Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wrestle09

Cael's Blog(our own worst enemy)

Recommended Posts

 

Nice dodge? I brought this up when you made your ridiculous analogy and you never responded.

 

I made no analogy, I asked a question. I predicted no one would be able to give an answer other than that this is the first time in the annals of sport, any sport, where this has been proposed.

 

You and Jason have responded, and neither of you have been able to come up with a single instance where in any sport at any time they have gone to a system like this. Wanna try again?

 

Please tell us all where they have tried this before?

 

Funny, you've been a asked many questions which you don't answer yet firmly expect the courtesy to be paid to you. All good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennis and Fencing are the only two sports that I can think of, at the moment, where two athletes compete head to head and there is a winner (outside of competing against a time or score). I believe fencing uses a round robin system and tennis uses duals.

 

I would be very curious what tennis coaches and fencing coaches would say if we proposed they adopt our system of determining a team champion where you compete as individuals in an advancement tournament and those are the only ways you earn points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Funny, you've been a asked many questions which you don't answer yet firmly expect the courtesy to be paid to you. All good.

 

nom, a few questions were asked of me at a time when those threads had seriously deteriorated and they were no longer a discussion, but more like mudslinging. I'm not going to converse when it is no longer a conversation.

 

Jason, I would accept it if you or anyone could show me a sport where they have tried anything close to this. I stand by my prior assertion that no one would be able to come up with one.

 

Pinnum, NCAA Tennis isn't it. NCAA Tennis is a team v. team, or duals, championship. It is not a hybrid championship that the proposal would call for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Funny, you've been a asked many questions which you don't answer yet firmly expect the courtesy to be paid to you. All good.

 

nom, a few questions were asked of me at a time when those threads had seriously deteriorated and they were no longer a discussion, but more like mudslinging. I'm not going to converse when it is no longer a conversation.

 

Jason, I would accept it if you or anyone could show me a sport where they have tried anything close to this. I stand by my prior assertion that no one would be able to come up with one.

 

Pinnum, NCAA Tennis isn't it. NCAA Tennis is a team v. team, or duals, championship. It is not a hybrid championship that the proposal would call for.

 

 

TBar - please try to read what people write without knee jerk reacting against the point. Shows you lack an open mind and instead are not open to actual debate. You just want to argue your point and not listen to others. Reread pinnum's post. He clearly knows what you are saying and is pointing out that the folks in tennis would think our approach would not be welcome in their sport.

 

I'll repeat - our current approach is unique. You seem to think a different unique approach would be bad due to being unique. I guess out current approach is bad too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this ... why don't you find how the other 89 NCAA sports run their championships. Maybe the NAIA or NJCAA.

 

To my knowledge, wrestling is the only sport that acts the way it does. A first-place team could conceivably not meet the second-place team in any matches, yet the second-place team could have more champs and more total all-americans. How is that a measure of a "team" without actually facing the teams you're allegedly beating?

 

I think there was one Beast of the East where Blair beat St. Eds, but the two teams only had individual matchups in one or two places out of the 14 weight classes.

 

And aren't tournaments MORE about matchups than duals? In duals, you have one questionable matchup that could throw things out the door, in tournaments, you have hundreds.

 

I like our system right now, but I still think the dual encapsulates what's great about sports ... just like March Madness captures what's awesome about college basketball. What fun is a sport if "any given day" scenarios are scoffed at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this ... why don't you find how the other 89 NCAA sports run their championships. Maybe the NAIA or NJCAA.

 

To my knowledge, wrestling is the only sport that acts the way it does. A first-place team could conceivably not meet the second-place team in any matches, yet the second-place team could have more champs and more total all-americans. How is that a measure of a "team" without actually facing the teams you're allegedly beating?

 

I think there was one Beast of the East where Blair beat St. Eds, but the two teams only had individual matchups in one or two places out of the 14 weight classes.

 

And aren't tournaments MORE about matchups than duals? In duals, you have one questionable matchup that could throw things out the door, in tournaments, you have hundreds.

