Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Flying-Tiger

Team Championship Changes?

Recommended Posts

In my post you were responding to, I said based upon the lack of ticket sales, the lack of attendance and the lack of TV viewers (I am guessing because I have no idea what the BTN got for their coverage of the dual semi-final and final matches) I do not believe the Dual tournament is getting a whole lot of consideration.

 

Without reading backwards, i assume you are referring to my post about the necessary gimmicky the dual tournament proposal uses in an effort to force all programs to participate. I will stick with my opinion that if you need to gimmick the thing up attempting to give it validity, that screams it is without the necessary self-support to stand on its own feet.

 

i dont understand the fixation on the NWCA Dual Tournament. the interest in that tournament will not tell you what the interest in a dual meet NCAA championship tournament will be. to assume it would would be the same as looking at the interest in the scuffle or midlands or CKLV and then saying we should cancel the NCAA tournament because there will the same amount of interest and its not enough to cover the costs.

 

i also still dont understand your point that tying the team championship to a dual meet tournament is a gimmick to make all the teams show up. i mean, sure, call it a gimmick if you want, but thats like saying the NCAA awarding the team title to the winner of the basketball tournament is just a gimmick to force all the teams to attend that tournament rather than the NIT, and therefore the basektball tournament can not stand on its own feet. if it wasn't for the gimmicky lombardi trophy, no teams would show up for the super bowl.

Perfectly well said. I couldn't have said it better.

 

Only one thing, that I fixed in the quote...it's the NWCA National Duals, not NCWA. The NCWA is a totally separate organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, my opinions are opinions. I do not like the idea of the dual tournament determining the team champion. That is my opinion. From a math point of view - the current model using many more data points is much more accurate than a dual format (with many fewer data points) is not an opinion. It is mathematical fact.

 

likewise, a round robin is a mathematically "better" way to determine an individual champion than a tournament. but we all seem to be able to accept a little less accuracy in determining who the best is in that regard.

 

Where does this talking point about "mathematically better" come from? Collegiate wrestling, like any other sport, is a set of arbitrary rules designed to make the sport into something that wrestlers want to do, and that wrestling fans want to see. Did the rules change last year to allow the "Oliver takedown" because it empirically represented "control?" No. The rules changed because that's what everyone thought was best for the sport.

 

Because of how round robin works, John Smith won his 2nd (?) Olympic Gold even though he suffered a loss in his pool play. People would flip out if David Taylor did that this year. Even though round robin has a better chance of picking the best wrestler than a true bracket, we still stick with true brackets because that's what we think is best for the sport.

 

If we as the diehard fans push the coaches and administrators to get on board with a "March Madness of Wrestling" type system, it will work because it will be easier for casual fans to watch, easier for networks to promote. Also, the 16,000 people who go to the 3-day NCAA Championship will probably still go to the Dual tournament if it's the only game in town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because there are more matches doesn't mean the data is any better, the tournament is still dependent on previous matches so it isn't like a round robin.

 

But if you are looking to ensure that only the most consistent results then we should propose a round robin format.

Like you said, Pinnum. If that were the case, then somebody out there would be clamoring for us to determine our individual champions based on the Dual Impact Index presented by the National Collegiate Open. Even the people who look at that ranking religiously find that idea preposterous, including its owner and operator!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the 16,000 people who go to the 3-day NCAA Championship will probably still go to the Dual tournament if it's the only game in town.

 

I actually think the fans will travel to the individual event. Contrary to what many people have said, I don't think people actually go to the NCAAs for the team race. I anticipate the individual tournament being the big draw for attendance but the duals being the big draw on TV. However, I would anticipate attendance for the finals being great for the duals once it becomes established and made into a festival event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the 16,000 people who go to the 3-day NCAA Championship will probably still go to the Dual tournament if it's the only game in town.

 

I actually think the fans will travel to the individual event. Contrary to what many people have said, I don't think people actually go to the NCAAs for the team race. I anticipate the individual tournament being the big draw for attendance but the duals being the big draw on TV. However, I would anticipate attendance for the finals being great for the duals once it becomes established and made into a festival event.

Besides, as best as I know, the suggestion on the table is for the hybrid model, not the dual-only model. I can't help but think that, 20 years from now, sports like track & field (both indoor and outdoor), swimming & diving, and tennis will be looking at their situations, thinking "why the heck didn't we think to do what wrestling does", and tennis would be coming from the opposite direction.

