Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SetonHallPirate

Dual Component Model/Presentation

Recommended Posts

Stupid page monster. Here's the lost post

 

what else besides the gap in competition dates do you think will detail the proposal?

 

Cost is the big thing beyond scheduling issues. I recall Cael saying something a few years ago about not traveling to the old National Duals at the UNI-Dome because it would be a $15-20K trip, and this would be on short notice, increasing the price of everything. I also expect the host teams to end up eating a big portion of the cost of hosting the event since tickets/concessions will not be able to cover the cost of the event except in a few locations. Broadcast rights fees could be another source of revenue, but I don't know if it's enough. It's a big bump in the postseason line item for athletic department budgets, and I suspect there will be some administrative push back on this proposal purely from a financial point of view. I'm not saying it will derail it, just that it could.

 

Also,

The answer IMO is open tournaments. Schools that traditionally find themselves on the outside looking in(not a top 24 team) will be able to develop open tournaments for those dates.

College wrestling has yet to invent a less fan-friendly event than the open tournament.

 

you're right, travel and hosting costs could definitely be an issue. i don't know much about that issue so i won't comment. i just hope its not too big of a problem!

 

i also can't disagree about the open tournaments not being fan friendly. but it would still give the programs events to fill their schedule, regardless of how many people would be watching in person - which usually isn't much anyway, right?

 

Seems like the committee is trying increase the popularity of D1 wrestling w/o actually addressing the real problems.

 

agree with the first part! whatever the real problems of wrestling are, they should be addressing them simultaneously to implementing this addition to the team championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stupid page monster. Here's the lost post

 

what else besides the gap in competition dates do you think will detail the proposal?

 

Cost is the big thing beyond scheduling issues. I recall Cael saying something a few years ago about not traveling to the old National Duals at the UNI-Dome because it would be a $15-20K trip, and this would be on short notice, increasing the price of everything. I also expect the host teams to end up eating a big portion of the cost of hosting the event since tickets/concessions will not be able to cover the cost of the event except in a few locations. Broadcast rights fees could be another source of revenue, but I don't know if it's enough. It's a big bump in the postseason line item for athletic department budgets, and I suspect there will be some administrative push back on this proposal purely from a financial point of view. I'm not saying it will derail it, just that it could.

 

Also,

The answer IMO is open tournaments. Schools that traditionally find themselves on the outside looking in(not a top 24 team) will be able to develop open tournaments for those dates.

College wrestling has yet to invent a less fan-friendly event than the open tournament.

 

don't worry about cost. pinnum's model using the home host model that soccer and some other ncaa championship uses has projected attendance well over 100,000. this covers the travel expenses and puts money in the home team's pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weather, wrestlers have to peak 3 more times than in past and injuries are bound to sideline key wrestlers before and after the duals. Just why should any team have a lead before the NCAAs start?

 

Seems like the committee is trying increase the popularity of D1 wrestling w/o actually addressing the real problems.

"Just why should any team have a lead before the NCAAs start?"

 

That's the point. The NCAA's will have an earlier start regarding team score.

And the worst sub filling in for two guys injured ahead of him has the possibility of impacting that score, even if in a small way, by not giving up the fall. He's part of the team, but never would influence what we think of as the normal/standard scoring system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are proposing a method similar to what worked so well in 2012 and 2013, maybe with a little bit better team selection process, but a lot more challenging logistics. AT least SHP proposal used 16+ locations. So let’s try something practical.

 

In April 2015, four schools are chosen to host 16 team duals the weekend of February 12-14, 2016. These four host teams should be selected from among teams given no realistic chance to be among the top 30 in 2015=2016, One host should be in the New York- New England area. One in the Southeast (Maryland on down) One in the Mid-west, but East of Illinois . One West of the Mississippi all the way to the Pacific. There will be twenty teams pre-assigned to each of these tournaments. Since there are fewer than 80 D1 schools, the brackets can be filled with teams from D2, D3, NAIA.

