Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBar1977

NCAA Proposes New Rules (link)

Recommended Posts

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.

The original link posted only says that there was a dialog about using dual scoring in tournaments. I suspect they have not decided how it would be implemented since they said it will be studied in the season to come.

 

As a result, I wouldn't anticipate anyone having any details on how it would likely be implemented so anyone with any real stance on the issue would be basing it on pure conjecture. I tend to think this is the correct approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve you are correct and that is why I pointed out Schopp scoring more points than any champ and mentioned the option of cutting the scoring in half in the consi bracket. That would have reduced his scoring to 16.5 points which is I believe less than any of the champs earned.     

 

It is just possible that would be a way to make dual meet scoring work without needing to have placement points in the mix. That is of course making the assumption they want to keep the system as simple as possible for the average fan. Yes I understand using dual scoring it is possible that a champ could score as little as 15 points while a wrestler losing in the pony-tail could get 9-straight pins and score 27 points (assuming 1/2 points in the consi) but you can't eliminate all possibilities and still simplify the system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

MMA does a lot for college wrestling. 

 

1) As you noted, it keeps youth and high school participation levels up. This has a few benefits for college wrestling:

 

a. This casts a wider net for talent, and it ultimately feeds into the Olympic system. When wrestlers succeed at the Olympics, it gets some attention. (JB for example has 124,000 twitter followers.) Having Olympic stars is huge for any sport. It's something sports like rowing, cross country, and lacrosse don't have.  

b. In 2014 wrestling was the sixth most popular boy's sport. That's a pretty decent ranking, and as long as that ranking stays, it will be tough to cut a college wrestling program in favor of a less popular sport. 

c. High school wrestlers sometimes watch college wrestling -- if not live then on ESPN. 

d. More high school wrestlers means higher-quality college wrestlers. And a high-quality product is good for college wrestling. 

 

2) Lots of fighters go into MMA after high school or after only a few years in college. So as long as MMA is making billions of dollars, there will be an incentive for MMA promotions to present wrestling in a positive light. At any rate, many of those fighters promote wrestling on their own simply because they love it. The upside is this: If wrestling has an improved image, it is less likely that college programs will be cut it.

 

3) College stars going on to become MMA stars absolutely can affect administrators' judgment of the value of a wrestling program. Having MMA fans around the world discussing the guys who came out of Oklahoma State and ASU and Missouri and so on is huge. That's the sort of exposure you can't get from some other sports.

 

Administrators are not fans of most of the sports their schools sponsor, so the question is always, Is this sport worth the cost? MMA definitely helps wrestling bring more to the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just possible that would be a way to make dual meet scoring work without needing to have placement points in the mix. That is of course making the assumption they want to keep the system as simple as possible for the average fan. Yes I understand using dual scoring it is possible that a champ could score as little as 15 points while a wrestler losing in the pony-tail could get 9-straight pins and score 27 points (assuming 1/2 points in the consi) but you can't eliminate all possibilities and still simplify the system. 

As long as the number of bouts of lower finishers exceed the amount of bouts of higher finishers, complications will arise. Even avid fans will pulling out calculators, as some do now.

 

If you want a real simple system, do exactly the opposite, SCORE PLACEMENT ONLY, for 33 (or 32) wrestlers, and nothing else. No advancement points, no bonus points. Lower the limit for a tech fall (7 points, maybe?), consider first wrestler to 10 points wins. Incentive for a pin would be to end the match, preventing a comeback. Regular brackets. No "true matches", thus making seeding a point of possible contention.

 

25-33 place = 0

17-24 place = a number

13-16 place = a higher number

9-12 place = even higher and progressively more for each of the traditional AA slots, culminating in most for the champion.

 

 

Would this be "too simple"?

 

Maybe add a point for a pin. Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is predicated on simplicity. It's food for thought, not a serious proposal.

 

There has been reaction expressed on these pages against the bonuses achieved in the NCAA championships. We either want pins or we are indifferent to them. I think they should be rewarded, all other things being equal. If a wrestler pins his way through the brackets and creates a phantom AA, my comment is that it's equal opportunity. No one is prevented from getting pins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again what would be wrong with cutting bonus on the back side in half?  They do it for advancement points already for just this reason I assume.

I wouldn't be adverse to a system scoring placement only, but having points for frontside pins and 1/2 of that amount for backside pins. No bonus for TFs  or majors, though.