 

If Air Force no longer being in first place on Thursday morning is that offensive to you, I'm sorry, but we aren't going to agree on very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does this talking point about "mathematically better" come from? Collegiate wrestling, like any other sport, is a set of arbitrary rules designed to make the sport into something that wrestlers want to do, and that wrestling fans want to see. Did the rules change last year to allow the "Oliver takedown" because it empirically represented "control?" No. The rules changed because that's what everyone thought was best for the sport.

 

Because of how round robin works, John Smith won his 2nd (?) Olympic Gold even though he suffered a loss in his pool play. People would flip out if David Taylor did that this year. Even though round robin has a better chance of picking the best wrestler than a true bracket, we still stick with true brackets because that's what we think is best for the sport.

 

If we as the diehard fans push the coaches and administrators to get on board with a "March Madness of Wrestling" type system, it will work because it will be easier for casual fans to watch, easier for networks to promote. Also, the 16,000 people who go to the 3-day NCAA Championship will probably still go to the Dual tournament if it's the only game in town.

 

i agree with you, hence the scare quotes around "better". i think of all the rules changes and scheduling and tournament formats as dials on a fancy hi-fi stereo that we should be constantly tweaking to produce the optimal output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the current model wrestled out in front of 16, 17, 18 or 20,000 fans and half a million more on TV is a much better way for college wrestling to crown a team champion than to wrestle our team championship in front of 2,500 fans with maybe 50,000 more watching on TV. That is an opinion.

Your opinion being the NCAA tournament format is the best way to determine a team champion is your opinion. In your opinion, the result of an individual tournament point scoring system is the accurate way to determine a team championship. Your determination of accuracy is still a reflection of your opinion. I will agree that any sample size that has more data size, is more likely to create a consistent result time after time so I understand what you are trying to say, but you are still just using the data set to reinforce your opinion.

 

My opinion is that the current NCAA tournament is not the best or most accurate way to determine a team champion. Your opinion disagrees with mine. That is fine. As both of ours are merely opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the 16,000 people who go to the 3-day NCAA Championship will probably still go to the Dual tournament if it's the only game in town.

 

I actually think the fans will travel to the individual event. Contrary to what many people have said, I don't think people actually go to the NCAAs for the team race. I anticipate the individual tournament being the big draw for attendance but the duals being the big draw on TV. However, I would anticipate attendance for the finals being great for the duals once it becomes established and made into a festival event.

Besides, as best as I know, the suggestion on the table is for the hybrid model, not the dual-only model. I can't help but think that, 20 years from now, sports like track & field (both indoor and outdoor), swimming & diving, and tennis will be looking at their situations, thinking "why the heck didn't we think to do what wrestling does", and tennis would be coming from the opposite direction.

 

If Air Force no longer being in first place on Thursday morning is that offensive to you, I'm sorry, but we aren't going to agree on very much.

 

You make a great point! That could likely save a lot of men's track programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my post you were responding to, I said based upon the lack of ticket sales, the lack of attendance and the lack of TV viewers (I am guessing because I have no idea what the BTN got for their coverage of the dual semi-final and final matches) I do not believe the Dual tournament is getting a whole lot of consideration.

 

Without reading backwards, i assume you are referring to my post about the necessary gimmicky the dual tournament proposal uses in an effort to force all programs to participate. I will stick with my opinion that if you need to gimmick the thing up attempting to give it validity, that screams it is without the necessary self-support to stand on its own feet.

 

i dont understand the fixation on the NCWA Dual Tournament. the interest in that tournament will not tell you what the interest in a dual meet NCAA championship tournament will be. to assume it would would be the same as looking at the interest in the scuffle or midlands or CKLV and then saying we should cancel the NCAA tournament because there will the same amount of interest and its not enough to cover the costs.

 

That is the model we have to work with, as well as other state dual tournaments. I am unfamilar with other state's and the fan support their dual tournament receives. Because of the popularity of wrestling in PA I believe the state is a good barometer. The PIAA tournament receives great fan support, the dual tournament not at all. Not even when Central Daulphin (the high school is about a 15 minute drive from the Hershey Giant Center) was wrestling in the championships with their great teams. The difference between the PIAA and the NCAA is the PIAA allows team champions in both tournaments, the NCAA has said either or.

 

i also still dont understand your point that tying the team championship to a dual meet tournament is a gimmick to make all the teams show up. i mean, sure, call it a gimmick if you want, but thats like saying the NCAA awarding the team title to the winner of the basketball tournament is just a gimmick to force all the teams to attend that tournament rather than the NIT, and therefore the basektball tournament can not stand on its own feet. if it wasn't for the gimmicky lombardi trophy, no teams would show up for the super bowl.

