Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SetonHallPirate

Dual Component Model/Presentation

Recommended Posts

I don't understand the 70/30 split. Does that mean that the dual champion earns 50 points but only 30% of those points count towards the championship? If they earn 100 points individually, do only 70 of those points count? I'm not sure where the 70/30 metric is determined or implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand the 70/30 split. Does that mean that the dual champion earns 50 points but only 30% of those points count towards the championship? If they earn 100 points individually, do only 70 of those points count? I'm not sure where the 70/30 metric is determined or implemented.

 

i took it to mean that when the final team scores are tallied, 70% will come from the individual tournament and 30% of them will come from the dual meet tournament. its not a precise figure because the number of bonus points won at the tournament will vary.

 

if my math is right, 479 total points will be won at the dual tourney and approximately 1100-1200 will be won at the individual tourney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand the 70/30 split. Does that mean that the dual champion earns 50 points but only 30% of those points count towards the championship? If they earn 100 points individually, do only 70 of those points count? I'm not sure where the 70/30 metric is determined or implemented.

 

i took it to mean that when the final team scores are tallied, 70% will come from the individual tournament and 30% of them will come from the dual meet tournament. its not a precise figure because the number of bonus points won at the tournament will vary.

 

if my math is right, 479 total points will be won at the dual tourney and approximately 1100-1200 will be won at the individual tourney.

The 70/30 split was actually accurate under the original weighting (and the one mentioned in my January 13th Intermat article). According to this rubric, there will be at most 407 total points earned during the dual phase (I say at most because if a top-eight seed gets upset in the second round, they only get first-round points), and there were (after deductions) 1409.5 points earned at the 2014 Individual Phase, for a 22.4%-77.6% split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So...is this actually happening? Rubber stamp? Likely? 50/50? Unlikely? Or DOA?

I don't think the committee would have spent the better part of a year working on this if they thought it was a bad idea!

Not asking about the merits of the idea. I like it. But many ideas i (or others) like don't get adopted. And a whole set of ideas almost no one liked did get adopted by FILA in 2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The regionals will be financially independent; the institutions for the competing teams are responsible for all expenses. The host institutions shall cover all hosting expenses, and retain all revenues received."

 

Would part of the selection be contingent on selected schools committing to purchasing X number of tickets? I don't think so, but a school might not want to be on the hook for a poor turnout (heavy snow, ice storm, conflict with HS events, etc) if they aren't from a wealthier conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, if I understand this completely then this season:

 

If Minnesota won the dual component with a victory over anyone in the finals (say PSU), they would of been national champs:

 

Minnesota: 154

Penn State: 151.5

 

If Oklahoma State won the dual component with a victory over Minnesota in the finals and PSU took 3rd, they would of been national champs:

 

Oklahoma State: 146.5

Minnesota: 146

Penn State: 144.5

 

But not if OSU beat PSU in the finals:

 

Penn State: 151.5

Oklahoma State: 146.5

 

I think I can live with these kind of swings. The overall integrity of the current system seems to be kept in place while adding the dual component in a meaningful way.

 

Seems to me the biggest challenges with this system is from a logistical standpoint. Travel, scheduling and peaking all will be the greatest obstacles here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The overall integrity of the current system seems to be kept in place while adding the dual component in a meaningful way. "

 

I think FT said it best above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who were the conference champions this season that would have earned AQ spots. Would IA, PSU and MN all received an AQ spot for being BIG conference champion? Not that it matters cuz all three would have been selected as at large bids, but just curious for future reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who were the conference champions this season that would have earned AQ spots. Would IA, PSU and MN all received an AQ spot for being BIG conference champion? Not that it matters cuz all three would have been selected as at large bids, but just curious for future reference.

 

The Big Ten, as with all conferences, will have to develop a method for selecting their AQ.