 

I like our system right now, but I still think the dual encapsulates what's great about sports ... just like March Madness captures what's awesome about college basketball. What fun is a sport if "any given day" scenarios are scoffed at?

 

Tell me you're kidding. I don't follow all sports but all of the individual (as opposed to "team" sports like football) sports that I know of decide their champion the same way wrestling does and NOT by head to head competitions against other schools. Track, Cross Country, Swimming, Golf, Gymnastics, Fencing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this ... why don't you find how the other 89 NCAA sports run their championships. Maybe the NAIA or NJCAA.

 

To my knowledge, wrestling is the only sport that acts the way it does. A first-place team could conceivably not meet the second-place team in any matches, yet the second-place team could have more champs and more total all-americans. How is that a measure of a "team" without actually facing the teams you're allegedly beating?

 

I think there was one Beast of the East where Blair beat St. Eds, but the two teams only had individual matchups in one or two places out of the 14 weight classes.

 

And aren't tournaments MORE about matchups than duals? In duals, you have one questionable matchup that could throw things out the door, in tournaments, you have hundreds.

 

I like our system right now, but I still think the dual encapsulates what's great about sports ... just like March Madness captures what's awesome about college basketball. What fun is a sport if "any given day" scenarios are scoffed at?

 

Knock it off.

PSU may lose a dual or two but until they lose the NCAA's then the rules are fine.

 

Remember last year when Dake scored the standing reversal and the PSU faithful demanded a rule change??

Two weeks ago when McCormick blew the 149 pound match by calling a rule from two years ago??

No way PSU would lose without all of these dumb rules and calls.

 

JRob is just a blabbermouth coach who is a flash in the pan. It isn't like he has done anything for the sport in the past 30+ years. *Sarcasm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you guys can see how absurd all the demands TBar is placing on the rest of us ...

 

I'm actually using the same argument, almost verbatim another fan used to defend a ranking of a team who shall be unnamed.

 

My statement is completely ridiculous and that's by design. It show how moronic this is ... Rules are fine, tournament is fine, claiming only one way is right is not fine.

 

Wrestle09 figured it out. There are some legit examples but the reaction illustrates the point I was trying to make.

 

By the way there have been dozens of scoring rules to the NCAA tournament in the last 80 years.

 

And for the record -- I don't care who wins the national championship or how they do it or where they do it. Penn State could win 50 in a row. Iowa could win the next 100. Makes zero difference to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this ... why don't you find how the other 89 NCAA sports run their championships. Maybe the NAIA or NJCAA.

 

To my knowledge, wrestling is the only sport that acts the way it does. A first-place team could conceivably not meet the second-place team in any matches, yet the second-place team could have more champs and more total all-americans. How is that a measure of a "team" without actually facing the teams you're allegedly beating?

 

I think there was one Beast of the East where Blair beat St. Eds, but the two teams only had individual matchups in one or two places out of the 14 weight classes.

 

And aren't tournaments MORE about matchups than duals? In duals, you have one questionable matchup that could throw things out the door, in tournaments, you have hundreds.

 

I like our system right now, but I still think the dual encapsulates what's great about sports ... just like March Madness captures what's awesome about college basketball. What fun is a sport if "any given day" scenarios are scoffed at?

 

 

Jason, there are 11 sports in the NCAA that are essentially "individual" sports, and 8 of them decide their championship in a "tournament" format. Wrestling is one of those 8 individual sports.

 

Only golf, tennis, and women's bowling are exceptions to this rule where they decide their championships based on a true team vs. team competition.

 

You are reaching with this last one, Jason, and I stand by my assertion that there is no sport that uses a hybrid system anything close to what the NWCA has proposed. None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you guys can see how absurd all the demands TBar is placing on the rest of us ...

 

I'm actually using the same argument, almost verbatim another fan used to defend a ranking of a team who shall be unnamed.

 

My statement is completely ridiculous and that's by design. It show how moronic this is ... Rules are fine, tournament is fine, claiming only one way is right is not fine.

 

Wrestle09 figured it out. There are some legit examples but the reaction illustrates the point I was trying to make.

 

By the way there have been dozens of scoring rules to the NCAA tournament in the last 80 years.

