Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Illifornia

"The Dual Meet"

Recommended Posts

First off, I have went to the last 2 NCAA's and man are they exciting. I can not think of any reason to eff with them in any way.

 

Forcing the importance of the dual meet is not the way to go. The way to go is to educate and motivate coaches to promote their teams to the community at large and get people in the seats. For probably the last 50 years or so, the college wrestling coaching pool has been dominated by bone heads that were great wrestlers but in no way know how to run a business. They had no idea how to get people to come to events and build relationships with their local/state fan bases. These guys were downright lazy as professionals. This was the accepted way to be. A wrestling coach that would spend 10-12 hours a day at their job was unheard of especially in the summer. Getting fans in the seats should be a big part of a coaches job. I do feel that the culture is changing for the better. Soon lazy coaches that don't work like real professionals will be a thing of the past.

 

Coaches need to work with one another and educate themselves on how to really actively promote their teams. This will get more people in the stands for their dual meets.

 

The teams you will see winning the Nat Duals are already the ones who have lots of fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't like the proposed rule change, yeah, we got that. Maybe if you keep writing posts, and starting threads you can make a difference.

 

You must be republican. If it's not what you want, just keep complaining and forget what other people believe. As long as they damn well know your stance, all is good.

 

Pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing the importance of the dual meet is not the way to go. The way to go is to educate and motivate coaches to promote their teams to the community at large and get people in the seats.

Wouldn't increasing the importance of the events you host be helpful in promoting your team and getting people in the seats?

 

"Come watch your Campbell Camels battle UTC for an automatic berth in the national tournament" seems, to me, like a better marketing campaign than "Come watch your Campbell Camels battle UTC to try and improve their seeds for an all day tournament that you probably won't go to"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scribe..... if you don't consider it "forcing"..what would you call it?

What was said is pretty much true..even the forcing part.

I have said for YEARS coaches need to be held accountable for SELLING their program. I NEVER had a coach that worked the community their program was in. That was much different than what the Bball and Football coaches did. Just sayin....

If we want the fan base widened we need coaches to step up to that part of the equation. You certainly see the Brands, Sandersons, Smiths "selling" their programs to their communities all the time....... more coaches need to as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't like the proposed rule change, yeah, we got that. Maybe if you keep writing posts, and starting threads you can make a difference.

 

You must be republican. If it's not what you want, just keep complaining and forget what other people believe. As long as they damn well know your stance, all is good.

 

Pathetic.

 

Now that is funny. I was thinking the exact opposite. I take it you are a Democrat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ive come around to this line of thinking. the only way to improve NCAA wrestling and create a sellable product for fans is to scream at refs to call stalling. once we all start doing that our problems as a sport will be solved.

 

How about for every stall warning or point in an individual match during the season, your team loses 1 team point at the tournament in March? That will make screaming at the ref for a stall call during the season "meaningful."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ive come around to this line of thinking. the only way to improve NCAA wrestling and create a sellable product for fans is to scream at refs to call stalling. once we all start doing that our problems as a sport will be solved.

 

How about for every stall warning or point in an individual match during the season, your team loses 1 team point at the tournament in March? That will make screaming at the ref for a stall call during the season "meaningful."

 

honestly, not the worst idea in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ive come around to this line of thinking. the only way to improve NCAA wrestling and create a sellable product for fans is to scream at refs to call stalling. once we all start doing that our problems as a sport will be solved.

 

How about for every stall warning or point in an individual match during the season, your team loses 1 team point at the tournament in March? That will make screaming at the ref for a stall call during the season "meaningful."

 

If individual match points were added up to make up the team score, the sport would be easier to follow and it would make each match more interesting.

 

You win 9-4, your team gets 5 points. Keep techs the same. Pins and forfeits count for 20 or 25. Every stalling call matters. Every point matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ive come around to this line of thinking. the only way to improve NCAA wrestling and create a sellable product for fans is to scream at refs to call stalling. once we all start doing that our problems as a sport will be solved.

 

How about for every stall warning or point in an individual match during the season, your team loses 1 team point at the tournament in March? That will make screaming at the ref for a stall call during the season "meaningful."

 

If individual match points were added up to make up the team score, the sport would be easier to follow and it would make each match more interesting.

 

You win 9-4, your team gets 5 points. Keep techs the same. Pins and forfeits count for 20 or 25. Every stalling call matters. Every point matters.

They are testing something similar to this with some NAIA duals this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iowa wins 8 bouts: 6-2, 5-0, 6-0, 8-7, 12-9, 4-0, 2-1, 6-4, = 26

Indiana wins 2 bouts by fall and Inj. forf.: 20, 20, = 40

Goldman is Coach of the Year, Brands fired.