 

The teams assigned to each tournament will not be assigned purely by geography. More like the NCAA does with Basketball. I would expect something like: One from the B12 to each region. At least two from the B1G, MAC, and EIWA to each. The other conferences should also distribute at least one to each.

On Jan 18, 2016 the currently highest ranked team from each “regional” will be assigned to Nationals. On Jan 25, 2016 the next highest ranked team from each “regional” will be assigned to Nationals. On Feb 1, 2016 the next highest ranked team from each “regional” will be assigned to Nationals. And on Feb 8, 2016 the next highest ranked team from each “regional” will be assigned to Nationals.

 

Nationals will be held the same weekend as the other tournaments. Nationals will be held in Chicago. Between the two airports there, flights are always available and comparatively inexpensive. Most colleges are within a couple hours of an airport with a direct Chicago flight. And for fans who don’t fly, most every wrestling school is within a long days drive. 850 Miles, 14 hours.

 

I am not sure about the best place to hold the tournament at first, But once we are confident of over 6,000 for each round, there is a very obvious spot- the All State Arena (the former Horizon). Although a little smaller (maybe Des Moines arena size) and less fancy than most “modern” arenas it should suit our purposes. And it is right next to O’Hare, and tons of hotels. The primary current tenant is I believe, DePaul B-Ball, but they are building a site much nearer to campus.

 

One final point. Assuming 16 teams at each of the five events, each team would wrestle exactly four duals. So accurate determination of 2-3-5 etc is far from certain, but really ESPN cares only about Number 1.

 

You can still transfer points to the individual tournament, and you can add points from the regional tournaments also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are proposing a method similar to what worked so well in 2012 and 2013, maybe with a little bit better team selection process, but a lot more challenging logistics. AT least SHP proposal used 16+ locations. So let’s try something practical.

 

In April 2015, four schools are chosen to host 16 team duals the weekend of February 12-14, 2016. These four host teams should be selected from among teams given no realistic chance to be among the top 30 in 2015=2016, One host should be in the New York- New England area. One in the Southeast (Maryland on down) One in the Mid-west, but East of Illinois . One West of the Mississippi all the way to the Pacific. There will be twenty teams pre-assigned to each of these tournaments. Since there are fewer than 80 D1 schools, the brackets can be filled with teams from D2, D3, NAIA.

 

The teams assigned to each tournament will not be assigned purely by geography. More like the NCAA does with Basketball. I would expect something like: One from the B12 to each region. At least two from the B1G, MAC, and EIWA to each. The other conferences should also distribute at least one to each.

On Jan 18, 2016 the currently highest ranked team from each “regional” will be assigned to Nationals. On Jan 25, 2016 the next highest ranked team from each “regional” will be assigned to Nationals. On Feb 1, 2016 the next highest ranked team from each “regional” will be assigned to Nationals. And on Feb 8, 2016 the next highest ranked team from each “regional” will be assigned to Nationals.

 

Nationals will be held the same weekend as the other tournaments. Nationals will be held in Chicago. Between the two airports there, flights are always available and comparatively inexpensive. Most colleges are within a couple hours of an airport with a direct Chicago flight. And for fans who don’t fly, most every wrestling school is within a long days drive. 850 Miles, 14 hours.

 

I am not sure about the best place to hold the tournament at first, But once we are confident of over 6,000 for each round, there is a very obvious spot- the All State Arena (the former Horizon). Although a little smaller (maybe Des Moines arena size) and less fancy than most “modern” arenas it should suit our purposes. And it is right next to O’Hare, and tons of hotels. The primary current tenant is I believe, DePaul B-Ball, but they are building a site much nearer to campus.

 

One final point. Assuming 16 teams at each of the five events, each team would wrestle exactly four duals. So accurate determination of 2-3-5 etc is far from certain, but really ESPN cares only about Number 1.

 

You can still transfer points to the individual tournament, and you can add points from the regional tournaments also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point. The NCAA's will have an earlier start regarding team score.

