An imagined world - better parity across D1 programs

[Dark Energy]

As we all know, D1 wrestling tends to have a few programs with most of the very best wrestlers.   And many programs who would consider it a big win to have a single All American.  
 

Let’s imagine a world where there was much greater parity.  Of the 80 AA’s, they come from 60 or so schools.  Almost all schools have more then one national qualifier.  A big deal to have more than one national champ from a school. Very few schools getting 5 or more of their wrestlers to be big show.

Ok - with that … would individual tournament still be the right way to crown team championship?  Or, in this scenario, would a championship based on duals be more justified?

Seems like one National champ and 2 AA’s might do the trick to get a team title.  Doesn’t feel satisfactory. 
 

(AND YES, THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL - curious to hear thought processes)

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

Yes National Duals would be cool.

[Scouts Honor]

comes down to who has the best team. so both are still relevant.

who can develop their non champs, AA's the best.

 

btw, its the same in every sport

[CHROMEBIRD]

Why not get creative and have both? Start the season with folkstyle duals and national dual championships, break for a month, then individual FS tournaments (Midlands, Scuffle, etc.) and an individual FS championship tourney. It's a stupid idea but would be a real treat for fans. 

[mspart]

MN does this in a way.   They have the regular individual tournament and at the same time the top 8 teams duke it out in dual format for the team state title.  So those that stay alive in the individual tourney may have double duty if their team is still going.  

mspart

[Matthew Burns]

Of the 78 D1 NCAA schools 28 or so had AAs last season.

Doubling that doesn't seem realistic. High profile legacy programs exist for a reason.  Elite high school wrestlers generally want to participate in programs that take the sport very seriously.  Becoming an All American at Cal Baptist or Little Rock is a noble goal. Unfortunately wrestling is already a niche sport and only low level recruits are headed to fringe programs.

[Wrestleknownothing]

10 minutes ago, Matthew Burns said:

Of the 78 D1 NCAA schools 28 or so had AAs last season.

Doubling that doesn't seem realistic. High profile legacy programs exist for a reason.  Elite high school wrestlers generally want to participate in programs that take the sport very seriously.  Becoming an All American at Cal Baptist or Little Rock is a noble goal. Unfortunately wrestling is already a niche sport and only low level recruits are headed to fringe programs.

The number of schools with at least one AA took a big jump when seeding went from 8 to 12 spots, and has been on a decline ever since. Sadly, the decline also coincides with the decline in the number of programs.

 

[lightweight]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The number of schools with at least one AA took a big jump when seeding went from 8 to 12 spots, and has been on a decline ever since. Sadly, the decline also coincides with the decline in the number of programs.

 

You raise an interesting point.  If you overlay a variable (# of programs by year) you might find that that explains most of the variance, and that the seeding change in NS.  

But you're the data guy, so let me know if my intuition is correct.  

[Idaho]

8 hours ago, Dark Energy said:

As we all know, D1 wrestling tends to have a few programs with most of the very best wrestlers.   And many programs who would consider it a big win to have a single All American.  
 

Let’s imagine a world where there was much greater parity.  Of the 80 AA’s, they come from 60 or so schools.  Almost all schools have more then one national qualifier.  A big deal to have more than one national champ from a school. Very few schools getting 5 or more of their wrestlers to be big show.

Ok - with that … would individual tournament still be the right way to crown team championship?  Or, in this scenario, would a championship based on duals be more justified?

Seems like one National champ and 2 AA’s might do the trick to get a team title.  Doesn’t feel satisfactory. 
 

(AND YES, THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL - curious to hear thought processes)

It's called NIL Salary Cap. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

48 minutes ago, lightweight said:

You raise an interesting point.  If you overlay a variable (# of programs by year) you might find that that explains most of the variance, and that the seeding change in NS.  

But you're the data guy, so let me know if my intuition is correct.  

It would help if I wasn't a dummy.

I just thought to look at this. The jumps in the discrete number of teams in 1963 and 1979 coincide with the increase in the number of places (i.e. AA's). In 1962 there were four placers per weight. In 1963 it increased to six per weight, and in 1979 it increased to the current eight per weight.

The decrease from 1979 to present does correlate with the general decline in programs, which by my estimate peaked in 1975. This is probably causation, too.

Those team counts are not official. They are just my best estimate based data assembled from multiple sources.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Wrestleknownothing

[Show_Me]

11 hours ago, Matthew Burns said:

Of the 78 D1 NCAA schools 28 or so had AAs last season.

The percentage of Programs having an AA will likely decrease going forward.  The Transfer Portal allows/encourages high-profile Programs to pluck the best wrestlers from lower profile programs.  I count at least 10 AA's last season that transferred in from another Program.  Just look at the starting lineups of the best Teams ....

To the OP's topic .... its impossible with the current landscape of D1 Wrestling.

 

[Dark Energy]

Good discussions above.  But a reminder - I said ‘imagine.’  I’m sure all can.  In this imagination exercise, would duals be the better way to determine the team title or would people still feel the individual tourney is the best way?

Trying to understand thought processes and boundaries.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Dark Energy

[lightweight]

10 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It would help if I wasn't a dummy.

I just thought to look at this. The jumps in the discrete number of teams in 1963 and 1979 coincide with the increase in the number of places (i.e. AA's). In 1962 there were four placers per weight. In 1963 it increased to six per weight, and in 1979 it increased to the current eight per weight.

The decrease from 1979 to present does correlate with the general decline in programs, which by my estimate peaked in 1975. This is probably causation, too.

Those team counts are not official. They are just my best estimate based data assembled from multiple sources.

No worries, I mis-typed "seeding in NS" instead of "seeding is NS" (non-significant), so the two of us together make quite a 'team'.  

Thanks for the amplification/correction.

[AgaveMaria]

How would you ensure parity? Tell some kids they can't go to the school/coach they want?

Would never work. Some kids will choose a specific school or program even if they know they will sit on the bench

behind a Kyle Dake, Cael Sanderson or such.