Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
EarlD1CW

The National Duals Debate--In the Coaches Words

Recommended Posts

Here's something I've been putting together the last week. You can see from my intro that it wasn't what I initially planned it to be, but I'm very excited about the finished product. Quotes from tons of coaches on the future of the National Duals, proposed changes, the value of dual meets. Some of the coaches requested to have their names included, most did not..

 

Regardless of where you fall on the topic, I think it's evident that more discussion from the top (whoever the top of wrestling is?) needs to be given to the topic. Most coaches have concerns, if nothing else, while others have some valid ideas that may not have previously been mentioned.

 

 

 

These are a few of my favorite or eye-catching quotes....

 

"I have no confidence in a National Duals event that is led by the NWCA. I believe that the NWCA has good intentions, but overall they aren't competent enough to handle this endeavor properly."

 

"We have to remember that wrestling is an individual sport. No kid dreams of being on the Olympic Championship Team or the National Dual Meet Championship Team. They dream of being a champion themselves and nothing is wrong with that"

 

"I like the system the way it is. Our fans are loyal and pack the house every year at the NCAA's. If it's not broke, why are we trying to fix it? New fans? We have to accept the fact that we are not a mainstream sport."

 

"In my situation, it would be great for Cornell to wrestle Penn State. I've tried for five years to get them on the schedule, home or away. Penn State does not believe that it benefits their program so they refuse to wrestle."--Cornell Head Coach Rob Koll

 

"Unfortunately, most AD's could care less about results. Stay out of sight, stay out of trouble, make no waves at the school, and they could care less about any sport outside of football or basketball. Too many programs in DI wrestling have either complacent coaches or poor AD's."--North Dakota State Assistant Coach Bret Maughan

 

"I would rather be proactive than reactive in hopes of avoiding another blunder like the 2020 Olympics situation."

 

"You can have one or two guys at the tournament place high and all of a sudden you're a "top 20 program". To the untrained eye, that might mean something. To the trained eye, its a BS way of determining who has the best team."

 

"We worry about not having 10k people watching the event live, but we fail to recognize that with ESPN carrying and promoting the event, we could have 100x's that number watching from home."--Cornell Head Coach Rob Koll

 

"Why do teams forfeit weights or avoid ranked wrestlers....because they can!"

 

For the entire article...

 

http://www.d1collegewrestling.net/Featu ... Duals.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question #4: Would you be in favor of a system that carries points scored at the National Dual Tournament to the Individual Tournament?

 

**It should be noted that many coaches answered "No" without further explanation to the above question.

 

Earl, two questions ...

 

1) Can you put a rough number, ratio or percentage on the number of coaches who answered this way?

 

2) As a converse to your footnote you did not mention any coaches answering "Yes" without further explanation to this question. Were there any?

 

EDIT: BTW, PHENOMENAL ARTICLE. LOVED IT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coaches who confuse gaming the system with strategy and hold able-bodied wrestlers out of duals to protect seeds need to change their ways or go. It's poor "strategy," poor sportsmanship and, most importantly, terrible for fans.

 

Coaches who are arguing that "it's the sport - it is what it is" or that the sport can't be grown nor marketed need to go, as well. Growth and marketing are imperative or the sport at the college level is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question #4: Would you be in favor of a system that carries points scored at the National Dual Tournament to the Individual Tournament?

 

**It should be noted that many coaches answered "No" without further explanation to the above question.

 

Earl, two questions ...

 

1) Can you put a rough number, ratio or percentage on the number of coaches who answered this way?

 

2) As a converse to your footnote you did not mention any coaches answering "Yes" without further explanation to this question. Were there any?

 

EDIT: BTW, PHENOMENAL ARTICLE. LOVED IT!

 

1) About 35% answered No and gave either no further explanation or just one sentence.

 

2) No, all of the people who were in favor of it gave some sort of explanation with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You can have one or two guys at the tournament place high and all of a sudden you're a "top 20 program". To the untrained eye, that might mean something. To the trained eye, its a BS way of determining who has the best team."

 

obviously tournaments and duals measure different strengths of a team. i would say tournament scoring more accurately scores 1-5, while duals more accurately determines 5-20.

 

something else to consider: minny could have had another encounter with michigan along the way in a line bracket. if minny is taken out by this inferior team due to perfect match-ups is everyone on the dual side still happy with the format? dardanes over dutton or zilverberg over yates is far from a done deal now that minny is healthier than when they dueled. minny has been anointed by virtually everyone as the best dual team in the land. why is the loss to michigan overlooked? match-ups make for upsets in sports, but with the current dual scoring this happens way too often in wrestling. there are several team upsets that would occur without a single individual upset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm interpreting your post correctly, you are bothered by the number of upsets that duals create. Personally, I feel that's great! Would I be OK with Minnesota losing to Michigan in a dual format national tournament setting? Absolutely. Look at the most successful college sport, basketball. Upsets happen all the time in their national tournament, and that's a key ingredient to the excitement that it creates.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that it would be great to shtcan the current NCAAs and move to a dual-only national tournament system. I'm just saying uncertainty creates interest.

