Daton Fix and the Oklahoma State staff (Photo/Tony Rotundo; WrestlersAreWarriors.com)College wrestling's crown jewel is indisputably the NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships. Prior to COVID, each year thousands of fans would make a pilgrimage to the host city, spending three days of bliss watching the best college folkstylers compete for the title of national champion. There is no doubt this custom will come back with a vengeance in March of 2022. While the event itself is remarkable and one of the few NCAA championships across all sports that makes money, it does have its downside. Coaches and athletes have come to understand that, while the regular season has its uses, those three days in March are of the utmost importance. This means more stars sitting out matches to rest. This means fewer big events during the season as some programs shift away from grueling schedules. This means the regular season could use a boost.
Despite the many symptoms that suggest the regular season may be of dwindling importance, dual meet attendance was growing before the spring of 2020 shutdown. Per the figures compiled by Jason Bryant, Iowa led the nation in average attendance once again and had more than 10,000 fans for every dual for the first time since records have been kept. 24 schools reported an average of at least 1000 fans per home meet, tying the record set in 2018-19. 38 schools had average support of at least 700 patrons which far exceeded the previous high. The dual meet is thriving, despite the growing "perform in March at all costs" mentality. What if there were a way to add an event that features both the prestige of an NCAA championship and the casual fan allure of the dual meet?
Ever since the Division I National Duals was canceled for the 2017-18 season, there has been discussion of how an NCAA Dual Meet Championship might look. Remember that the National Duals was an NWCA event. The NWCA Multi Divisional National Duals continues to be held in regular years, it simply does not include Division I and there is an appetite among many to fill that hole. Having an additional NCAA championship event on the schedule is appealing for many reasons, not least of which is the potential to have ESPN, who has broadcast every match of the DI national tournament for years now, expand their coverage of college wrestling.
Figuring out how to make such an event work is a daunting task. The normal college season that lasts from November 1st past mid-March is a grind. Trying to fit tournaments in alongside duals both conference and non-conference alike while making sure your program is peaking for the postseason keeps coaches up at night. Adding in another marquee event is difficult. This is why having the NCAA attached is crucial. The National Duals rarely, if ever, had all the top teams participating with almost all the power schools skipping it at times during its run. Ideally, an NCAA Dual Championship would have its own national title attached. Whether that means taking the team aspect from the individual tournament, a controversial topic to be sure, or having a split season, the NCAA crown would ensure the highest level of participation.
One of the toughest issues to tackle in making such an event is to figure out who would qualify. As I sat down to do this article, I had two main goals for that process in mind:
1) Ensure every team started the season with a chance to win if they performed on the mat.
2) Create as many meaningful events as possible throughout the season.
As I worked through that, I found myself gravitating to a model that already exists in sports. Now, before I tell you where I got the inspiration I want you to promise to hear me out. You've made it this far. Some of you are going to have a knee-jerk reaction due to your distaste for the sport involved, but I'm telling you, the model fits well even if the sports are very different. Deal?
The model that I based much of the qualifying on is taken from soccer's men's World Cup qualifying. What most Americans know as the men's World Cup, the 32 team tournament held every four years, is actually the World Cup finals. The qualifying matches are also a part of the World Cup, creating a chance for tiny countries all over the globe to play meaningful matches in a quest to advance. This model meets my two criteria above and fits well into college wrestling's current structure. While the soccer model is divided on geographic lines, I'm going to use the conferences instead to minimize the disruption to the existing schedule.
The first aspect of any dual championship that must be decided is the number of teams. There are arguments to be made for anything from 4 to 16 qualifying for the main event. We have seen a final four setup at the NWCA event in years past, but with the NCAA attached, I feel we should go bigger. 8 is reasonable as well, and better than 4, but when you start talking about qualifying, it is a bit too limiting with 7 conferences involved. 16 seems to be the right number. It allows most, if not all, conferences to have an automatic bid into the final stage, and can be wrestled in a weekend with 4 duals for those that reach the finals. I would suggest limiting the consolation bracket as dual tournaments can be brutal and with this event adding to the schedule, it would be best to minimize the number of duals contested where prudent. A single-elimination tournament with the semi-final losers wrestling for third seems to be a good fit here.
So, 16 teams, and I mentioned previously every team would have a chance to make it at the start of the season. However, not all conferences are created equal. The World Cup model accounts for this as UEFA, which encompasses Europe, the Big 10 equivalent, gets more qualifying spots than any 2 other federations combined. While that is likely going to be the case most years, I believe we should use a modified version of the previous year's NCAA team scoring to allocate the qualifying spots. This would allow the conferences to know, as they build their schedules, how many bids they have in a given year while also allowing conferences to earn more as they perform better.
I did mention a modified scoring aspect. This is to account for the fact that dual strength is not the same as tournament strength. I would do two things to adjust the final scoring from the NCAA tournament. One is I would take out any wrestler that is not eligible to wrestle next season. This is simple. We are trying to allocate the spots for the next season so those who can't compete should not have an impact. The second adjustment is to give teams 15 points per NCAA qualifier.