The comparison between the dual tournament placers carrying points from the dual tournament to the Championship tournament, and the NCAA giving the basketball March madness winner a trophy is a really weak analogy. I am also certain you realize that.

 

A more accurate analogy would be to have a H-O-R-S-E competition, and to ensure participation depending on how you place in the H-O-R-S-E competition you will begin every NCAA Championship Basketball game up or down so many points. The argument would be, more TV exposure for basketball. Try flying that through the basketball committee.

 

As far as the Lombardi Trophy and teams showing up for the NFL Championship Game (or Super Bowl). Since the NFL-AFL championship game was played before they came up with the Lombardi Trophy idea and the teams did show up. Oh nevermind.

 

When you get to the point that you need to make ridiculous, and even incorrect statements to support your point - you have no points to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Semi-recently my state tried that "only crowning individual champs at the state tournament" method but it didn't work and nobody liked it. People just asked about who won the "unofficial" team championships instead of the dual championships. After a few years they went back to the system that worked for 50+ years.

In addition to the state tournament championship, Virginia also instituted a dual championship in 1980. However, they didn't discontinue scoring the state tournament and the winner was still recognized as the state team champion. The winner of the dual championship was recognized as the state dual team champion. (In short, they had what the NCAA says it can't have - two team champions.)

 

However, the dual championship was discontinued after seven years. I wasn't following Virginia high school wrestling closely in that era, so I'm not aware of the circumstances. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the dual championship wasn't nearly as popular as the traditional state tournament.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the current model wrestled out in front of 16, 17, 18 or 20,000 fans and half a million more on TV is a much better way for college wrestling to crown a team champion than to wrestle our team championship in front of 2,500 fans with maybe 50,000 more watching on TV. That is an opinion.

 

if penn state was in the dual meet finals, only 2,500 people would show up? only 50,000 would watch on tv? sorry, that's not a reasonable assumption.

 

You guys think Penn State is the magical answer and if only Cael would come out and play everything would magically be better.

 

If the dual tournament is held in Columbus, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City or anywhere not in Iowa or State College PA - yeah. 2,500 show up. If Penn State wrestles in the championship, due to PA's population and the size of Penn State's Alumni Association, the TV numbers probably get a bump but it is not going to be exponential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my post you were responding to, I said based upon the lack of ticket sales, the lack of attendance and the lack of TV viewers (I am guessing because I have no idea what the BTN got for their coverage of the dual semi-final and final matches) I do not believe the Dual tournament is getting a whole lot of consideration.

 

Without reading backwards, i assume you are referring to my post about the necessary gimmicky the dual tournament proposal uses in an effort to force all programs to participate. I will stick with my opinion that if you need to gimmick the thing up attempting to give it validity, that screams it is without the necessary self-support to stand on its own feet.

 

i dont understand the fixation on the NWCA Dual Tournament. the interest in that tournament will not tell you what the interest in a dual meet NCAA championship tournament will be. to assume it would would be the same as looking at the interest in the scuffle or midlands or CKLV and then saying we should cancel the NCAA tournament because there will the same amount of interest and its not enough to cover the costs.

 

i also still dont understand your point that tying the team championship to a dual meet tournament is a gimmick to make all the teams show up. i mean, sure, call it a gimmick if you want, but thats like saying the NCAA awarding the team title to the winner of the basketball tournament is just a gimmick to force all the teams to attend that tournament rather than the NIT, and therefore the basektball tournament can not stand on its own feet. if it wasn't for the gimmicky lombardi trophy, no teams would show up for the super bowl.

Perfectly well said. I couldn't have said it better.

 

Only one thing, that I fixed in the quote...it's the NWCA National Duals, not NCWA. The NCWA is a totally separate organization.

 

Good Lord Pirate, I would hope you could do better. While Jaroslav almost always posts something that is articulate and easy to follow as far as making a point, this particular post was a bit more than a desperate reach to make a point that is not available to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the current model wrestled out in front of 16, 17, 18 or 20,000 fans and half a million more on TV is a much better way for college wrestling to crown a team champion than to wrestle our team championship in front of 2,500 fans with maybe 50,000 more watching on TV. That is an opinion.

Your opinion being the NCAA tournament format is the best way to determine a team champion is your opinion. In your opinion, the result of an individual tournament point scoring system is the accurate way to determine a team championship. Your determination of accuracy is still a reflection of your opinion. I will agree that any sample size that has more data size, is more likely to create a consistent result time after time so I understand what you are trying to say, but you are still just using the data set to reinforce your opinion.

