Should fans be allowed to vote for the Hodge?

[flaBigRedfan 0]

This question seems like a no-brainer - Of course!

 

But in the two years that voting has been open to fans, the fans have gotten it wrong.

 

Last year, Dake was the clear winner, and was the leader in every objective criteria. Considering sportsmanship a wash, Dake had more wins, more pins, better quality of wins, etc. The Hodge voters were aware of this, and Dake got 39 of 41 votes. But the two fan votes went to Ruth. Grant it, Ruth is awesome, and deserves recognition, but based on Hodge criteria, Dake was the clear winner last year.

 

This year, Taylor was the clear winner, and the leader in every objective criteria with the only undefeated record among the top contenders, more pins, etc. Again, the Hodge voters were aware of this, and Taylor got 38 of 41 votes, but the two fan votes went to Stieber. Again, Stieber is also awesome, but he wasnt even undefeated this year - which should have automatically eliminated him from consideration over undefeated Taylor.

 

So, should the fans be allowed to vote? Because in the only two years of fan voting, they have voted against the clear winner. This isnt a popularity contest, it's the Hodge which is based, for the most part, on specific, objective criteria.

[headshuck 2,586]

If you do that we might as well tighten up the criteria even more and eliminate the voting altogether.

 

But I'd rather see a different award be created like the ESPN All-Star team where 10 wrestlers are voted on by the fans.

[BigRedMachine 210]

If you do that we might as well tighten up the criteria even more and eliminate the voting altogether.

 

But I'd rather see a different award be created like the ESPN All-Star team where 10 wrestlers are voted on by the fans.

My guess is an all-star team might look something along the lines of this:

 

125-Delgado

133-Ramos

141-Stieber

149-Tsirtsis

157-Dieringer

165-Taylor

174-Perry

184-Ruth

197-Cox

Hvy-Gwiz

[PRyan2012 347]

Anyone on this board vote for Logan??? How did you come to that conclusion if you did? This should have been 41-0 this year. But to answer your question I do like fan voting because the board has been bias in the past like with the Varner, Ness year. If fans had more say that year Varner would have won easily.

[headshuck 2,586]

Funny. I don't think that would be the case. For example, at 157 Dylan Ness might be the fan favorite.

[jammen 336]

Stieber is also awesome, but he wasnt even undefeated this year - which should have automatically eliminated him from consideration over undefeated Taylor.

 

Please contact Metcalf and request that he turn in his Hodge.

[Bitterrunner-up 6]

Anyone on this board vote for Logan??? How did you come to that conclusion if you did? This should have been 41-0 this year. But to answer your question I do like fan voting because the board has been bias in the past like with the Varner, Ness year. If fans had more say that year Varner would have won easily.

 

 

Some Ohio State fans voted for Stieber.

 

Interesting discussion about it here:

 

http://ohiowrestling.net/forum/viewtopi ... 22&start=0

[flaBigRedfan 0]

Stieber is also awesome, but he wasnt even undefeated this year - which should have automatically eliminated him from consideration over undefeated Taylor.

 

Please contact Metcalf and request that he turn in his Hodge.

 

The year Metcalf won it was a wierd year, and Metcalf's Hodge has been a point of argument in the past. In 2008, Metcalf was up against Keith Gavin as the only undefeated wrestler that year. Metcalf was 39-1, Gavin was 27-0; Metcalf had 28 bonus victories, Gavin had 12; Metcalf had 12 pins, Gavin had 5. Metcalf had the edge in the no. pins, dominance, career, level of competition, career accomplishments criterias. It would have been an impossible argument that Gavin was more dominant than Metcalf - which is the point of the Hodge.

 

This year, DT was up against Stieber, Ruth, and Perry. DT had the only undefeated record. Without looking at any of the specific numbers, you would have difficulty arguing that Stieber, Ruth, or Perry were the more dominant wrestler. You could argue that Stieber was equally as dominant - but not more dominant. Then, by looking at the numbers, DT had 16 pins, Stieber had 10, Ruth 11, and Perry 7.

 

So, my point was that, when given a choice between two equally dominant wrestlers, the undefeated one should be the clear choice.