An example to illustrate why. Let's say you have Spencer Lee on your team and no one else that can qualify for the NCAA tournament. You get Spencer's 24.5 plus 15 for your one qualifier for a total of 39.5. Now, I have Cam Amine and Kanen Storr with no other qualifiers. Combined, they scored 12 points. If we just use tournament scoring, you win easily. However, in a dual, while Spencer likely scores bonus against whoever I throw out, Amine and Storr are probably going to beat whoever you throw out. So, the worst case for those three matches is a 6-6 tie. Storr and Amine need one bonus point or my 125 needs to not get pinned for me to come out ahead. So, with the qualifier points, my Amine/Storr combination now sits at 42 (their 12 points scored plus 15 qualifier points for each), just in front of Lee. This is a closer approximation of dual strength.
Since all seniors are eligible to return next season none were removed from the formula this time. The following list shows the top 20 scores using this formula. One note, I counted any NCAA qualifier whether they withdrew before the tournament or were added late because of a withdrawal. I wouldn't want to put a team in a position where making the right call for an athlete's health could potentially harm the team/conference in this calculation.
1. Iowa; 10 qualifiers; Points: 129; Qualifier Points 150; Total: 279 (Big Ten)
2. Penn State; 9 qualifiers; Points: 113.5; Qualifier Points 135; Total: 248.5 (Big Ten)
3. Oklahoma State; 10 qualifiers; Points: 99.5; Qualifier Points 135; Total: 234.5 (Big 12)
4. Missouri; 10 qualifiers; Points: 64; Qualifier Points 150; Total: 214 (MAC)
5. NC State; 9 qualifiers; Points: 68; Qualifier Points 135: Total: 203 (ACC)
6. Minnesota; 9 qualifiers; Points 64; Qualifier Points 135; Total: 199 (Big Ten)
7. Arizona State; 8 qualifiers; Points 74; Qualifiers Points 120; Total: 194 (Pac-12)
8. Michigan; 8 qualifiers; Points 69; Qualifier Points 120; Total: 189 (Big Ten)
9. Nebraska; 9 qualifiers; Points: 38; Qualifier Points 135; Total: 173 (Big Ten)
10. Lehigh; 10 qualifiers; Points: 11.5; Qualifier Points 150; Total: 161.5 (EIWA)
11. Iowa State; 8 qualifiers; Points 37.5; Qualifier Points 120; Total: 157.5 (Big 12)
12. Virginia Tech; 8 qualifiers; Points 36.5; Qualifier Points 120; Total: 156.5 (ACC)
13. North Carolina; 8 qualifiers; Points 36; Qualifier Points 120; Total: 156 (ACC)
14. Northwestern; 7 qualifiers; Points 45; Qualifier Points 105; Total: 150 (BigTen)
15. Navy; 9 qualifiers; Points 7.5; Qualifier Points 135; Total: 142.5 (EIWA)
16. Stanford; 7 qualifiers; Points 35.5; Qualifier Points 105; Total: 140.5 (Pac-12)
17. Purdue; 8 qualifiers; Points 15.5; Qualifier Points 120; Total: 135.5 (Big Ten)
18. Michigan State; 8 qualifiers; Points 13; Qualifier Point 120; Total: 133 (Big Ten)
19. Virginia; 8 qualifiers; Points 11.5; Qualifier Points 120; Total 131.5 (ACC)
20. Oklahoma; 7 qualifiers; Points 17; Qualifier Points 105; Total 122 (Big 12)
The most glaring examples of this formula straying from the final NCAA tournament standings are Lehigh and Navy. They both likely benefited from the Ivy League not competing this season, which gave the EIWA teams who did wrestle more qualifiers than they otherwise would have had. This is a one-off situation that is not likely to repeat itself. Given that Cornell and Princeton probably would have finished in the top 20 had they competed, I don't think this will skew too much.
The two teams most harmed by the qualifier points were Pitt (40.5 NCAA points) and Rutgers (37.5 points). They finished 22nd and 24th respectively. However, half their lineup missed the NCAA tournament. In a dual format, that makes a difference as we saw above. Could they beat Michigan State or Virginia head-to-head? Of course, it is possible. The good news for them is that they can "steal" a bid by performing on the mat. These standings are only for determining the allocations. Much like the individual qualification system, the teams who make use of the allocated spot will be determined on the mat.
You may have noticed that the SoCon is the only conference that did not have a team in the top 20. To ensure that all teams have a path to the championship, we must adjust. In the event a conference has no teams that would otherwise earn a bid, they will receive one allocation, just as they do in individual qualifications. For these purposes, we'll give Oklahoma's allocation to the SoCon.
