Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oldrules

Rick's rant

Recommended Posts

Sort of fun to read all the different opinions and ideas regarding rule changes. Here's a few I like....

 

,,,pushout/stepout for sure

...get rid of riding time....but if you want to keep it, reward a point for every 30 sec, or so, make bottom guy work to get out

...first wrestler to score 10 points, or however many, or a pin wins (really like this one, but probably never will see it)

...increase team point values for a major, tech, and a fall...heck, make a fall worth 10 or 12 team points ....and yes, understand sometimes there's great offensive effort, crazy action and scrambling, great counter wrestling where minimal points are scored, but currently not the norm

 

...simplify the NCAA OT

 

...in general, make the wrestlers wrestle and score lots of points, all the time, somehow...gosh, there's so much fantastic talent out there that is never even used in the competition ....way too often it's just a match of hand fighting and some uneventful riding, then they get rewarded with a never ending OT

 

...having said all that, yes, there are still excellent wrestlers putting on a great show under the current rules, but IMO, it could be so much better

 

...almost forgot, the dual championship format.....really enjoyed the dual competitions, lots of intense team pride, just not sure how, when, and if, to factor duals into national championship...keep it separate, or what?

Edited by 2td3nf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh..what is the name of the tournament?In reality it is a "national" tournament.......... a National INVITATIONAL tournament....were not ALL the top teams invited?

just stop it. they could call it the intergalactic championship of the universe and it wouldnt get them anywhere closer to a national championship. 

 

And do the champions not call themselves the dual meet national champs?

 

I think they do.

oh grow up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just stop it. they could call it the intergalactic championship of the universe and it wouldnt get them anywhere closer to a national championship. 

 

oh grow up. 

I see NO reason that Missouri should not/would not call themselves the National Duals Champions (as they were/are) as would ANY school that won the National Duals. Simply because you don't want to recognize the BEST dual team won the National Duals. Is it THE championship the NCAA recognizes......golly nope it isn't. Haven't heard anyone say it was the NCAA Championships. Doesn't change the fact Missouri showed themselves to be the best dual team in the land at this point in time.

 

BTW..Congratulations to Missouri on your National Championship!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of a single coach who thinks team performance isn't his #1 priority, and I've talked to a lot of them. 

 

Let me see if I can unpack this labyrinth of double negatives...

- coaches have priorities

- some coaches' #1 priority is team performance

- some coaches' #1 priority is individual wrestler performance, or something other than team performance

 

You can't think of any D1 coach whose #1 priority is individual wrestler performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many more exciting dynamics in duals.

 

I can get parents of youth wrestler to watch duals. They enjoy them. I can get ex-high school wrestlers to watch duals. They enjoy them. I can not get either group to watch tournaments. Neither group could name more than a few wrestlers but they could all tell you which team they cheer for. It takes too much time to learn all the athletes names. Just let them cheer blindly for a team.

Tournaments are great but they are not what wrestling needs to flourish in a changing landscape.

 

I'm mostly a lurker, but I've always dug your takes on the boards. I think here, inside this post, you've showcased one of the problems with this debate the past few years. You've emphasized the distinction between the Individual Tournament and the Dual Meet, but why doesn't the Duals Tourney get the same segregated distinction?

 

I look at it like this. Wrestling is an individual sport. On the mat, it's only ever mano a mano. So far, collegiate wrestling hasn't tried any battle royales, so there's only ever 2 people on the mat at a time (asterisk reserved for Terry Brands). So all these debates about team champions are actually debates about how to teamify this individual sport. So far, our forefathers have conjured up three primary competitive structures, through & by which we have attempted to teamify that individual sport:

 

1. The Individual Tournament. This is a natural way to determine who's the best individual wrestlers and would happen regardless of any teamification attempt. The teamification portion is done with a scoring system that assigns Placement/Advancement/Bonus points to a wrestler's team based on his or her individual performance. At D1, that scoring system has been changed 18 times since its first incarnation in 1929.

