be be R12 but not AA for the 3 superstars to realistically win. 75 pts from 3 superstars is the VERY HIGH end of what you would expect. 10 R12 guys should score from 40-70 pts depending on how they got there. In the end I don't have as much issue with this since they all have to wrestle in a bracket full of the best 33 guys at their weight. If 3 guys are that much better than everyone else the chances the team loses a dual meet under the current scoring system to 10 solid guys is comparable to the chances in the NCAA tournament.

 

I may be in the minority, but I cheer for the guy who has to not get pinned by a superior opponent to win the dual. I like that he can ACTUALLY help his team. I do NOT want him to do it by stalling. As long as you can take the stalling part out of the mix the component this adds to the TEAM atmosphere is HUGE.

 

In the end, I think the current scoring system gives a better chance for ALL 10 guys to contribute. I am all ears to new ideas. I just don't see this as better than what is currently in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry but I do not see how ANY system, regardless of the odds, should allow for a team to win 1 out of 10 matches and win the dual. I don't even think winning 3 out of 10 should see the team with 3 wins win the dual. In the end the INDIVIDUAL wins are what CONTRIBUTE to the team. You are out there by yourself. Telling 5 guys who wrestled their absolute best with each beating a very tough opponent 7-4 that their total combined contribution TIES the 15-0 tech the other team's stud did to your true freshman is ABSURD.

 

This system has some MAJOR flaws. This isn't like Basketball where both teams score by the EXACT same way, putting a ball in a hoop. I understand the proponents of this scoring system want to make this sport more exciting. Do you really think it will? Do you think your 165 lbr, who is ranked 3rd, is going to go out against the #7 ranked wrestler, who he has barely beat in a few few closely contested matches, and go for broke, risking his ranking, to try to recoup the points his freshman teammate lost to a highly ranked opponent? Do you think a 7-4 win where both wrestlers are AA's is worth 12 points less than an AA teching the weak link?

 

I am not close minded. I am all for someone trying to find a way to improve the current system. I simply DO NOT see this system as an improvement.

 

I think the football comparison is apt, in this instance. The way I look at a dual it is very much similar to football. Two teams line up and their athletes battle one on one against each other. Some athletes move their opponent down the field while others get moved back by their opponents. The net difference is the team score. What does it matter if it is a miss match that blew a deadlock wide open? Isn't that part of having a good team? In basically every sport you want to attack a team's weakest link and I don't see how that should be any different in wrestling.

 

But this isn't football! I used Basketball since it has it's team contributing at the same time. I could have used any sport that is not an individual sport. Football has 3 aspects: offense, defense and special teams. Still it is 11 guys against 11 AT THE SAME TIME. They all WORK TOGETHER. Offense, Defense and even special teams can use different packages to minimize a weak link. IE, Two tight ends for extra pass protection, Nickel defense to help weak corners, Squib kicks to avoid the return.

 

Wrestling is WAY different in that the other 9 can do NOTHING to help the weak link when he is on the mat. One individual disparity should not have the potential to be worth 16 times another. How is that a team?

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...