And the worst sub filling in for two guys injured ahead of him has the possibility of impacting that score, even if in a small way, by not giving up the fall. He's part of the team, but never would influence what we think of as the normal/standard scoring system.

 

And that is good? A mediocre wrestler stalling his butt off can have a significant impact on deciding the team championship? That will help our sport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like a well-coached solid wrestler can prevent an elite wrestler from bonus points in a dual of 2 teams likely in the running for the eventual team championship, with the remote chance of his team winning the closely contested dual, resulting in a slight increase in the odds of his team overcoming the still heavily weighted odds of the elite wrestlers team winning the team championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest flaws with this proposal is that the participating teams and venue are decided so late in the process. I really think these things need to be decided going into the season. In my opinion. the top 24 placers from the previous year should be the field and the top 4 should be the site hosts. What this would do:

 

Teams and fans know who will be where and can plan accordingly. This would lead to reduced travel expenses and better attendance. In addition, site hosts would have 11 months to market instead of a week.

 

Teams that are not included can schedule duals with other non participants so there isn't such a large gap of inactivity for these programs.

 

This would add to the year ending tournament. Finishing in the top 24 would have meaning and add something for the teams and their fans to get excited about even thought they are out of the team race. Also, top 4 would mean a home date the following year adding extra motivation for the final team trophy.

 

The downside is that a team or two may be left out that may have qualified under the current proposal, but these teams won't be the ones competing for a title anyway, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More like a well-coached solid wrestler can prevent an elite wrestler from bonus points in a dual of 2 teams likely in the running for the eventual team championship, with the remote chance of his team winning the closely contested dual, resulting in a slight increase in the odds of his team overcoming the still heavily weighted odds of the elite wrestlers team winning the team championship.

And as long as the refs know the rules and can make the correct and appropriate call and not award arbitrary points that impact individual matches, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is terrible. If we feel that strongly that duals need to be emphasized, go for it and have the NCAA champion crowned at the duals and get rid of team scoring at the individual tournament. I'm not an advocate for that, but at least I can recognize the validity of that argument. The strongest team as we currently measure it may not always win, but that is certainly the case in many other sports too. Upsets and uncertainty are good for these types of events and a dual championship may bring a few more teams into the mix.

 

This ungodly creation of mixed scoring is like something Dr. Frankenstein created. The two sides can not recognize that the compromise here is way worse than the other sides proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The model that seemed to work the best was the one where all division were in one place and fans could see the best of all classes in one building on the same weekend.

 

Exactly.

 

They should bring back other Divisional champs into the D1 tournament before attempting any of these untested hybrid type proposals.

 

We already know this works and its not even being considered. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A mediocre wrestler stalling his butt off can have a significant impact on deciding the team championship? That will help our sport?

 

yeah, duh. thats all dual meets are and thats what everyone wants to see. and if ever two evenly matched wrestlers end up on the mat the ref will just double disqualify them. it will not only help our sport it will propel it into the statosphere.

 

what a great point you've made. it shows you've given the proposal a lot of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not looking to do actual research here but to my memory the teams that have or would have finished high in the duals (I say would have in the cases where Iowa, PSU, etc don't show up) aren't the teams that need much help at the current NCAAs. Typically, it's the big schools and so it becomes the rich get richer here. One of the neat things about NCAAs is seeing when the 'little' teams pop up into the top ten. I'm from Lehigh, we might have had a year in our streak a few years back where we might have placed high enough in the duals to keep our place at NCAAs. I doubt American could have held up that high.

I appreciate the attempt to get more widespread media involved but I can't see where this will have any real impact on that or the diversity issue they mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, and this is of course in a "perfect" world, so I am well aware this is not entirely feasible. But I would really prefer if we completely eliminated team points from NCAAs. Have a national dual meet tournament that determines the team national champ, and then NCAAs are strictly for determining our All Americans and individual champs. I know this may seem sacrilegious to wrestling fans, but to the average American sports fan, our tournament scoring makes no sense. If you were talking about college wrestling and told a basketball fan that we had a team go undefeated (UNI) but that team finished 15th, they would look at us like we had three heads.