 

2. The Dual Meet. This was constructed to ease the organization of individual competition. Without it, what would happen--individuals would have to travel around solo, to face other individuals in one-off comps? Hey, while we're here with a bunch of our dudes vs a bunch of your dudes, why not keep a team score?

 

3. The Duals Tourney. These days, these get lumped in with the Dual Meet during these discussions and they're terrifically different animals. The scoring system used to assign points to a team based on the individuals' performance is the same, but that's about it. When a whole team is attempting to navigate a multi-team bracket in a short period of time, strategy can change drastically from the one-time Dual Meet. Namely, as seen across the country in high school state Duals Tourneys this time of year every year, forfeits rear their ugly heads in different ways.

 

It seems to me that if we consider the Duals Tourney as a separate entity from the other two, subsequent debates are easier to have:

- Get new fans: to me, a Dual Meet seems easier to attract new fans to than a Duals Tourney. Boston U rounded up nearly as many fans for a dual vs Penn State that Minnesota did for Natty Duals--and that was in their dying season. In any event, they're two different solutions to--and two different debates to--answer that question.

- Schedule: the Duals Tourney has had a difficult stretch these past few years, since abandoning the early January timeframe of the Virginia Duals. And Brian Smith talked about the difficulty of scheduling a Dual Meet with Big Ten teams, given the 14 B1G teams and the

- Champion semantics: it seems like it would be easier to have these arguments if we emphasize the difference between the team champion of an Individual Tourney vs the team champion of a Duals Tourney vs the team champion of a Dual Meet regular season.

 

I just think if we have just a wee bit more clarity as to the debate's frame, many subsequent discussions would bring additional clarity as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I there is confusion because of the methods we have used for dual tournaments. If the NCAA sponsored a dual championship, I believe it would fall somewhere between soccer and baseball in formats.

 

First of all, we have not had an event that teams qualify for based on team results or conference results. That is the first most distinction. The National Duals is an invitational event. This year it included 16 teams and I suppose you could say 8 teams qualified for the finals, if you want to think of Iowa City as the finals.

 

When you think of dual tournaments you often think of things like the Virginia Duals or Northeast Duals where a bunch of teams get together and wrestle one match after the other. This is how, for the most part, the National Duals have been done for many years, with some changes in the recent years to help spread out the event and make advancement stages.

 

I believe the advancement stages are key. If you just run a bunch of duals together then it starts to resemble more of the long day individual tournament that many people don't want to sit through, as you've alluded to.

 

The most important piece of making an NCAA duals a success is the qualification process. This makes the regular season duals important and will make a heated competition for the teams 'on the bubble.'

 

Again, I think the biggest issue is that people keep thinking that the NCAA duals would just be the NWCA National Duals with a name change. I don't believe it will be anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important piece of making a NCAA duals a success is getting the NCAA to accept the idea of two NCAA team titles. Track and field has two, indoor and outdoor. With todays domes and artificial turf there could be one team title, but I digress.

 

IF wrestling had a lot a of clout and fans, and a lot of Dan Gables and Bob Bowlsbys and BIG money (for bribes), wrestling might ...might be able to get the NCAA's administrators to rationalize "Oh well, yea, we could set you up with two titles...what the heck."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply because you don't want to recognize the BEST dual team won the National Duals

now youre just being absurd. 

 

i hereby officially recognize Missouri as the best dual team in the NCAA! they are the "National Duals" champions!

 

Missouri, you, me and anyone else can call the winner of this tournament whatever they want. the national duals, super nice as it was (i enjoyed it!) has nothing to do with the "National Championship" that the NCAA hands out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important piece of making a NCAA duals a success is getting the NCAA to accept the idea of two NCAA team titles. Track and field has two, indoor and outdoor. With todays domes and artificial turf there could be one team title, but I digress.

 

IF wrestling had a lot a of clout and fans, and a lot of Dan Gables and Bob Bowlsbys and BIG money (for bribes), wrestling might ...might be able to get the NCAA's administrators to rationalize "Oh well, yea, we could set you up with two titles...what the heck."