 

And for the record -- I don't care who wins the national championship or how they do it or where they do it. Penn State could win 50 in a row. Iowa could win the next 100. Makes zero difference to me.

 

 

I asked a simple question, Jason. What sport at any time in history has ever decided their championship based on separate competitions, each scored differently, with points carrying over from one to the next. That seems to me to be a pretty good question, since if wrestling were to actually adopt this proposal this is exactly what wrestling would be doing.

 

The fact is that there is no track record of ever ever doing anything like this. Not in wrestling, and not in any other sport either. Seems to me there is some very real risk that this will not pan out, and why take such risk when the Championship is already a hit? Makes no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong answer. AGAIN, I am not FOR a hybrid championship. I'm not defending the point or the proposal.

 

Because it's never been done before means it's a bad idea? And what happens if it happens and it does't pan out? Someone finishes 8th instead of 7th? The power teams aren't going to be impacted by this, because they're still going to be the same teams at the top. The NCAA only gives out four trophies. American, while 5th, didn't get a trophy. Arizona State didn't get a trophy.

 

There was also some very real risk with the qualifier system. That had never been done before the way wrestling did it, right?

 

I'm not saying this proposal is right, because I don't agree with it. I've made that abundantly clear, so I'm not defending a proposal. I do find it comical the people ready to shoot this idea down are defending the Campbell's of the wrestling world when they have absolutely zero interest in how that program does from November to February.

 

The whole thing about the tournament not changing in 80 years is also bunk. How about during the Olympic years in the past where the NCAA championship was freestyle? The alteration of how team points were scored with 3/4 points, etc.? There have been a number of changes to the championship over the years.

 

I don't advocate for hybrid scoring, but I'm willing to entertain options that will benefit every program. I still don't believe a team going 2-14 in duals and putting two guys on the podium is the 18th best "team" in the country.

 

I believe there was one instance in Division III (which I cannot verify, due to records not being great online) where ONE athlete won 5 individual events and won the NCAA track and field championship. In that case, there is an "I" in team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, NASCAR is similar Tbar - not the same but similar.

 

I am trying to answer your question though - it would be unique. There. Question answered. Is that a bad thing?

 

But you aren't answering my simple question.

 

What sport at any time in history has a double elimination championship, with multiple means to earn points for the team with varying amounts (e.g., championship advancement, wrestle backs, major, tech, pin, placement points), but not all members of the team compete (sometimes only 1) in the championship, which occurs over a 3 day period with weigh ins every day, where individuals qualify via a complicated system of on season qualifications with coach rankings, RPI rankings and records and then having qualifying slots assigned to conferences and then conference tournaments where people 'earn' a spot even when sometimes they don't even have to compete and can get qualified anyway?

 

I propose that what we do today is unique as well. Would you agree? Is that a bad thing?

 

Just realized, I've asked more than one question -- but they are all simple. Hoping you can take the time to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this ... why don't you find how the other 89 NCAA sports run their championships. Maybe the NAIA or NJCAA.

 

To my knowledge, wrestling is the only sport that acts the way it does. A first-place team could conceivably not meet the second-place team in any matches, yet the second-place team could have more champs and more total all-americans. How is that a measure of a "team" without actually facing the teams you're allegedly beating?

 

I think there was one Beast of the East where Blair beat St. Eds, but the two teams only had individual matchups in one or two places out of the 14 weight classes.

 

And aren't tournaments MORE about matchups than duals? In duals, you have one questionable matchup that could throw things out the door, in tournaments, you have hundreds.

 

I like our system right now, but I still think the dual encapsulates what's great about sports ... just like March Madness captures what's awesome about college basketball. What fun is a sport if "any given day" scenarios are scoffed at?

 

 

Jason, there are 11 sports in the NCAA that are essentially "individual" sports, and 8 of them decide their championship in a "tournament" format. Wrestling is one of those 8 individual sports.

 

Only golf, tennis, and women's bowling are exceptions to this rule where they decide their championships based on a true team vs. team competition.

