Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBar1977

End of NCAA Tournament As We Knew It (link)

Recommended Posts

One good thing I read is they clearly state that once a cradle is locked up, with 3 or more points on the mat, it IS a takedown. This was one of the most inconsistently called positions last year. I am eager to see how well the ref's adhere to this rule.

I like this rule too. I think it simplifies the call.

I think you are going to see a lot of TDs called when there is, in fact, no control. I can see calling the TD if you have a cradle locked up AND you are to the side. (perpendicular to your opponent)

 

However, I don't believe a TD should be called if a cradle is locked and the wrestlers are facing each other. e.g., locking a cradle from a front headlock while still in front of your opponent. That's not control, imho.

 

Control is whatever the rules say it is. This rule takes judgment out of the call -- the old rule properly applied would also, but there were many bad calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One good thing I read is they clearly state that once a cradle is locked up, with 3 or more points on the mat, it IS a takedown. This was one of the most inconsistently called positions last year. I am eager to see how well the ref's adhere to this rule.

I like this rule too. I think it simplifies the call.

I think you are going to see a lot of TDs called when there is, in fact, no control. I can see calling the TD if you have a cradle locked up AND you are to the side. (perpendicular to your opponent)

 

However, I don't believe a TD should be called if a cradle is locked and the wrestlers are facing each other. e.g., locking a cradle from a front headlock while still in front of your opponent. That's not control, imho.

 

Control is whatever the rules say it is. This rule takes judgment out of the call -- the old rule properly applied would also, but there were many bad calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta agree with LU alum, it's not control unless there's a breakdown. Slap a cradle on and then it's broke, slap a cradle on and it's broke, I'm ahead 4-2. There needs to be a breakdown to the hip producing a pause and control to legitimize the cradle as a takedown. Apparently the desire to see more scoring is what counts whether or not makes sense. You're not even behind the hips with this cradle situation. You're still in front/side. It's more of a potential than an actual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that the Big XII only has 4 teams, but they don't get ANY AQ's? So a guy that doesn't qualify for Silver or Gold might as well just say, to hell with it? That's one of the reasons why I enjoy conference tournaments, to see an underdog possibly squeak through. Under this premise, a guy like Jimmy English wouldn't have had a chance at the NCAA tournament.

 

They could still get an at large since they could have been bronze status. Plus also being proposed is another set of coaches rankings after the conference tournaments so a wrestler that wins the Big 12 tourney could move up in status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HH

Looks to me like it will IF they can resolve all the logistics previously mentioned. I still say there's a problem with the idea of two stratifying scoring systems, one in the dual component and the other in traditional NCAA scoring.

 

I'd like to see the dual portion succeed without stratification. I fully realize the need to have a point system attached to it to keep everyone in the game. But why can't it be done without stratification. As I said previously, every coach submits his A & B team prior to the dual portion. (The A team is no secret as that's been going on since November). Every team receives x points paid forward. Each time you put a B man on the mat you are deducted, unless it's a sub due to verified injury. This puts the incentive on using the A team only and provides the best matches for the paying/supporting fans which they have a right to see. In the meantime, every dual component team receives a "place value" without point stratification, i.e., champion, runnerup, third, fourth, quarterfinalist, prelim winner. All retain their initial x points going forward to the individual NCAA tournament and start exactly even.

 

All other teams not selected for the dual component are going to be way behind the pack, and there are going to be some rubs and hurt feelings from any scoring model. You can't get around it, except to keep the initial x points a low number so the non-selected teams have a fighting chance to break in with powerful individuals even though they lack balance. But as far as the selected teams go, I think you can incentivize excitement by their complete participation and keep the playing field exactly even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a lot more simple than most of you realize. They want a certain system. Since they can't get it right away they are going to take steps towards it. This format isn't what they want. This is to soften everyone up for things to come. Change the format to something new so that it will be easier to change it to exactly what they want later.

 

I am calling it now. We will have a NCAA sponsored Dual Meet Championship within 10 years.

 

 

Also, as far as the Big12 qualifier goes, it is a very similar concept. Having a 4 team qualifier looks bad. Doing what they did forces the schools to change. This will only have a VERY short term affect. I say no more than 1 year. It may not even have any if the schools are proactive and find a qualifier this year. If not, they will all find one by 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a lot more simple than most of you realize. They want a certain system. Since they can't get it right away they are going to take steps towards it. This format isn't what they want. This is to soften everyone up for things to come. Change the format to something new so that it will be easier to change it to exactly what they want later.

 

Interesting theory.