 

My opinion is that the current NCAA tournament is not the best or most accurate way to determine a team champion. Your opinion disagrees with mine. That is fine. As both of ours are merely opinions.

 

You for what I can only guess is a complete inability to grasp the point continue to argue the difference between opinion and fact.

Fact = current model more accurate in determining best team.

opinion = i like current system better than proposed dual involvement.

opinion = you believe you would like the dual format better. you even believe it is a better way to crown a team champion.

opinion = i do not believe the dual format is a better format.

 

Done discussing this point the difference between fact and opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you get to the point that you need to make ridiculous, and even incorrect statements to support your point - you have no points to make.

 

when you start treading perilously close to rank ad hominems, i think we can say neither one of us have much to gain by continuing the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the current model wrestled out in front of 16, 17, 18 or 20,000 fans and half a million more on TV is a much better way for college wrestling to crown a team champion than to wrestle our team championship in front of 2,500 fans with maybe 50,000 more watching on TV. That is an opinion.

Your opinion being the NCAA tournament format is the best way to determine a team champion is your opinion. In your opinion, the result of an individual tournament point scoring system is the accurate way to determine a team championship. Your determination of accuracy is still a reflection of your opinion. I will agree that any sample size that has more data size, is more likely to create a consistent result time after time so I understand what you are trying to say, but you are still just using the data set to reinforce your opinion.

 

My opinion is that the current NCAA tournament is not the best or most accurate way to determine a team champion. Your opinion disagrees with mine. That is fine. As both of ours are merely opinions.

 

You for what I can only guess is a complete inability to grasp the point continue to argue the difference between opinion and fact.

Fact = current model more accurate in determining best team.

opinion = i like current system better than proposed dual involvement.

opinion = you believe you would like the dual format better. you even believe it is a better way to crown a team champion.

opinion = i do not believe the dual format is a better format.

 

Done discussing this point the difference between fact and opinion.

 

Facts are something that can be proven true or false. Where is your supporting data that can either prove what you say to be true or false? Note: you saying it is more accurate is not supporting data. I can't prove what you say to be true, nor can I prove it to be false. Sounds like you are stating an opinion that the current format is the most accurate way to determine the best team. If it is only the number of data sets that most accurately determines a best team then shouldn't we adopt a hybrid format? Cuz that would compile the current data sets PLUS the additional data sets that the duals would offer!!!!!! Hmmm sounds like that would be the most accurate way to determine a champion because it would have the most data sets! Fact.... oh wait that is still just ones opinion, my bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The PIAA tournament receives great fan support, the dual tournament not at all.

 

This is very true, but what does it tell us? The NCAA tournament sells out, and the US Open doesn't - does that mean that the tournament format is the problem, or is it more to do with the fan bases?

 

We can't expect the audience at one level of the sport to resemble the audience at another level of the sport. For example, the fan base for Central Dauphin is pretty much limited to one half of the Central Dauphin school district, whereas the fan base for PSU is much larger.

 

If the national championship were awarded to teams for winning in a dual meet tournament, do we think that fewer fans would watch?

 

If there were no team trophy handed out at the individual tournament, do we think that fewer fans would watch?

 

If the answer is that the same number of people would watch, then why not have both events? ESPN would like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always believed that tournaments are won with your best kids, but dual meats are won by the best team. Many times duals come down to two kids who won't even qualify for the national tournament. So you need to decide what you want your national champion team to be about, several really outstanding individuals, or ten strong kids? Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do people think that a dual tourney would draw a big crowd? I would only watch other teams compete for individual matchups. I dvr a lot of Big 10 duals and fast forward to the individual matchups I want to see. I could care less seeing Penn State dominate some average/above team.

 

That is the greatest thing about the NCAA tourney the way it is. My school might not have anybody competing, but to see Perry vs Howe or Delgado vs Mega I would watch. Not sure I would go to a dual tourney unless my team was real good or it was close to home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. After watching NCAA wrestling for a long time (I'm 68) I think we may be getting the regular season confused with the "big dance." Who would want the regular season composed of nothing but a lot of centralized Midlands, Scuffles, CKLV type tournaments every weekend for 3 months? Of course duals make more sense. Duals decentralize and spread it all out and provide an easy answer for fans. No question duals are simpler and easier to watch with just four numbers, 6-5-4-3, one mat and two teams. But the end-of-season transition back to centralization--conference qualifiers and then the NCAA meet-- is supported by an awful lot of tradition. I don't know if the timing is right for a big move to a dual meet formatted team title and two tournaments.