No. They don't need two team titles and there should not be two team titles (there would be major issues with the Department of Education as a result). The NCAA (or rather University Presidents who the NCAA works for) will not support two team titles. However, they will support two separate championships if one is for teams and one is for individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing we haven't considered is, that wrestling isn't dead but perhaps that the american style of wrestling is dead. When women's wrestling came hard onto the scene I have to be honest and say that I wasn't a fan. at all. From the stand point of that they only have been wrestling for a limited amount of years (usually less than 10) and we were winning olympic medals. But I know when to eat crow and i am doing it now. My point is that the women have built a very successful model for growing our sport. 

 

There are several things that we could accomplish if we would switch to freestyle and greco or just freestyle, hear me out. 

 

1. One style of wrestling. no more confusion.

 

2 Could be multi-national. Meaning teams from canada and all over the world could compete for an NCAA division 1 title. 

 

3. Would benefit our olympic teams and world teams. 

 

4. This could also mean that with only 8 weights, that we could allow more than one wrestler per team at a weight, thus making the national tournament larger. if two wrestlers qualified from each school at each weight, we could double the size, therefore  double fans and income. 

 

5. I think we could then down the road we could set a wrestling league much like germany, iran, and russia and india

 

6. No riding, and shave a minute off the match times. 

 

Also everyone wants to throw the terms "money and fans" out. If we had more fans, if we had more money. Yes those fix problems but some of the underlying issues are not money driven. Those issues are 

 

1. Wrestlers GPA. As a whole we have a horrible reputation of bad gpa and apr issues. 

 

2. Part of that reason is because we span two semesters. Needs to be a one semester sport. 

 

 

I don't want to give up on "our" style of wrestling, but if we want to grow the sport, and grow it in this country, i think this is the way. We have so many great coaches who have been great at freestyle as well i don't think much would change. And I also think we would see more parity also. just my two cents 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of wrestling at most colleges is why they won't have an individual and also a dual team championship.

Track and Field has two championships. So it's not totally exclusive.

There are two different sports. Each athlete counts as two athletes (three if they run cross country). Many mens track teams teams have been cut as a result of being able to cut two or three roster spots and only impacting one athlete. Cutting track is politically expedient because of this. Wrestling does not want to be in this position. I don't think anyone in athletic administration would advocate for wrestling to be two sports and have two team titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. They don't need two team titles and there should not be two team titles (there would be major issues with the Department of Education as a result). The NCAA (or rather University Presidents who the NCAA works for) will not support two team titles. However, they will support two separate championships if one is for teams and one is for individuals.

 

 

There in lies the problem.  I think a majority of wrestling fans believe that the most accurate way to determine the best team for an individual sport (like wrestling) is the current tournament tallying points for their team format. It also increases the importance of exciting go for broke wrestling versus shutting down to prevent losing big/getting pinned which can cost 6 points in a dual.

 

JH - I normally understand where you're coming from but I legit have no idea what you are talking about.  Do they not call the NWCA National Duals the national tournament to determine the best dual meet team in the country?  The teams that did not show up do not get to call themselves the best dual meet team in the nation, same as if they went and lost except in this case they never even gave themselves an opportunity to win, which is their right. Will Missouri call themselves dual meet national champs?  If the answer is yes then we already have two national championships and the best of all worlds.

 

Not sure what the intergalactic champions or grow up comments were trying to show except that you're still annoyed they haven't changed how the NCAA tournament is run because of a vocal minority.

Edited by HuskyHero133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There in lies the problem.  I think a majority of wrestling fans believe that the most accurate way to determine the best team for an individual sport (like wrestling) is the current tournament tallying points for their team format. It also increases the importance of exciting go for broke wrestling versus shutting down to prevent losing big/getting pinned which can cost 6 points in a dual.

most basketball fans understand that a single elimination tournament is not the best way to determine the best team in the NCAA but they all seem to enjoy the current system. 