 

This is similar to the issue the Big 12 conference had a few years back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Big_1 ... ontroversy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see someone go over the Challenges listed in the proposal and explain why they aren't a big enough deal to derail this. Regardless of your feelings on whether or not changing the process for determining a team champion is a good idea, those first two Challenges are a big deal, especially any NCAA championship level event that receives no funding from the NCAA.

 

Now, imagine your team doesn't make it to the championships. Here is your schedule for the end of the 2016 season:

February 6th - last dual meet of the season, since the deadline to submit teams is this day

February 13-14 - Regionals, but you don't compete because you didn't make it

February 21 - Dual finals, but you don't compete because you didn't make it

February 27-28 - off weekend for everyone, your 3rd straight week without competing

March 5-6 - conference qualifier - you've been off for a solid month now

 

Even the teams that do make the field of 24 but don't make the final weekend will have three weeks off. This creates a scenario in which 72 of the 76 DI teams wrestle one time (in the individual qualifier) between February 14 and March 17. This runs counter to the idea of increasing fan interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see someone go over the Challenges listed in the proposal and explain why they aren't a big enough deal to derail this. Regardless of your feelings on whether or not changing the process for determining a team champion is a good idea, those first two Challenges are a big deal, especially any NCAA championship level event that receives no funding from the NCAA.

 

Now, imagine your team doesn't make it to the championships. Here is your schedule for the end of the 2016 season:

February 6th - last dual meet of the season, since the deadline to submit teams is this day

February 13-14 - Regionals, but you don't compete because you didn't make it

February 21 - Dual finals, but you don't compete because you didn't make it

February 27-28 - off weekend for everyone, your 3rd straight week without competing

March 5-6 - conference qualifier - you've been off for a solid month now

 

Even the teams that do make the field of 24 but don't make the final weekend will have three weeks off. This creates a scenario in which 72 of the 76 DI teams wrestle one time (in the individual qualifier) between February 14 and March 17. This runs counter to the idea of increasing fan interest.

Teams will have the ability to compete during that time frame just not in a dual format. 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. As a result it will bring in more money and exposure to those wrestling programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One concern is the "other" 50+ teams that wouldn't be participating in the February dual tournaments. What are they going to be doing during this time? This proposal seems to create scheduling challenges for everybody, plus sets up a kind of two-tiered world with the "haves" (top 24) and "have-nots" (everybody else).

 

Here's a (not well thought out) idea to address these problems: Have three simultaneous dual tournaments going on in February. Would need to work out how to divide up participants (by ranking, randomly, whatever) and allocate scores appropriately. This would mean 72 teams would participate (almost all - could do some kind of pigtail wrestle-ins for the few remaining teams). Scheduling would be less uncertain - everybody would know going in that they'd be involved in the dual tournament during this period, just wouldn't know where. And the process is equitable - all schools could participate.

 

Whatcha think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One concern is the "other" 50+ teams that wouldn't be participating in the February dual tournaments. What are they going to be doing during this time? This proposal seems to create scheduling challenges for everybody, plus sets up a kind of two-tiered world with the "haves" (top 24) and "have-nots" (everybody else).

 

Here's a (not well thought out) idea to address these problems: Have three simultaneous dual tournaments going on in February. Would need to work out how to divide up participants (by ranking, randomly, whatever) and allocate scores appropriately. This would mean 72 teams would participate (almost all - could do some kind of pigtail wrestle-ins for the few remaining teams). Scheduling would be less uncertain - everybody would know going in that they'd be involved in the dual tournament during this period, just wouldn't know where. And the process is equitable - all schools could participate.

 

Whatcha think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see someone go over the Challenges listed in the proposal and explain why they aren't a big enough deal to derail this.

 

theyre all logistical issues. none seem insurmountable nor much of an issue when compared to the potential benefits. in between the end of the regular season and the start of the individual qualifying (conference) tournaments you can have open tournaments. the NCO is one tourney that will fit perfectly into the schedule. others can start up and be an NIT like tournament, either as individual opens or as other dual meet tournaments. just another opportunity for more great wrestling!

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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.

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  

×