 

Clearly it would very understandable for fans. like track and field scoring is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experimenting with a rule in the National Wrestling Coaches Association All-Star Classic that would award three points for a takedown.

I'd prefer 3 points for upper-body takedowns only. Not just throws, but anything upper body (bear hugs, etc.). They seem to be harder to come by and, from a spectator standpoint, more exciting to watch. Lower body takedowns (shots, etc.) would remain 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MMA does a lot for college wrestling. 

 

1) As you noted, it keeps youth and high school participation levels up. This has a few benefits for college wrestling:

 

a. This casts a wider net for talent, and it ultimately feeds into the Olympic system. When wrestlers succeed at the Olympics, it gets some attention. (JB for example has 124,000 twitter followers.) Having Olympic stars is huge for any sport. It's something sports like rowing, cross country, and lacrosse don't have.  

b. In 2014 wrestling was the sixth most popular boy's sport. That's a pretty decent ranking, and as long as that ranking stays, it will be tough to cut a college wrestling program in favor of a less popular sport. 

c. High school wrestlers sometimes watch college wrestling -- if not live then on ESPN. 

d. More high school wrestlers means higher-quality college wrestlers. And a high-quality product is good for college wrestling. 

 

2) Lots of fighters go into MMA after high school or after only a few years in college. So as long as MMA is making billions of dollars, there will be an incentive for MMA promotions to present wrestling in a positive light. At any rate, many of those fighters promote wrestling on their own simply because they love it. The upside is this: If wrestling has an improved image, it is less likely that college programs will be cut it.

 

3) College stars going on to become MMA stars absolutely can affect administrators' judgment of the value of a wrestling program. Having MMA fans around the world discussing the guys who came out of Oklahoma State and ASU and Missouri and so on is huge. That's the sort of exposure you can't get from some other sports.

 

Administrators are not fans of most of the sports their schools sponsor, so the question is always, Is this sport worth the cost? MMA definitely helps wrestling bring more to the table.

I fear that's wishful thinking at best.

 

In reading the things you write, you sound as though you're young and maybe relatively new to the sport. If so, welcome aboard and we are happy to have you. But it seems like you think wrestling's popularity is new.

 

In 1990, twenty five years ago, wrestling was the fifth most popular high school sport for boys.

In 1980, thirty five years ago, wrestling was the fifth most popular high school sport for boys.

http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/ParticipationStatics.aspx/

 

The popularity at the high school level has not waned. The plight of the college programs is not for a lack of participation at the high school level.

 

I find it interesting that you attribute the interest in Jordan Burroughs to be a derivative of the growth of MMA. Personally, I think the reduced cost of media distribution which has allowed for companies like Flowrestling, CollegeSportsLive, BTN, and others to increase exposure has done exponentially more for collegiate wrestling than MMA.

 

I would be more inclined to think that the prospect of Ed Ruth leaving wrestling and the chance of future Olympic successes to join an MMA promotion would be more detrimental to the sport on the Olympic level. But since many people have differing opinions on if there is a talent drain on USA Wrestling at the Senior level and it isn't really germane to this conversation since I am only interested in a college centric look, we don't need to address it.

 

There have been many sport cut at schools around the country over the last twenty, thirty, and forty years. Everyone knows that wrestling has suffered their fair share of these cuts but what a lot of people don't realize is that it isn't always just the Athletic Director and Presidents that are making these strategic decisions. Often decisions are influenced by people like the Faculty Athletics Representative which represents the interests of the faculty.

 

While a school's marketing department may promote an fighter, do you think most members of the academic community really take pride in a fighter's success? I am not sure how many administrators you have talked to about it but I have found that the academic community would much rather see Olympic successes and isn't really moved by MMA successes.

 

I see a wealth of more evidence that college wrestling supports MMA but I don't see much that makes me think MMA is helping at all to preserve collegiate wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LakewoodSteve,

I really wonder what would happen if only places counted. That's how it's done in UWW. 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. Simple as heck and no one seems to mind. The wrestlers aren't affected. The hammers still hammer because the tech is (or was) a 6 point difference, and the pin ends it no matter the score. So you might ask --"what incentive is there to have advancement and bonus points for big wins from the point of view of the wrestlers." It seems they'll do whatever they can to win regardless of the team scoring. Their first thought is their own survival and some showing off for the crowd if they can. I doubt if very many are thinking about the team scoring system on their own, although their coach may tell them "we gotta have x bonus points to secure the title."  