 

 Will Missouri call themselves dual meet national champs?  If the answer is yes then we already have two national championships and the best of all worlds.

LOL ok we can move on from this topic then.

 

 

Not sure what the intergalactic champions or grow up comments were trying to show except that you're still annoyed they haven't changed how the NCAA tournament is run because of a vocal minority.

im doing just peachy but thank you for the concern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There in lies the problem.  I think a majority of wrestling fans believe that the most accurate way to determine the best team for an individual sport (like wrestling) is the current tournament tallying points for their team format. It also increases the importance of exciting go for broke wrestling versus shutting down to prevent losing big/getting pinned which can cost 6 points in a dual.

Then why even wrestle duals during the season?

 

We would be much better off having each team wrestle just ten tournaments, right? Less weigh-ins would make it more like the international schedule and the best athletes would get plenty of events.

 

Why the charade of trying to balance two methods of judging a team if one is so much better? And if one is so much better, won't the fans support that one more? I have yet to see a tournament outside of the NCAA Championships that that draws impressive crowds that compare to the top duals. The Nittany Lion Open doesn't draw fans despite a lot of great athletes competing and the fact that they sell out the same venue (and the larger BJC) ever year. Even Chattanooga, which is not considered a place with a large fan following and high attendance to matches has sold out a home dual (with Iowa) where they had to turn fans away in which the attendance rivaled the Southern Scuffle's record attendance despite the Scuffle having so many more teams and so many more elite athletes.

 

Additionally, I have not seen a good way to mass distribute tournament action to fans. Duals are easily distributed to fans via television because they are perfectly packaged for television. Even the current NCAA Championships are not the most fan friendly event.

 

Is the individual tournament the best method to crown a team champion? That can be debated but there is tradition and I can accept the position that people think it is the best method. I however am more concerned about the marketability of the sport and think the dual championship is a much better way to market the sport to a broad base of people who understand wrestling even if they don't follow college open tournaments all weekend on their computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a lot easier to fix one dual with a few lousy officials calls than it is to fix an entire tournament. Just look at how this past Sunday's single dual was officiated. As it turned out it did not matter because Missouri was just too strong, but that officiating was totally one sided. 

 

One sided officiating would have to involve dozens of calls to pull an inferior group of athletes to an NCAA Tournament championship. This is reason enough to support The Tournament over duals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I think we are grasping. It is unfortunate when it happens but it is all part of sport. Officials are human and mistakes do happen.

 

I would actually have it out in the open and viewed by many than have the mistake hidden so not many people notice.

 

You can google blown sports calls and find thousands in many sports. But this is the one that often comes to mind for me.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5993137

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why even wrestle duals during the season?

 

To give the individuals more opportunity to compete in this individual sport. The teamification of the Dual Meet is, foremost, one of convenience & opportunity for the individual. How else will the individual get to compete?

 

We would be much better off having each team wrestle just ten tournaments, right? Less weigh-ins would make it more like the international schedule and the best athletes would get plenty of events.

 

Oh. I see.

 

I get that you're suggesting this as a rhetorical device, but let's think about it functionally. 'The best athletes' would get plenty of events, but what about the less talented athletes? Marketability to fans is dependent on participation by athletes, right? It's a sliding scale, but we wouldn't want to reduce athletic opportunities in order to achieve higher viewership, would we?

 

If we remember that this sport is individual at its core, the Dual Meet is a structure of convenience. It provides an easier way for a group of athletes to compete individually. It also makes sense, then, for additional fun, to slap a label on that group of individual competitors and call it a team.

 

Why the charade of trying to balance two methods of judging a team if one is so much better? And if one is so much better, won't the fans support that one more? 

 

I contend that there are three methods of judging a team (of, at the risk of overbearing pedantry, a group of individuals competing individually):

1. The Individual Tourney needs to happen regardless of teamication, because individual sport.

2. The Dual Meet pretty much needs to happen so the individuals aren't out roaming the islands looking for competition. By so organizing, it provides a natural teamification.