 

You are reaching with this last one, Jason, and I stand by my assertion that there is no sport that uses a hybrid system anything close to what the NWCA has proposed. None.

 

How many of those individual sports have athletes compete one on one rather than competing against a time, height, distance, or score? Fencing and Tennis, as I stated, are the only two I can think of and neither use a line-advancing tournament of individuals to determine their team champion.

 

But that is besides the point. We have three solutions and one of them is the status quo which many people believe is not a good option. So there was a debate about moving the championship to duals and there was a fear by some that it could hurt the individual tournament so the new proposal has been made.

 

I really do wonder what Tennis and Fencing would think if they were given the three proposals we have as options. I don't think they would choose to decide their team title in the manner we determine ours.

 

But each sport is unique so I wouldn't discount the hybrid model just because it is different. I have heard many people say duals and tournaments should both be taken into consideration and there is a divide between those that prefer duals to those that prefer tournaments.

 

The crutch of this issue, with most people, without an interest in how it will personally effect their team has been whether or not any of these changes can hurt the national championships attendance or inhibit the exposure the sport gets through the championship. Most people seem to think it will not, while a minority, of which you are a part, do see it as a real risk. And there is always a possibility you are right. But personally, I don't see our limited numbers of fans that follow wrestling not following wrestling if the change is made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe there was one instance in Division III (which I cannot verify, due to records not being great online) where ONE athlete won 5 individual events and won the NCAA track and field championship. In that case, there is an "I" in team.

 

This also happened in Texas at the high school level where one female athlete won a state team title for a school that never had a track or a track team prior to her competing. She went on to Texas A&M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you guys can see how absurd all the demands TBar is placing on the rest of us ...

 

I'm actually using the same argument, almost verbatim another fan used to defend a ranking of a team who shall be unnamed.

 

My statement is completely ridiculous and that's by design. It show how moronic this is ... Rules are fine, tournament is fine, claiming only one way is right is not fine.

 

Wrestle09 figured it out. There are some legit examples but the reaction illustrates the point I was trying to make.

 

By the way there have been dozens of scoring rules to the NCAA tournament in the last 80 years.

 

And for the record -- I don't care who wins the national championship or how they do it or where they do it. Penn State could win 50 in a row. Iowa could win the next 100. Makes zero difference to me.

 

 

I asked a simple question, Jason. What sport at any time in history has ever decided their championship based on separate competitions, each scored differently, with points carrying over from one to the next. That seems to me to be a pretty good question, since if wrestling were to actually adopt this proposal this is exactly what wrestling would be doing.

 

The fact is that there is no track record of ever ever doing anything like this. Not in wrestling, and not in any other sport either. Seems to me there is some very real risk that this will not pan out, and why take such risk when the Championship is already a hit? Makes no sense to me.

 

Actually, most motorsports pretty much do just that, except the competitions are scored more or less the same. NASCAR gimmicked up its format this year to include a winner take all elimination component but traditionally this is how motorsports determine their championships. The primary distinction in motorsports, however, is that all the competitors compete directly against each other week in and week out.

 

Also, some skiing events decide each competition with a hybrid format - downhill/slalom (downhil time carries over to the slalom) combined and nordic combined (combination of two very disciplines - cross country skiiing and ski jumping), for example.

 

Sports that offer an "all around" component do it - rodeo and gymnastics, for example.

 

I'm not arguing it is the best way to do things but it's not totally unprecedented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, thank you for at least answering the question and not making it personal. Seriously, no joke. Thanks.

 

nom, you are absolutely correct that the way we do things currently is unique. However, it has worked that way, and worked well insofar as the Championship is concerned, for decades.

 

And for all of those who are equating the proposal to motor sports, I think motor sports are the closest analogy to the proposal. Still, the way motor sports works they award points for every race except a couple of all star races. Golf does the same thing with the Fed Ex Cup, which was designed to resemble the NASCAR Nextel Cup.

 

Although similar, I think to make wrestling work in an equivalent way to motor sports you'd have to award points for every dual meet, not just for one event. Minnesota would have gotten more points than Penn State for having beaten them, and Penn State would have gotten more points for having beaten Iowa ...etc. That would make every dual count the way NASCAR likes to promote "every race counts."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is proposing to make it like motor sports.