 

There is nothing wrong with using our "game" format (Dual Meets) to determine our best TEAM. Throw out the team points at NCAAs. The system clearly favors teams like Penn St who have a few hammers. This is not to knock PSU, as Cael is a brilliant coach who follows the rules and knows exactly how to build a championship team under the current rules. But no team should be able to call themselves a national champion without going through the same playoff process that every other truly popular sport in America uses.

 

Once again, I understand it is a radical change, and that the logistics/economics of it would be extremely difficult to work out in the beginning. But with proper organization and support, we can determine our true national champion using the one team vs one team dual meet format that has existed forever, while still allowing our stars to shine on an individual stage. If wrestling wants to be taken seriously, this is a step I believe must be taken.

 

Edit: FYI, Illinois has been doing this since 1984...

http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/BoysWrestling/RecordsHistory.aspx?url=/data/wr/records/index.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, and this is of course in a "perfect" world, so I am well aware this is not entirely feasible. But I would really prefer if we completely eliminated team points from NCAAs. Have a national dual meet tournament that determines the team national champ, and then NCAAs are strictly for determining our All Americans and individual champs. I know this may seem sacrilegious to wrestling fans, but to the average American sports fan, our tournament scoring makes no sense. If you were talking about college wrestling and told a basketball fan that we had a team go undefeated (UNI) but that team finished 15th, they would look at us like we had three heads.

 

There is nothing wrong with using our "game" format (Dual Meets) to determine our best TEAM. Throw out the team points at NCAAs. The system clearly favors teams like Penn St who have a few hammers. This is not to knock PSU, as Cael is a brilliant coach who follows the rules and knows exactly how to build a championship team under the current rules. But no team should be able to call themselves a national champion without going through the same playoff process that every other truly popular sport in America uses.

 

Once again, I understand it is a radical change, and that the logistics/economics of it would be extremely difficult to work out in the beginning. But with proper organization and support, we can determine our true national champion using the one team vs one team dual meet format that has existed forever, while still allowing our stars to shine on an individual stage. If wrestling wants to be taken seriously, this is a step I believe must be taken.

 

Edit: FYI, Illinois has been doing this since 1984...

http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/BoysWrestling/RecordsHistory.aspx?url=/data/wr/records/index.htm

I disagree with this one, I was for it back in 2012 when it was first floated, but I've changed my mind on it. I think the most interesting part of a wrestling match can often be that there's always that next level of victory to work towards (major, tech-fall, or, of course, fall). By taking away team scoring at Nationals, you lose the incentive for going for bonus points at Nationals, and, further, you make every single match at individual tournaments throughout the season (Both Opens and Invitationals) irrelevant. I truly believe that the hybrid model is the best of both worlds, although it is up for debate what the proper weighting should be (I don't think 50/50 is a good idea, simply because the points come in big blocks for any dual-phase by necessity, and I'm pretty sure nobody else does either).

 

BTW, Penn State figures to have a better dual team than tournament team for next year, assuming they don't redshirt the kitchen sink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This concept is only just starting to sink in with me. What's the logic behind the 7 point dual meet progression from prelims to finals, 7-14-21..., etc. Why not some other progression, 2-4-6...? or use official place values, 4-6-7-9-10-12-16? What principle are we hanging our hat on; or is this a seat of the pants thing? How did the 70/30 split come about, based on what? why not 60/40?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This concept is only just starting to sink in with me. What's the logic behind the 7 point dual meet progression from prelims to finals, 7-14-21..., etc. Why not some other progression, 2-4-6...? or use official place values, 4-6-7-9-10-12-16? What principle are we hanging our hat on; or is this a seat of the pants thing? How did the 70/30 split come about, based on what? why not 60/40?