3. The Duals Tourney is an extension of the Dual Meet, designed, presumably, to heighten a teamified competition.

 

I don't think any of them are 'so much better' and I don't have strong feelings about which is more likely to bring new fans. But I also don't think it's a charade that all three exist; I think all three brought lots of entertainment to old & new fans this year. Although, I'll grant that the process of crowning that teamified entity can quickly become a charade, if the debate's not conducted responsibly.

 

Additionally, I have not seen a good way to mass distribute tournament action to fans. Duals are easily distributed to fans via television because they are perfectly packaged for television. Even the current NCAA Championships are not the most fan friendly event.

 

I feel ya on the Dual Meet being nicely packaged for TV (again, much more so than a Duals Tourney). But the skyrocketing TV numbers evidenced by ESPNs expanded coverage & viewership data the past few years screams that the end-of-season Individual Tourney is extremely fan-friendly. And, again, much more so than similar evidence for a Duals Tourney.

 

Is the individual tournament the best method to crown a team champion? That can be debated but there is tradition and I can accept the position that people think it is the best method. I however am more concerned about the marketability of the sport and think the dual championship is a much better way to market the sport to a broad base of people who understand wrestling even if they don't follow college open tournaments all weekend on their computer.

 

Is a Duals Tourney the best method to crown a team champion? I'm similar to you in that I can accept some people think so. I might even agree with them if we were talking in a vacuum, or if we were building the sport from scratch. As it is now, I think any transferal of the champ label would be too awkward and in the end become perhaps more damaging to growth than the status quo (of the champ label only, I mean--there are still plenty of improvements on the status quo I'd endorse more heartily).

 

As for marketability, I'm with you there, too, in concern. And if by 'the dual championship' you mean the Dual Meet and not the Duals Tourney, I'd agree with you there. The one day, 2hr event of a Dual Meet--especially on a college campus--presents all sorts of opportunities to market it and make it an attendable or televisable event. I think we'll continue to see more innovation in putting those on here the next few years, as coaches continue to embrace creativity.

 

I know this place can get pretty trolly sometimes, so just want to add that I respect your right to post an opinion and respect your track record while so doing. I haven't debated these subjects much lately, so thank you for the civil discussion. Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem I see with the argument of making the National Duals the NCAA Dual Championship is the same top ten teams are still going to be the only ones with a shot at winning. So, nothing would really change for the lesser teams in terms of attendance, following, or coverage. Sure, you may get some heated duals because the wrestlers want to make the tournament, but fans know teams on the bubble really pose no threat to the top teams. You may get an upset early on, but the chances of making a run and winning are slim to none. A team like Chatanooga or even Lehigh, who has a solid program, is never going to knock off multiple teams that lead the nation. Also, when a giant like Minnesota does go down in an early round, attendance and viewership is going to drop dramatically. So, as exciting as it can be for fans of the underdog and rivals of the taken down team, the majority of fans from the large program will leave and/or stop watching.

 

With the tournament now deciding the team championship, you get veiwers that are concerned about the team championship, but you also get viewers from the smaller schools that have one, two, three, or however many wrestlers they manage to qualify for the tournament tuning in to watch their individual wrestlers. When a larger school falls from the team race, they still have individual competitors to keep attendance and viewership up.

 

I still believe the biggest problem is just not enough exposure on TV. I don't have actual data to back up this claim, but I feel like I have seen more lacrosse and field hockey than wrestling on BTN. I picked two sports without a pro league as to correlate to expected levels of coverage reasonable. We need more fans to get BTN and ESPN to cover more matches, but we won't get more fans quickly without greater exposure. It is a vicious cycle and I don't think any format change is going to fix it like many hope. I don't think our sport is dying. I do wish it were easier to watch. I like the sport the way it is. All the rule changes proposed by so many seek to change it too much. I could get behind a pushout rule and quicker stall calls or even stall calls leading for a choice of position for the agressor, but trying to increase scoring by making new things score points will just add confusion to an already subjective scoring method.

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...