Edited by Cooch1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbar1977,

The Dake /Taylor example you cite is correct for that one bout. But for all bouts is what I'm talking about. The dilemma facing this particular rules change is that of finding a way to accurately correlate team point contribution with AA status. As AA status declines so too should team point contribution. This is a difficult parameter, somewhat like a skilled laborer making more money than a less skilled laborer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Otis: what would be wrong with cutting bonus on the backside in half?

Nothing. It would be consistent, and the ratio would be the same for all types of wins, and it would be much more difficult for third to score more team points than 2nd or 1st. I can only guess that it was never done because bonus, especially the pin, is considered to be an untouchable, Sacred Constant in the wrestling universe, perhaps fearing that any devaluation would also mean a reduction in the incentive to be aggressive although no empirical evidence exists to support that. There were just about as many pins back in the day, and it was worth less. Also, there's this tendency, like in the business world, to shower credit on royalty and CEOs even if it's not warranted.

Edited by Cooch1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UWW system has it's own problems IMO, undervaluing a gold medal and giving points to places determined more by draw than skill. It world reasonably well though.

 

I don't really get the NCAA scoring system but it seems geared towards excitement. At every round teams can see their progress and earn points quickly. Non placers can still contribute to their team. I don't think it's a bad system, the values are just out of whack. Placement needs to be a clear #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UWW  is running the bracket like the NCAA did 50 years ago. Wrestling for third is allowed if you were beaten by a finalist. Also, they're trying to spread out the 'wealth' by handing out 2 bronze. To me it's only giving more medals to the toughest countries. I'll believe it when I see a lot more of Canada, Spain and India in the top four. Deep down UWW doesn't care about pairing and team valuation. Their concern is the bout's action. Under pressure of extinction, they came up with the new rules we now see like the pushout, shot clock....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LakewoodSteve,

I really wonder what would happen if only places counted. That's how it's done in UWW. 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. Simple as heck and no one seems to mind. The wrestlers aren't affected. The hammers still hammer because the tech is (or was) a 6 point difference, and the pin ends it no matter the score. So you might ask --"what incentive is there to have advancement and bonus points for big wins from the point of view of the wrestlers." It seems they'll do whatever they can to win regardless of the team scoring. Their first thought is their own survival and some showing off for the crowd if they can. I doubt if very many are thinking about the team scoring system on their own, although their coach may tell them "we gotta have x bonus points to secure the title."  

 The "spectacle" nature of pins is something for both wrestlers and fans. Not so for tech falls and majors, or not as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like to see other opinions on placement-only scoring. Pros and cons.

I wouldn't mind so much, though I'd like to see dual and tournament scoring match. To match that way, whoever wins the most matches would win the dual. That sounds good at first, but I prefer match point scored = team point scored because it would be more exciting and there would be more upsets (which I view as good).

 

On another note, regarding takedowns, how about if you fall to your butt it's a takedown. Has this been discussed? It would pretty much increase takedowns 3x and eliminate most 0-0 first periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1990, twenty five years ago, wrestling was the fifth most popular high school sport for boys.

In 1980, thirty five years ago, wrestling was the fifth most popular high school sport for boys.

http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/ParticipationStatics.aspx/

 

The popularity at the high school level has not waned. The plight of the college programs is not for a lack of participation at the high school level.

These stats are misleading. Around me (New York), there are many less programs than there were in the 70s & 80s, and in recent years teams have been merging and still don't have full rosters. There are way more forfeits than there used to be. In some cases, as many as 5 schools have merged to form a single team!

 

I suspect the participation rates have stayed relatively steady nationwide perhaps because it's growing (or has grown) in areas other than the Northeast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind so much, though I'd like to see dual and tournament scoring match. To match that way, whoever wins the most matches would win the dual. That sounds good at first, but I prefer match point scored = team point scored because it would be more exciting and there would be more upsets (which I view as good).

 

On another note, regarding takedowns, how about if you fall to your butt it's a takedown. Has this been discussed? It would pretty much increase takedowns 3x and eliminate most 0-0 first periods.