It's actually a lot closer to 80-20 than 70-30. 70-30 was the split under the original suggestion (that was mentioned to the coaches last August at the NWCA Convention).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dual Component as presented makes the Team Championships portion of the NCAA Tournament "less" interesting because essentially fewer teams will be competing for the title at the end of the season because they will be eliminated from contention at the Dual Championships.

 

And, just like the wild card criteria for individuals, it does not take into account how much a team (and its individuals) improve at the end of the season.

 

Horrible Idea in my opinion. There are better ways than this to determine the team champion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Dual Component as presented makes the Team Championships portion of the NCAA Tournament "less" interesting because essentially fewer teams will be competing for the title at the end of the season because they will be eliminated from contention at the Dual Championships.

 

who's getting eliminated? the top teams will still all be in contention. the whole point is you need to have team points at stake to incentivize the teams to compete and to add excitement and drama to the dual meet tourney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHP

Let me make sure I've got this right. 30% of the dual scoring is transferred to the NCAA tournament and 70% of the NCAA individual scoring is retained. So if my team wins the dual team title all by scores of, say, 20-15 and get 50 points on top of that, how is the 30% calculated? My guess is 20 x 5 plus 50 = 150 and 30% of 150 is 45. So I start the NCAA tournament with 45 team points? And if my team puts up 100 individual points we get 70. So our final score is 170? oops make that 70 + 45 = 115.

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'm still stuck on the whys and wherefores of the model. I still don't know why the dual meet progression (7-14-21...) and 70/30 ratio were chosen "under the original suggestion that was mentioned to the coaches." What research or analysis went into them? Who was/were the brains "under the original suggestion made to the coaches."

 

Also, was this "integrated" model intended to make everything fairer and more accurate, or more interesting and exciting? Again, what research went into it? Or is this going to be an educated guess, large scale experiment that will be reviewed after a year or two?

 

Hate to be such a stickler for details, but such an idea is going to award the highest honor of the NCAA to a lot of people-- coaches, wrestlers, relatives. Hopefully it wasn't thrown together willy nilly.

 

i have no idea what kind of research went into it but it ultimately it doesn't matter much what the ratio is. duals add more variability to the results. also programs with better dual teams than tournament teams will see marginal benefits, but if you made it 100% dual meets determining the national championship, the same teams would be at the top and the same teams would have little to no chance of winning. the odds would change very little, if at all.

 

the times when the favorite would get an even bigger advantage by winning the dual meet tournament would be evened out by the times when the favorite is upset in the dual meet tournament. and if a team is good enough to easily win the dual meet tournament then chances are they would have dominated the individual tournament anyway. its all a wash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to keep an open mind about this proposal, but Badger Fan makes a valid observation that these large point leads really narrow the field. I think it's pretty clear that if you're a top team and get upset in the quarterfinals or even lose the semifinal match, you are pretty much toast before round 1 of NCAAs. It would appear that virtually every year only 3 teams will have a realistic chance at the title with the team taking third needing a really strong tournament just to be in the running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am trying to keep an open mind about this proposal, but Badger Fan makes a valid observation that these large point leads seem to be a problem. I think it's pretty clear that if you're a top team and get upset in the quarterfinals or even lose the semifinal match, you are pretty much toast before round 1 of NCAAs. It would appear that virtually every year only 3 teams will have a realistic chance at the title.

 

how often do more than 3 teams ever have a realistic shot at the title?

 

you're right tho, that the higher the dual tourney points, the less important the points become at the individual tournament. i'd rather see them err on overweighting the dual tourney so as to increase the stakes of that tourney than to underweight it and risk teams not taking it seriously.

 

i think 10% would actually be fine. at a certain threshold, like maybe 50%, you may as well just make it 100%. which i would also be fine with. still more than enough drama in seeing who becomes AA and NC to hold everyone's interest at the NCAA tournament. i understand other's may not feel that way tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×