I won't claim to be a mind reader or to have inside info on what "they" want. But I'll say this. The Late Bob Dellinger, wrestling author and rules specialist from Oklahoma State, once told me that you get one chance so you better get it right. I'm afraid you may be right, but in the process of their "taking steps toward exactly what they want" this could prove detrimental to good teams that should have scored better and placed higher but didn't because the system is still undergoing year to year correction and improvement. So in the meantime the rules makers are asking you to be patient with getting shafted while they figure it all out.

 

Rockets blow up on the launch pad. Lives are lost. Mistakes are made. But there's such a thing as thought experiments to assist in keeping the casualties to a minimum. That's one good thing about this forum and the internet in general. Unfortunately, I get the impression the designers and cheerleaders are in a hurry to take this cake out of the oven prematurely, consequences be damned. I also get the feeling that the people behind this idea are throwing spaghetti hoping it sticks, operating in a vacuum at the top of Mt. Olympus looking down on the rest of us. If we don't like it, well "let them eat cake" even if it's half baked.

 

Democracy, thinking things through, and maximum participation are better ingredients in rules design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about this the more I'm convinced it will end up with not the best team winning the championship.

 

Adding uncertainty into how we crown our champion can't be good for the sport.

 

Its like a boxing organization where the judging criteria is opaque... the word 'winner' loses its meaning.

 

How often does the "cabinet" reject committee recommendations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[/The more I think about this the more I'm convinced it will end up with not the best team winning the championship.

 

Adding uncertainty into how we crown our champion can't be good for the sport.

 

Its like a boxing organization where the judging criteria is opaque... the word 'winner' loses its meaning.

 

How often does the "cabinet" reject committee recommendations?quote]

 

Yep, rubber stamp, go along and get along. It's a real shame because there's so much on and off the effort that we don't see that goes into producing a solid lineup. As I keep saying, when a kid gets screwed out of a title there's outrage and the ref is black balled. But a whole team getting the short end of the scoring system, oh well there's next year; just give us enough time to get it straight for Pete's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I think about this the more I'm convinced it will end up with not the best team winning the championship.

Which brings this full circle back to the definition of "best team"

 

The new definition for "best team" will be "the team that scores the most NCAA tournament points, after combining scores from the individual and dual phases, will be crowned NCAA Team Champions and thus be recognized as the "best team", well unless that person's favorite team did not win then they complain that the real "best team" was robbed of their right to be NCAA team champion by a format change."

 

 

There will never be a consensus on the best way to determine a team's strength, so I for one enjoy that they combined the two formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ocho,

not a done deal yet. And I would suspect that if they don't get the wrinkles out, the diarrhea is gonna hit the hurricane more than it has here.

I Know it isn't official yet, but when I saw the 59%(don't know the number of coaches surveyed) in favor of the proposal as is and 80% in favor of implementing a dual component I could see the writing on the wall. I feel it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ocho,

not a done deal yet. And I would suspect that if they don't get the wrinkles out, the diarrhea is gonna hit the hurricane more than it has here.

I Know it isn't official yet, but when I saw the 59%(don't know the number of coaches surveyed) in favor of the proposal as is and 80% in favor of implementing a dual component I could see the writing on the wall. I feel it will happen.

 

I agree. I consider it a huge experiment and as such it's the only way we'll ever know the truth. I just wonder how many of those coaches are on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how many people complained when college wrestling implemented the tech-fall. Too bad we didn't have electricity back then.

 

Never understood this type of argument.

People also complained about the ball grab and the clinch.

 

 

Oh yeah, they did suck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eaten by forum monster:

 

by gimpeltf » 30 May 2014, 16:19

 

GranbyTroll wrote:

I wonder how many people complained when college wrestling implemented the tech-fall. Too bad we didn't have electricity back then.

 

 

Never understood this type of argument.

People also complained about the ball grab and the clinch.

 

 

Oh yeah, they did suck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eaten by forum monster:

 

by gimpeltf » 30 May 2014, 16:19

 

GranbyTroll wrote:

I wonder how many people complained when college wrestling implemented the tech-fall. Too bad we didn't have electricity back then.

 

 

Never understood this type of argument.

People also complained about the ball grab and the clinch.

 

 

Oh yeah, they did suck!

 

The only complaint I remember back then was that they should have added value to the pin to not have the pin devalued. As that was what happened and imo it shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the whole idea of combining national duals with the NCAA tournament. They are two different animals. What need is there to combine the two? There is a National Dual champion (Minnesota last year), and an NCAA tournament champion (PSU). The idea of giving extra points to teams at the NCAA tournament based on dual performance is silly...the vast majority of teams don't even participate in the National Duals. Should Minnesota get a 20 point advantage over another team before the tournament even begins? This will be a disincentive for non-powerhouse teams at the tournament...they will effectively be out of the tournament before it even starts. The teams that win National Duals already get recognition for it, and a National Champ trophy. If the two are combined all it will do is result in fans not caring about team results at the NCAA tournament.