I am also referencing the top 20 instead of the top 16. One aspect of World Cup qualifying I find particularly interesting is that certain bubble spots playoff against bubble finishers from another area. Stealing that concept, if we were allocating for next season based on the above, those teams who finished in the top 12 would qualify for the final 16 directly. Each spot ranked 13-16 would be paired with the corresponding spot 17-20 in a dual to see who qualified for the final 16. For example, the ACC has four teams in the top 20. Two are in the top 12 so the top two qualifiers out of the ACC are guaranteed to wrestle in the final 16. The third ACC spot is 13th. That is the highest-ranking non-automatic spot so the third ACC qualifier would take on the SoCon champion as they are in the #20 allocation. The fourth ACC qualifier would (#19) would battle #14 which is the sixth Big Ten qualifier. It would look like this:
ACC #3 vs SoCon #1
Big Ten #6 vs ACC #4
EIWA #2 vs Big Ten #8
Pac 12 #2 vs Big Ten 7
The final allocations would look like the table below, though if the Stanford decision holds, that allocation would go away and everyone below would shift up one. Teams moving conferences or discontinuing their programs should always be accounted for when determining allocation spots.
Big Ten: 5 Automatic; 3 Wrestle-in; 8 Total
ACC: 2 Automatic; 2 Wrestle-in; 4 Total
Big 12: 2 Automatic; 0 Wrestle-in; 2 Total
EIWA: 1 Automatic; 1 Wrestle-in; 2 Total
Pac-12: 1 Automatic; 1 Wrestle-in; 2 Total
MAC: 1 Automatic; 0 Wrestle-in; 1 Total
SoCon: 0 Automatic; 1 Wrestle-in; 1 Total
The initial bracket would look something like this:
#1 Big Ten(1) vs. #16 Pac-12(2)/Big Ten(7) winner
#9 Big Ten(5) vs. #8Big Ten(4)
#5 ACC(1) vs. #12 ACC(2)
#13 ACC(3)/SoCon(1) winner vs. #4 MAC(1)
#3 Big 12(1) vs. #14 Big Ten (6)/ACC(4) winner
#11 Big 12(2) vs. #6 Big Ten(3)
#7 Pac-12(1) vs. #10 EIWA (1)
#15 EIWA(2)/Big Ten(8) winner vs. #2 Big Ten(2)
Immediately, we notice some issues with the first-round match-ups. The top two teams from the ACC square off in round one while the Big Ten also has an intra-conference dual right off the bat. This is easy to fix. We'll add the stipulation that the lower seed in any given round of 16 dual can be shifted up or down a line to avoid such issues. Since the 13 line could also be an ACC team, we'll bump ACC #2 to the 11, putting Big 12 #2 on the 12. The Big Ten's #5 can only move down since moving them up would keep them in the same dual. So, switch Big Ten #5 and EIWA #1. Now, we have this:
#1 Big Ten(1) vs. #16 Pac-12(2)/Big Ten(7) winner
#9 EIWA(1) vs. #8 Big Ten(4)
#5 ACC(1) vs. #12 Big 12(2)
#13 ACC(3)/SoCon(1) winner vs. #4 MAC(1)
#3 Big 12 (1) vs. #14 Big Ten(6)/ACC(4)
#11 ACC(2) vs. #6 Big Ten (3)
#7 Pac-12(1) vs. #10 Big Ten(5)
#15 EIWA(2)/Big Ten(8) vs. #2 Big Ten(2)
One note, we'd need to do the same with the wrestle-in matches in some years as it doesn't make sense to have two teams from the same conference battling for a spot having already wrestled through conference qualifying. Conference qualifying would, ideally, feature as many single duals events as possible to maximize the number of meaningful events on the schedule. In a perfect world, a full round-robin would occur within the conference, allowing for a useful ranking of the teams. However, with the understanding that the qualification spots would need to be determined by a certain time, depending on when the dual meet championships would be held, and conferences varying drastically in size, I would leave the details up to each conference to determine. This, again, is borrowed from the World Cup model. The various federations do different things to determine their qualifiers and the conferences should have the flexibility to do the same. Giving the conferences control over their qualifying will also allow them to maintain rivalry duals if they so choose and factor in what happens to those schools that don't qualify. This gives conferences the most autonomy to make a schedule that works for their member schools while also giving them a chance for glory.
What I would like to see, when a full round-robin isn't possible, is either smaller pools within the conference doing round-robins with the potential for additional duals based on where teams finish. It might also make sense to have a conference dual tournament, though to maximize the number of dates with NCAA qualification attached, I'd prefer to see each individual dual hosted by one of the participating schools rather than all the schools gathering in one location. We have seen that schools can draw a crowd by hosting dual meets that, largely, don't have much meaning in the grand scheme of things. Imagine what they might be able to do with one or more NCAA qualification matches each season?
In the end, this is all speculation and fantasy for now. However, this is a legitimate path to a more substantive regular season that would be easier to sell to broadcast companies and casual fans alike. We know that the NCAA tournament is thriving and we've seen evidence that duals can draw crowds as well. If we can find a way to add an NCAA Dual Championship and, in addition, use it to improve the DI college wrestling regular season, we would be fools not to try.
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now