Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBar1977

NCAA Proposes New Rules (link)

Recommended Posts

as long as wrestlers keep doing well in MMA, wrestling will be okay.

What do you mean by okay?

 

If you mean participation will be strong at the youth and high school level then I think you're right.

 

But since this is a college forum,what does MMA have to do with college administrators preserving the sport on college campuses or more specifically at the D1 level?

 

The college administrators I know have no interest in MMA and I would venture to guess that most University Presidents will not be swayed one bit by wrestlers success in MMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only times I've seen "dual meet scoring" used in tournament was in pool based events prior to placement rounds or true dual meet events.

 

I know a lot of casual fans have a difficult time following the current system and usually even those who believe they are informed fans have to look up bracket scoring. Using dual meet scoring would make this more familiar and easier for everybody. 

 

The obvious elephant in the living room is the possibility of a 3rd place wrestler scoring a ton of points if they loose in the first round and collect a ton of pins. I looked at the scores for the top 10 teams from this years event and AJ Schopp would have scored 33 points, which was about 10 more than any champ. It would have also had Iowa beating MIZZ by 1 point with Ohio St coming in 3rd.

 

The only thing I can think of to accommodate the desire to make following the scoring easier and still minimizing the impact of consi-wrestlers scoring more than a champ is to use dual meet scoring but cut the points in 1/2 in the conis-rounds.    

Edited by Zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heelpick,

A few years ago, Dake scored 22 team points to Taylor's 24. I agree if you're better than a lower place, the scoring system should reflect it. If the Committee really is thinking about a fan friendly system using dual scoring, then it had better pay particular attention to the place values.

I feel there are at least three parameters:

 

 

 

The scoring system does reflect it. In the match where Dake was better only Dake scored team points, Taylor got nothing. 

 

I do not wish to see FALLS diminished. They are the single most exciting part of the sport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHP,

 

I'm not going to do that. That's like me asking my neighbor to mow my lawn because I think his grass it too high. I hate dingbats on message boards that want other people to do things for them. If you're trying to prove a point quite being lazy and do the analysis yourself.   

 

I'm not advocating for or against anything only giving observations and an option to the one complaint people mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kingsland

My guess is SHP has already done the analysis. He's the one of the least lazy posters on the board when it comes to bringing up facts and statistics.

Edited by Kingsland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet again reading comprehension is lost on message boards.

 

The discussion was using dual meet scoring in tournament and since there are no bonus points in dual meets and certainly no 1/2 points there wound never be 1/4 points.

 

Just as a refresher to those of you have totally forgotten dual meet scoring is the following.

 

Pin - 6 points

Technical Fall - 5 points

Major Decision - 4 points

Decision - 3 points

 

 

If any of you detect a hint of sarcasm then not everybody has lost their basic reading comprehension skills.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet again reading comprehension is lost on message boards.

 

The discussion was using dual meet scoring in tournament and since there are no bonus points in dual meets and certainly no 1/2 points there wound never be 1/4 points.

 

Just as a refresher to those of you have totally forgotten dual meet scoring is the following.

 

Pin - 6 points in champions - 3 points in wrestlebacks.

Technical Fall - 5 points in champions - 2.5 points in wrestlebacks.

Major Decision - 4 points in champions - 2 points in wrestlebacks.

Decision - 3 points in champions - 1.5 points in wrestlebacks.

 

 

If any of you detect a hint of sarcasm then not everybody has lost their basic reading comprehension skills.

Per SHP's suggestion of cutting the points in half... see info above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again bug-wit if you had any skill in reading comprehension you would have seen that I clearly stated I was not going to perform the analysis but instead suggested that SHP do it himself.

 

 

 

To everybody except the said bug-wits I know they are just trolling but I have 170 e-mails in my inbox and am really just killing time until 5.

 

 

And no bug-wit I am not going to spend my wasted time doing something you could have completed instead of responding foolishly to message board posts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no bug-wit I am not going to spend my wasted time doing something you could have completed instead of responding foolishly to message board posts.  

if only you weren't writing foolish responses on this message board you could have been done with your analysis by now.