[KTG119 820]

Stieber is also awesome, but he wasnt even undefeated this year - which should have automatically eliminated him from consideration over undefeated Taylor.

 

Please contact Metcalf and request that he turn in his Hodge.

 

The year Metcalf won it was a wierd year, and Metcalf's Hodge has been a point of argument in the past. In 2008, Metcalf was up against Keith Gavin as the only undefeated wrestler that year. Metcalf was 39-1, Gavin was 27-0; Metcalf had 28 bonus victories, Gavin had 12; Metcalf had 12 pins, Gavin had 5. Metcalf had the edge in the no. pins, dominance, career, level of competition, career accomplishments criterias. It would have been an impossible argument that Gavin was more dominant than Metcalf - which is the point of the Hodge.

 

The whole Metcalf Hodge thing has been played out big time here so not interested in arguing that he won the award but I would ask why you think he had a career advantage over Gavin as criteria for winning it that year?

 

This year, DT was up against Stieber, Ruth, and Perry. DT had the only undefeated record. Without looking at any of the specific numbers, you would have difficulty arguing that Stieber, Ruth, or Perry were the more dominant wrestler. You could argue that Stieber was equally as dominant - but not more dominant. Then, by looking at the numbers, DT had 16 pins, Stieber had 10, Ruth 11, and Perry 7.

 

So, my point was that, when given a choice between two equally dominant wrestlers, the undefeated one should be the clear choice.

[KTG119 820]

not interested in arguing the whole Metcalf Hodge award, as it was played out here big time, but I would ask why you think he had the career criteria advantage over Gavin the year he won?

[flaBigRedfan 0]

Agree - don't want to rehash the Metcalf Hodge argument, but I was thinking 2008 was Metcalf's sr. year and 2nd NCAA title, but it wasn't. So I guess Gavin had the edge on that criteria since he was a 2x finalist.

 

But the rest of my point stands!

[LordNelson 552]

God NO!!

 

Fan is short for Fanatic.

 

Therefore they are incapable of objectivity.

 

That and the Hodge has some reasonably objective criteria.

[ocho 0]

The fans accounting for one of the 40+ votes is fine by me. It keeps fans interested and ultimately has little effect on the outcome of the award.

 

A fan voted all star(popularity) team would be kind of cool to see who the masses of the wrestling world like.

 

My guess on how it would unfold this year

125-Garret (Delgado not so fan friendly)

133-Colon (everybody loves a mustache, and had a dominating season until the semis)

141-Logie (he's the man)

149-Tsirts or Houdashelt (tough weight to pick as no one is overly flashy)

157-Ness (admit it, you love watching him)

165- Taylor (see 141)

174- Howe (seems like Perry and Evans have many haters, Brown and Storley could give Howe a run)

184- Ruth or Dean (Ruth's dominance or Dean's "anybody can beat anybody" are both fan friendly stories)

197- Cox ( I think the true frosh caught the attention of the nation and became a fan fovrite over Heflin)

285- Gwiz (Exciting heavy, knocked off a much unappreciated Nelson in the finals)

[GranbyTroll 452]

Agree that we should let fans vote on something else. Leave the Hodge the way it is, somewhat criteria based. I didn't know about the Metcalf Hodge debate either.

[wrestlingphish 1,011]

The fan thing isn't as big of a deal to me as the individual with a vote (not sure if it was media, former winner, or former coach) who put Taylor as 4th! In what possible way could you ever vote him as 4th? That person needs to be stripped of their vote.

[ocho 0]

Taylor is a past winner. Any chance he is the one who put himself 4th? Or since he is still active was he unable to vote?

[AKHUNTER 316]

NO. Maybe fans should have a "peoples choice" award........... but when awards such as the Hodge are given I want those with knowledge making the decision.

[jammen 336]

In 2008, Metcalf was up against Keith Gavin as the only undefeated wrestler that year.

 

Tervel Dlagnev 38-0, 16 pins, 5 tech, 5 majors.

 

So, my point was that, when given a choice between two equally dominant wrestlers, the undefeated one should be the clear choice.

 

I agree with that, but you wrote that one loss should "automatically eliminate" a wrestler.