 

Too many people like the individual bracket system; way easier to figure out and "see ahead" compared to the now practically obsolete, opaque, round robin method even though it's more thorough. I also think fans like the idea of killing 2 birds with 1 stone, team and individual honors under one roof over 3 days. Going the high school route with two tournaments is ok for them since sub-state qualification decimates much of the team balance, leaving only a nucleus of the best performers. So they need to go to a dual format if a truer balance picture is needed. But the best teams of the NCAA have all or close to all of their lineup intact after the qualifiers. In my estimation, all the NCAA tournament really needs is a less top heavy scoring system to allow team balance more credence; in effect, punishing good teams for "failing" to have gold medals while over rewarding a "team" with a powerful few but lacking lots of AAs.

 

IMO the general answer isn't a dual format or smoke out of tunnels or flower arrangements around the mat or coaches in 3-piece suits. If we really want to market this sport we need to go all out to remove stalling with well-defined rules obvious to the eye, like taking a knee (marriage proposal) for 3 seconds, and all kinds of other tricks for eating up the clock with no intention of actually trying to score until it's too late. This is resting not wrestling and it frustrates the hell out of fans.

 

Nothing changes if nothing changes. Meantime keep an eye on FILA's success or failure with their "new rules."

When pushed to the brink wrestling was forced into changes. If FILA succeeds the NCAA may have to copy some of what they're doing whether we like it or not, especially if it makes every wrestler stay in the middle and shoot for real!

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my post you were responding to, I said based upon the lack of ticket sales, the lack of attendance and the lack of TV viewers (I am guessing because I have no idea what the BTN got for their coverage of the dual semi-final and final matches) I do not believe the Dual tournament is getting a whole lot of consideration.

 

Without reading backwards, i assume you are referring to my post about the necessary gimmicky the dual tournament proposal uses in an effort to force all programs to participate. I will stick with my opinion that if you need to gimmick the thing up attempting to give it validity, that screams it is without the necessary self-support to stand on its own feet.

 

i dont understand the fixation on the NCWA Dual Tournament. the interest in that tournament will not tell you what the interest in a dual meet NCAA championship tournament will be. to assume it would would be the same as looking at the interest in the scuffle or midlands or CKLV and then saying we should cancel the NCAA tournament because there will the same amount of interest and its not enough to cover the costs.

 

i also still dont understand your point that tying the team championship to a dual meet tournament is a gimmick to make all the teams show up. i mean, sure, call it a gimmick if you want, but thats like saying the NCAA awarding the team title to the winner of the basketball tournament is just a gimmick to force all the teams to attend that tournament rather than the NIT, and therefore the basektball tournament can not stand on its own feet. if it wasn't for the gimmicky lombardi trophy, no teams would show up for the super bowl.

 

JH - The interest is that the NCWA Dual tournament was because it is the National Championship for Dual meets. The closest comparison to our current NCAA tournament we have. And we saw the result.

 

CKlV and Midlands are just regular season tournaments. No one is comparing the Virginia duals attendance to the NCAA tournament because it is a regular season event not a national tournament of its own.

 

If people wanted the duals as the way to determine team champ there has been 25 years to show up at that event and make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JH - The interest is that the NCWA Dual tournament was because it is the National Championship for Dual meets. The closest comparison to our current NCAA tournament we have. And we saw the result.

 

CKlV and Midlands are just regular season tournaments. No one is comparing the Virginia duals attendance to the NCAA tournament because it is a regular season event not a national tournament of its own.

 

If people wanted the duals as the way to determine team champ there has been 25 years to show up at that event and make it happen.

 

it doesn't matter what its called. the NCWA Dual tournament simply can not be used as a proxy for a national duals tournament with all the top teams competing and with team championship implications. you can't ignore those two factors or pretend they arent important considerations. the NCWA duals is the exact same same kind of event as the VA duals. it is to a hypothetical dual meet NCAA championship as the scuffle, midlands or CKLV is to the current NCAA tournament.

 

your last statement doesn't make any sense to me. it goes like this CKLV:Current NCAA Tourney::NCWA Duals or VA Duals:hypothetical NCAA Duals Championship

 

people like both duals and individual tournaments. no one is going to stop rooting for their favorite team to win an NCAA championship because they change the format from one kind of tournament that they like to another that they also like.

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...