 

time management skills just aren't developed like they used to i guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my time management skills are just fine, I am managing to avoid my very full inbox quite nicely thank you.

I have approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes until I quit work.

 

Tomorrow I'll avoid it for a while then delete about 50 of them I really don't want to answer anyway then start chipping away at the ones from the most important members of the congressional staff. If you had a real job, the kind you can't get without a degree, you'd be ignoring e-mail from important people too.   

Edited by Zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only times I've seen "dual meet scoring" used in tournament was in pool based events prior to placement rounds or true dual meet events.

 

I know a lot of casual fans have a difficult time following the current system and usually even those who believe they are informed fans have to look up bracket scoring. Using dual meet scoring would make this more familiar and easier for everybody. 

 

The obvious elephant in the living room is the possibility of a 3rd place wrestler scoring a ton of points if they loose in the first round and collect a ton of pins. I looked at the scores for the top 10 teams from this years event and AJ Schopp would have scored 33 points, which was about 10 more than any champ. It would have also had Iowa beating MIZZ by 1 point with Ohio St coming in 3rd.

 

The only thing I can think of to accommodate the desire to make following the scoring easier and still minimizing the impact of consi-wrestlers scoring more than a champ is to use dual meet scoring but cut the points in 1/2 in the conis-rounds.    

In your calculations, that had Iowa coming out on top, what values did you assign to placement points, an issue not addressed by Greg Johnson in his notes, but I would imagine was part of the rules committee's "thorough dialogue"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see this as engineering away championships from any East Coast teams. I mean, even if there was a dual championship (which I advocate for) I still think Penn State would have been stringing together titles. They just were so good late in the season.

 

I see these changes as an effort to streamline college wrestling to reduce the learning curve for new fans. Having one scoring system--in this case, the current dual points structure--seems to help in that mission.

 

I am going to be honest, I rarely make an effort to count team points or even think about how many points a result in a tournament will produce. Even as a wrestling fan that watches a ton of wrestling and attends a lot of events, I am do not know the tournament scoring off hand.

 

This is likely why so many people defer questions of tournament scoring to people like SHP and demand that he does the math. That seems like a problem to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve

 

Since I don't recall you ever trolling a post in which I've been involved I'll be civil. If you have then my civility may be misplaced.

 

I used straight dual meet scoring, no placement points, no bonus points, just straight dual meet scoring. Since there was no mention of anything specific in the proposal I just made what was the most logical assumption given the available data.

Edited by Zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my time management skills are just fine, I am managing to avoid my very full inbox quite nicely thank you.

I have approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes until I quit work.

 

Tomorrow I'll avoid it for a while then delete about 50 of them I really don't want to answer anyway then start chipping away at the ones from the most important members of the congressional staff. If you had a real job, the kind you can't get without a degree, you'd be ignoring e-mail from important people too.   

great story but i still don't see that analysis yet. please focus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I am focused. 1hour and 15 minutes to go.

 

By the way who says I didn't do that analysis last week? I mean I could have done it all at one time since I had the numbers in a spreadsheet. Could be that I don't like to pass along valuable information to lazy message board bug-wits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve

 

Since I don't recall you ever trolling a post in which I've been involved I'll be civil. If you have then my civility may be misplaced.

 

I used straight dual meet scoring, no placement points, no bonus points, just straight dual meet scoring. Since there was no mention of anything specific in the proposal I just made what was the most logical assumption given the available data.

OK. As I thought about the proposals, I had assumed Mr. Johnson simply couldn't fully discuss the issues in a short article. But the committee would have HAD to discuss placement points as part of dual meet scoring. Otherwise you are comparing finalists getting 5 bouts vs. fine wrestlers getting ousted early who are then getting 8 bouts.

 

It's a similar issue to that of bout scoring. It's so dependent on number of matches.

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...