 

Look at how many people are especially excited this year for the B1Gs and nationals. A huge part of that is the insane parity at a lot of weights, and the uncertainty behind all but one of the heaviest hitters in the sport winning again. The 3-way drama at 125 and 141, the uncertainty of 141, 149, 157, 197, and HWT, and the seven- or eight- wrestler deep parity at 174, the possibility that Ruth and Stieber may lose again... this all adds to the excitement.

 

The national title obviously needs to be contested under a set of rules that reward the best-performing team, even if some subjectivity is inevitable. But it shouldn't overly try to minimize the possibility of upsets. This is not the Olympic Trials, where best of three makes sense because we want to minimize upsets. Upsets, and the uncertainty they bring to competition, are good for wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not that i am against upsets happening. it's that when you round robin teams: A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A all while not a single upset occurs in the individual bouts. this means the scoring system is flawed because this would be a common scenario with several teams.

 

to equate basketball upsets with wrestling upsets is very misguided. a basketball upset is more equitable to upsets in individual matches than dual meets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You can have one or two guys at the tournament place high and all of a sudden you're a "top 20 program". To the untrained eye, that might mean something. To the trained eye, its a BS way of determining who has the best team."

 

dopey argument. of course 2 placers does't prove who the best team is. but it does prove what program can turn kids into medalists.

 

i'd rather send my kid to the team with 2 aa's than a balanced team who wins more duals. one team demonstrates a program that can get a kid to achieve at a high level. the other is a program that shows that several kids together can get to just below a high level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with upsets if Minnesota loses to Michigan then congrats to Michigan it is exciting to see matchups and how teams go head to head and who will win in a dual I would love it if Minnesota were beat by a team like northern iowa simply due to a good matchup that would be great for the sport despite the fact that northern iowa would never win the tournament

 

there needs to be some doubt in who will win and duals because of matchups make for a case of arguing who will win and makes each match exciting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's not that i am against upsets happening. it's that when you round robin teams: A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A all while not a single upset occurs in the individual bouts. this means the scoring system is flawed because this would be a common scenario with several teams.

 

to equate basketball upsets with wrestling upsets is very misguided. a basketball upset is more equitable to upsets in individual matches than dual meets.

 

I don't agree with either of your comments.

 

The round robin issue is also there with individuals, not just teams. If you round robin'ed the top 4 guys at most weights any given year, you'd get very different results too. Does that mean that the individual scoring system for matches is flawed? No. It just means there is enough stylistic variance even at the top levels of wrestling to ensure that no "paper outcome" is certain. It introduces the possibility of upsets. It makes matches more exciting and increases interest. If anything, it's rankings that are flawed, not the scoring system.

 

Regarding upsets for teams versus individuals, the point you're making is actually an argument for team champions being declared under different criteria than individual champions. Because the criteria maybe should be different (per your argument, not necessarily my view). The edge case you're describing mixes two sets of rankings: team and individual. You are bothered by the idea that a team can beat another team and yet lose to another team without a single upset happening. Well, maybe that's because you're mixing team and individual rankings, which determine when an upset occurs. There is the possibility of a team being better or worse than the collection of individual rankings would suggest.

 

Furthermore, rankings are not as absolute as points scored in a dual meet or individual match. Logan Stieber is currently ranked 3. Per that criteria, it would be a pretty significant upset if he beat Port, ranked 1. How many people who really follow the sport believe Stieber is just the third best wrestler in the country and would be lucky to beat Port? If I were a bookmaker, I'd give away points to bet on Stieber, because I think he's the favorite, in spite of his ranking.

 

Maybe you get different results than projected by rankings because the rankings, and not the scoring system, are flawed. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but you are using rankings as the absolute truth to try to develop a scoring system around. That is flawed logic, "misguided."

 

Regarding basketball, I think you're the misguided one in interpreting what I wrote. If you read more carefully, I made the analogy not to equate upsets in both sports. I used the example of the most successful college sport to underscore the point that upsets, and therefore uncertainty, make a sport more exciting, not less, and we shouldn't overly focus on eliminating all the uncertainty from wrestling. There's obviously a balance that must be struck between a set of rules that reasonably determines a winner and the need to allow for upsets. Again, this is not the Olympic Trials, where each match outcome should be determined from a best-of-three series to minimize upsets.

 

Minnesota beat PSU but lost to Michigan. So what? Michigan outperformed that day while Minny underperformed. It happens. Ask Ed Ruth or Logan Stieber. That doesn't necessarily make the system flawed (or, more accurately, overly flawed, since every system has flaws).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe because the coaches feel the arguments against carrying points are so obvious they need little elaboration.

 

maybe. which i guess means the coaches that don't see the big deal about the change in team scoring are just incredibly dim witted. how can they not see how stupid and gimmicky and bad for wrestling a change to the team scoring system would be?

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...