 

They are testing something similar to this with some NAIA duals this season

 

This idea goes back to 1984 when Oklahoma State tried it in a quadrangular. It worked with cream puff competition. I proved it would have failed had it been used in their dual with Iowa. They beat Iowa officially, but with the experimental system Iowa would have won. That was the end of the concept until its resurrection with the NAIA.

 

The idea has merit only if each side wins by similar results. As soon as you get irregular or asymmetric results, like the extreme hypothetical above, you take a very big chance. And if the Media gets hold of it, which they will, wrestling will become the sports world's punching bag full of one-liners for the comedians.

 

The flaw in the ointment is the huge point margin of a few bouts which can overtake a majority. It would be like making the pin/forf. = 12, two of which (24) plus a decision (3) would easily defeat 7 decisions, 27-21.

 

A successful system must have a cap to prevent wild results and minority rule. This is why dual scoring works now, though there are some who still don't like the pin = two hard fought wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iowa wins 8 bouts: 6-2, 5-0, 6-0, 8-7, 12-9, 4-0, 2-1, 6-4, = 26

Indiana wins 2 bouts by fall and Inj. forf.: 20, 20, = 40

Goldman is Coach of the Year, Brands fired.

 

They are testing something similar to this with some NAIA duals this season

 

This idea goes back to 1984 when Oklahoma State tried it in a quadrangular. It worked with cream puff competition. I proved it would have failed had it been used in their dual with Iowa. They beat Iowa officially, but with the experimental system Iowa would have won. That was the end of the concept until its resurrection with the NAIA.

 

The idea has merit only if each side wins by similar results. As soon as you get irregular or asymmetric results, like the extreme hypothetical above, you take a very big chance. And if the Media gets hold of it, which they will, wrestling will become the sports world's punching bag full of one-liners for the comedians.

 

The flaw in the ointment is the huge point margin of a few bouts which can overtake a majority. It would be like making the pin/forf. = 12, two of which (24) plus a decision (3) would easily defeat 7 decisions, 27-21.

 

A successful system must have a cap to prevent wild results and minority rule. This is why dual scoring works now, though there are some who still don't like the pin = two hard fought wins.

 

I think I understand the point that you are making, but I want to make sure.

 

Right now, you need 4 pins in order to win a dual against 6 decisions.

 

Are you saying that this is the correct number, and that 3 pins defeating 7 decisions is going too far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any event, the rules should be designed to produce the outcomes we want. If we want to encourage techs and pins, then we might want to consider adjusting the rules as they are.

 

Under the NAIA-style rules, a single tech could defeat nine one-point decisions.

 

You could argue that that's absurd, but you could also argue that none of those one-point decisions demonstrated dominance. This proposed team score would be a barometer of dominance, and as such, it would encourage winning wrestlers to open up the match, rather than settle for a win, and to attempt to pin, which could be worth as much as what - 20 times a decision?

 

One thing you would not see under these rules would be forfeits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any event, the rules should be designed to produce the outcomes we want. If we want to encourage techs and pins, then we might want to consider adjusting the rules as they are.

 

Under the NAIA-style rules, a single tech could defeat nine one-point decisions.

 

You could argue that that's absurd, but you could also argue that none of those one-point decisions demonstrated dominance. This proposed team score would be a barometer of dominance, and as such, it would encourage winning wrestlers to open up the match, rather than settle for a win, and to attempt to pin, which could be worth as much as what - 20 times a decision?

 

One thing you would not see under these rules would be forfeits.

 

A one point win over Logan Stieber is one point. A tech fall over some meatball = five points? nine points?

 

Sounds real fair to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A one point win over Logan Stieber is one point. A tech fall over some meatball = five points? nine points?

 

Sounds real fair to me.

 

Are you saying that you'd like to see strength of schedule factored into dual meet results? Let's get real.

 

How about this:

A seven point win over Logan Stieber = three points. A one point win over a kid that's 0-20 = three points.

 

Sounds real fair to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You find your seats on Thursday morning of Session I, look up at the scoreboard and see that:

 

Penn State already has 80 points

Minnesota 70

Ohio St 65

etc.

 

And you ask huh how did that happen? How is the casual fan or one not in the 'know' going to grasp that? Will Sandy Stevens have to repeat the dual component and it's point system several times the first day?

 

Just seems clunky and awkward to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it is no different than sitting down for the finals and seeing the scores. Points from each round carry over to the next round. The dual phase would now be the first round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iowa wins 8 bouts: 6-2, 5-0, 6-0, 8-7, 12-9, 4-0, 2-1, 6-4, = 26

Indiana wins 2 bouts by fall and Inj. forf.: 20, 20, = 40

Goldman is Coach of the Year, Brands fired.