[GranbyTroll 452]

In 2008, Metcalf was up against Keith Gavin as the only undefeated wrestler that year.

 

Tervel Dlagnev 38-0, 16 pins, 5 tech, 5 majors.

 

So, my point was that, when given a choice between two equally dominant wrestlers, the undefeated one should be the clear choice.

 

I agree with that, but you wrote that one loss should "automatically eliminate" a wrestler.

 

I thought that a loss did automatically eliminate you and that the other criteria came into play if two wrestlers had similar records. Keep in mind, I just learned about the 2008 Metcalf v Gavin v Dlagnev thing today.

[Plasmodium 2,218]

A single loss shouldn't eliminate anyone from anything but NCAAs. The Hodge should be earned with quality wins.

[PhiferFuqua 187]

A single loss shouldn't eliminate anyone from anything but NCAAs. The Hodge should be earned with quality wins.

 

Exhibit A for why fans should not vote ... "quality wins" is not even one of the criteria, let alone the one that stands above all others. If people don't even understand what they're voting for, why should their votes be counted?

[headshuck 2,586]

The trophy is awarded based on seven criteria: 1. Record 2. Number of pins 3. Dominance 4. Past credentials 5. Quality of competition 6. Sportsmanship/citizenship 7. Heart

[flaBigRedfan 0]

In 2008, Metcalf was up against Keith Gavin as the only undefeated wrestler that year.

 

Tervel Dlagnev 38-0, 16 pins, 5 tech, 5 majors.

 

So, my point was that, when given a choice between two equally dominant wrestlers, the undefeated one should be the clear choice.

 

I agree with that, but you wrote that one loss should "automatically eliminate" a wrestler.

 

I was referring to DI. Not to minimize Dlagnev's NCAA accomplishments, because he is right up there with the best of the DI wrestlers. Man! I'm a relatively new poster on here and I realize I need to learn to write like a lawyer with specific contract-like language or I will get blasted!

 

I apologize if I offended any DII or DIII wrestlers - Dlagnev would have probably won NCAA DI. But, with that said, he wasn't DI, he was DII. If Dlagnev would have, in fact, been DI, and been 38-0 with 16 pins - it would have been an absolute injustice for him not to have won the Hodge, as the overall level of competition in DI is widely considered (right or wrong) superior to the overall level of competition in DII and DIII.

 

Thus the 2008 Hodge debate continues.....

 

Which brings me back to my point: if the fans had voted on Hodge winner in 2008, it may have swung the vote in another direction. Is this good for the Hodge? I am saying that if the fans can't even get the Hodge winner right on years where there is a clear-cut winner, how can the fans be trusted to get it right in years with a 2008 scenario?

 

And to my statement about "automatically eliminate", I thought I clarified that with my next post about two equally dominant wrestlers - where the one with a loss should be eliminated from consideration. Although, in this case, I would argue that Taylor was more dominant than Stieber, despite Stieber's loss.

 

 

I thought that a loss did automatically eliminate you and that the other criteria came into play if two wrestlers had similar records. Keep in mind, I just learned about the 2008 Metcalf v Gavin v Dlagnev thing today.

 

Like Shuck stated above, the Hodge has specific criteria, of which record is one criteria, pins are another, dominance is another, and career accomplishments is another. While there are 7 criteria, these criteria are not weighted in any specific order, such as 1. record, 2. pins, etc., but rather the criteria can be given different weight by the different voters. Hence the reason why there is a debate at all, and the reason why I am saying that if fans can't even understand the Hodge enough to get it right in years with clear-cut winner, they shouldnt have a Hodge vote at all.

[jammen 336]

I was referring to DI.

 

Note that the Hodge is not limited to just D1 wrestlers. Emmett Willson, NAIA, won it in 2004.

[flaBigRedfan 0]

I was referring to DI.

 

Note that the Hodge is not limited to just D1 wrestlers. Emmett Willson, NAIA, won it in 2004.

 

If you want to continue hammering this point, which is irrelevant to the topic, then the least you could do is mention all the non-DI wrestlers that have won the Hodge - by my count you're missing at least one.