Bout scoring for a dual is one thing. As discussed in a another thread it would become extremely unwieldy for a tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playing around with placement scoring.

 

 

Here are two sets of scoring possibilites for each finishing position:

1st place- 16 or 16

2nd 15 or 15

3rd 13 or 14

4th 12 or 13

5th 10 or 12

6th 9 or 11

7th 7 or 10

8th 6 or 9

9-12 4 or 6

13-16 3 or 4

17-24 2 or 2

25-33 0 or 0

The second set has the earned points nudged upward a bit except for 1st, 2nd, and the bottom.

 

Let's take the example of Ohio State and Iowa and how each would have scored at the NCAAs. First note that Ohio State had 6 wrestlers finish higher than their Iowa counterparts. Iowa had four finish higher and there were no ties (a possibility for non-AAs).

 

The first scoring column would have had TOSU on top of Iowa 77-72. The second column would have had Iowa winning 84-81. Assuming correct math. No points for any bonus. Which column to pick, if either?

 

Pins can be a question. If you like 2 points for frontside pins and 1 for consis, then perhaps revise placement points upward. If you really like pins then don't revise the points that much. I would be adverse to having any other kind of bonus in a placement scoring system, though I would have defaults = pins as tiebreaker criteria (if that were to ever happen). 

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would oppose any scoring change that eliminated bonus points from team scoring. Why should duals have bonus points but not tournaments?

 

I also don't think tournament scoring would be simplified by using dual scoring. The additional complexity introduced to account for consolation rounds would undo the simplicity gains by using dual scoring in tournaments. All we would end up doing is changing the point values for wins without making it any easier to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These stats are misleading. Around me (New York), there are many less programs than there were in the 70s & 80s, and in recent years teams have been merging and still don't have full rosters. There are way more forfeits than there used to be. In some cases, as many as 5 schools have merged to form a single team!

 

I suspect the participation rates have stayed relatively steady nationwide perhaps because it's growing (or has grown) in areas other than the Northeast.

Not sure I would characterize the stats as misleading since we were talking about the health of the sport nationally and D1 college programs recruit nationally.

 

But you do make a fair point about localized communities. And admittedly I don't have the data on specific states in the 80s to be able to compare the trend to other sports in the state to see if wrestling's health is changing.

 

However, since I am familiar with your community, I should note that even if I were able to provide the data on WNY participation in the 1980s and 2010s, it would be misleading to merely present wrestling participation stats. As a result of the total population decline WNY has experienced, most schools in WNY have experienced a decline in participation across all sports.

 

It is true that in WNY there have been wrestling teams consolidating due to low participation rates but the same is also true of football teams, often the sport with the highest total participation figures.

 

Erie County Population

1970 1,113,491 4.6%

1980 1,015,472 −8.8%

1990 968,532 −4.6%

2000 950,265 −1.9%

2010 919,040 −3.3

 

 

Niagara County Population

1970 235,720 −2.7%

1980 227,354 −3.5%

1990 220,756 −2.9%

2000 219,846 −0.4%

2010 216,469 −1.5%

 

 

Compare that to the population growth of the United States as a whole and it is a stark difference.

 

1970 203,211,926 13.3%

1980 226,545,805 11.5%

1990 248,709,873 9.8%

2000 281,421,906 13.2%

2010 308,745,538 9.7%

 

 

I would like to make note that I did mention specialization which I think has changed the face of high school sports leading to less three sport athletes and resulting in a higher percentage of athletes that participate in a given sport to being very dedicated to that sport. This could be a two edged sword, however, as it is harder to break into the sport if you're first introduction is at the high school level. On one hand the wrestlers we have are probably more dedicated and competing at a higher level than any other time in history but we are also making it harder for students to join the community and enjoy the sport at a more recreational level.

 

Though not the data you're interested in here is some data for comparison...

 

New York State Wrestling

2003 - 462 schools and 12,013 athletes

2014 - 497 schools and 13,668 athletes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New York State Wrestling

2003 - 462 schools and 12,013 athletes

2014 - 497 schools and 13,668 athletes

 

Does that include PSAL (NYC)?  If so, I that's the reason for the increase. They've added over 50 teams in that timespan.  Which would mean that the rest of the state has gone down.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/nyregion/in-new-york-uzbek-immigrants-invigorate-high-school-wrestling.html?_r=0

Edited by wnywrestling

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...