 

They are testing something similar to this with some NAIA duals this season

 

This idea goes back to 1984 when Oklahoma State tried it in a quadrangular. It worked with cream puff competition. I proved it would have failed had it been used in their dual with Iowa. They beat Iowa officially, but with the experimental system Iowa would have won. That was the end of the concept until its resurrection with the NAIA.

 

The idea has merit only if each side wins by similar results. As soon as you get irregular or asymmetric results, like the extreme hypothetical above, you take a very big chance. And if the Media gets hold of it, which they will, wrestling will become the sports world's punching bag full of one-liners for the comedians.

 

The flaw in the ointment is the huge point margin of a few bouts which can overtake a majority. It would be like making the pin/forf. = 12, two of which (24) plus a decision (3) would easily defeat 7 decisions, 27-21.

 

A successful system must have a cap to prevent wild results and minority rule. This is why dual scoring works now, though there are some who still don't like the pin = two hard fought wins.

 

I think I understand the point that you are making, but I want to make sure.

 

Right now, you need 4 pins in order to win a dual against 6 decisions.

 

Are you saying that this is the correct number, and that 3 pins defeating 7 decisions is going too far?

 

You can have a lot of 4-win combinations to beat 6 decisions: 6643 = 19, 6544 = 19, 6663 = 21, 5555 = 20. So you don't need the max, 4 pins. But because the pin and tech are the least frequent and the major and decision are most frequent, the team with more wins is almost always the winner. (UNI beat Old Dominion with 4 big wins, 22-21 last year.)

 

When I wrestled a pin was 5 so it made it harder for 4 wins to be the winner. I don't know how you feel, but I tend to be on the side of majority rule. To me, the ideal scoring is 6-5-4, bump the decision to 4 and combine the major and superior to a margin of 8-15 = 5 team points with the option to continue for the pin at a 15 pt. margin. This insures majority rule and keeps the pin incentive instead of cutting it short or distracting it with repeated tilts/tds trying to tech. Once you get to an 8 pt. margin the only thing left is the pin, and no intervening distraction.

 

But back to your last point of "3 pins defeating 7 decisions is going too far" I would say yes. Here's why. If you have a scale like 8-5-4-3 then 3 pins will beat 7 decisions, 24-21. But here's the problem. The pins could also be injury forfeits or no-show defaults which serve to punish a team for their misfortune or bad luck. The scoring should take that into consideration and try to reflect wrestling ability as much as possible, not misfortune. That's why I favor tightening the pin:decision ratio, to insure the team with more decisions (wrestling ability) is the eventual winner.

 

I find that because this is an individual sport dying for excitement any way we can imagine, there's a fringe tendency to focus on the power of the individual's scoring and then try to justify odd/quirky team results, rather than going with team balance, common sense and majority rule. The former will be at the expense of the latter in more ways than one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find that because this is an individual sport dying for excitement any way we can imagine, there's a fringe tendency to focus on the power of the individual's scoring and then try to justify odd/quirky team results, rather than going with team balance, common sense and majority rule. The former will be at the expense of the latter in more ways than one.

 

I think everything you've written is reasonable. And it could be that I'm being unreasonable - but "quirky" team results are a matter of perspective -- and really, of tradition. It is a historical quirk that we give three team points for a one point individual decision that could easily have gone the other way.

 

As I've said before, the rules should reflect what we value, and the kinds of outcomes that we want to produce. My position is that the sport needs to produce more hype and scoring, with rules that are easy to explain, fair, and objective. The particulars are much less important to me, and there are many potential rule sets that could improve things.

 

The question we should be asking is this - does the scoring system encourage what we want (more fans)?

 

I've read a number of your posts, and I know that you worry that team balance is not well rewarded. My question is this: will scoring that favors balanced teams lead to more hype (more fans) or less?

 

Generally speaking, I see a lot of concern on this board about whether "the best" team will always win, and whether unjust results will affect support for wrestling. A lot of this concern is overblown. To cite just one example, the NCAA basketball tournament is very unpredictable - the best team does not always win, and this seems to have no effect on its popularity. If anything, the prospect that an underdog will win enhances its popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't like the proposed rule change, yeah, we got that. Maybe if you keep writing posts, and starting threads you can make a difference.

 

You must be republican. If it's not what you want, just keep complaining and forget what other people believe. As long as they damn well know your stance, all is good.

 

Pathetic.

He sounds more like a democrat; complaining and whiny, not caring what others think because what he thinks is the way it should be.

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...