 

We have a unique approach today. The proposal would also be unique. You made it sound like using a unique approach is bad in and of itself. I think we can agree that unique is not by definition bad.

 

Thus, we are back to whether there is significant likelihood that the proposal will:

 

1. Increase the popularity of college wrestling

2. Decrease the popularity of college wrestling

 

How would it increase the popularity? Here are the potentials ...

- Create a new marque event in college wrestling

- Get on ESPN or some other TV network

- Increase the importance of certain duals and thus increase the fan base excitement for the duals

- If large enough, invites to more teams that typically are well outside the top 10, thus getting recognition for those teams

- Allow a true national dual champion that can be trumpeted, as well as placement by other teams

- Dual match ups result in some underdog teams going far, getting great press for the team and a lot of buzz amongst fans

 

[others can add]

 

How would it decrease popularity? Here are the potentials …

- Logistics / season disruption cause a disjointed fan experience for teams not attending duals

- Presence of national duals prevents certain big rivalry duals on campus

- Frustration builds at too many marque events and too many injuries

- There is a distaste for point carryover that turns people away from the end of year tournament which is THE most important event we have today

 

[others can add]

 

Would love to make a good complete listing that can be thoroughly discussed rather than these one off spit balls that get thrown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hurricane, yea. I should have said he is screaming 'the sky will fall!' - referring to the incredible threat to college wrestling if the proposal is adopted. He clearly expects college wrestling will fail in short time after that based on the title of the piece he quotes from. I'd say he is projecting unrealistic risk here. Don't you?

I don't think the title of the book necessarily indicates that he expects college wrestling to fail in short time if the championship format is changed. However, I do believe he uses excerpts from the book to argue that adopting the current hybrid scoring proposal could pose a risk to the long-term popularity of college wrestling.

 

Do you, Hurricane, expect wrestling to fail if proposal is adopted?

No, however, I'm not convinced that adopting a hybrid scoring proposal is a good solution to the problems faced by college wrestling.

 

Do you believe that the proposal is unchangeable, unadaptable based on actual results post adoption?

I'd assume that any proposal an organization adopts could later be changed or adapted in some manner. But that's not a necessarily a compelling argument for adopting a hybrid scoring system, IMO.

 

Do you feel that any changes /adaptations won't be done before wrestling fails?

I'm not convinced that college wrestling will inevitably fail. However, that doesn't mean

I'm not concerned with the loss of college wrestling programs or that we shouldn't attempt changes/adaptations that would strengthen the sport.

 

I do like his last statement you quoted. But it implies folks aren't being objective already. I think JRob and Koll and others are being objective. What evidence is there to say they are not?

Well, the definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" and one of its synonyms is "disinterested." Therefore, in my opinion, it's unlikely that any of the major players - whichever side they take - meet that definition. However, I will say that I believe Cael and J. Rob are well-intentioned and both make good points concerning the issues under discussion.

 

As regards my position, I think there's a need for a lot less demonizing of the opposition (which has occurred on both sides) and a lot more work on better defining the problem and identifying it's root causes.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nom,

 

Since I've answered your questions, here's a few I have for you along the lines of the increasing dual meet attendance discussion:

 

1) Do we have reliable data to establish a baseline and identify trends with regard to dual meet attendance? (I've heard conflicting reports and the only data I've seen suggests its increasing, but that data is incomplete.)

 

2) If we don't have such data, why not? (It seems to me that, if we're attempting to improve dual attendance, we'd want to have historical data to see where we stand, determine which direction we're heading in, and analyze why we're trending that way.)

 

3) Do you think the factors I mentioned in # 2 above are important or do you believe we should simply implement change without considering them? (Or, alternately, do you think they are important, but the situation is so dire we don't have time to consider them?)

 

4) When you hear individuals say "all that matters is March," do you automatically take them literally?

Or, do you think that phrase is often just a defense mechanism (to deal with a loss) and/or a means to focus/refocus on the future because the season hasn't yet concluded?

.

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...