 

Regarding Big 12 not getting automatic qualifiers... I hope this backfires on the NCAA in a big way. We all want to see the Big 12 move in with another league (MAC, PAC12, etc) for qualifications but the Big 12 isn't the MAC..it isn't the PAC12. The Big 12 teams have as much (even if you only count OSU,OU, and ISU), if not more, history and tradition as all the other teams combined. For the NCAA to say to one of the great classic conferences in wrestling "You HAVE to do this..blah blah blah" seems pretty dickish. It is especially annoying for the NCAA to remove automatic qualifiers from the Big 12 when low placers from the Big 10 routinely get slots at NCAAs. There was even a wrestleoff for 9th place at the Big 10s at HWT for goodness sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get the whole idea of combining national duals with the NCAA tournament. They are two different animals. What need is there to combine the two?

 

Well, I'm sure you know most of the answers, but here it goes again. Espn wants more championship NCAA wrestling, specifically team wrestling. NCAA won't support multiple championships for a single sport because it would open up a can of legal worms. So they want to combine the distinctive aspects of wrestling for a total championship situation and additional television exposure. More espn NCAA championship wrestling.

 

ywia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the NCAA to say to one of the great classic conferences in wrestling "You HAVE to do this..blah blah blah" seems pretty dickish.

 

The NCAA has bent over backwards for years trying to give the Big 12 a chance to get it's act together. But the Big 12 isn't going to allow any affiliated members; they had no interest in keeping Mizzou as an associate team, and expressed no interest in UNI (both of which also seemed pretty dickish, BTW) and I don't see any of the other Big 12 schools adding wrestling any time soon. Let's face it, Texas runs the show in the Big 12, and they don't give a hoot about wrestling.

 

Time to close the door, turn the page, and move forward, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^The fact that the four-team Big12 no longer is an NCAA qualifier is a sad day for our great sport. I recall when I first started attending the NCAA's (1960) the Big 8 was the most powerful college wrestling conference in the nation. Back then it had 6 teams - Okla State, Okla, Iowa St, Nebraska, Colorado and Kansas State. The Cowboys, Sooners and Cyclones were very powerful mid 20th centrury.

 

The Conference has gone from the most powerful wrestling league with 6 teams back in 1960 down to four teams that either have to find an affiliation with an NCAA qualifier or go to the west regional. This is a very bad situation for college wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it all about money? Everybody is playing musical chairs in an effort to cash in and I can't blame them. Regionality means little anymore. East and Midwest are merging and a lot of proud Easterners don't like that. Now all we need is Oregon State in the Big Ten and we can call it the BI5.

 

If the two are combined all it will do is result in fans not caring about team results at the NCAA tournament.

This thing is a long way off but ESPN = $ and the coaches are aware that. A lot of coaches want it (according to some poll ?) and yet every fan I've talk to gets mad as hell. But money talks so the NCAA is I'm sure being pressured to go against their principle of "one title per school." So far they're not budging. Consequently, the compromise in the works is to kill 2 birds with one shot; a 24 team selection/invitational dual tournament with a form of team advancement component points that'll be added on to the individual NCAA meet team score with the conference meets squeezed in between; that forces the best teams to participate or else lose those NCAA points.

 

Again, it's the almighty buck, not a fair scoring model, that people are switching to. It's about fear and survival in a cold, cruel world. Bail outs don't exist for the little guys; you go to jail, or out of business. And wrestling is a little guy trying desperately to flex its muscles despite sellout crowds at the March event.

 

Just as wrestling is starting to get real exposure via ESPN, we risk dropping the ball with the headstart problem. You can get all the other wrinkles out but if you don't get the headstart figured out then that'll IMO be the death knell. No matter how you try to spin this, it appears unequal and a real head shaker. The fans will I think have the final say. There's going to have to be one heck of an educational campaign to change people's minds, because most do not/cannot see these two events as a single event. They see two completely different events at two very different times and venues.. and they see a headstart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I think about this the more I'm convinced it will end up with not the best team winning the championship.

Which brings this full circle back to the definition of "best team"

 

The new definition for "best team" will be "the team that scores the most NCAA tournament points, after combining scores from the individual and dual phases, will be crowned NCAA Team Champions and thus be recognized as the "best team", well unless that person's favorite team did not win then they complain that the real "best team" was robbed of their right to be NCAA team champion by a format change."

 

 

There will never be a consensus on the best way to determine a team's strength, so I for one enjoy that they combined the two formats.

 

So if we changed the rules to give the NCAA title to the team with the most pins accumulated throughout the year we could say that team was the "best team" and just do away with all end of year tournaments. I have no idea how accurate it would be... but I can guess.

 

After all isn't pinning the ultimate goal so why would anything else matter?

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...