Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, peanut said:

Is there some historical reason for there being 33 NCAA qualifiers per weight?

Seems like 32 would make more sense.

Because someone on the planning committee had been concussed too many times and thought 33 looked like a nice even number.  😞

  • Haha 1

.

Posted
It was 36. Then they phased out D2-(2) and D3- (1) late 80s early 90s.

I believe that happened at the same time the fully-funded scholarship cap went from 11 to 9.9 (10% reduction).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Fire 1
Posted

I speculate it was because NCAA basketball went first to the silly idea of a few play-in games to add to the 64 team bracket and get 68.  

That was obviously a move based on money (more games, more TV commercials and advertising, and hence more revenue).

I suspect NCAA wrestling thought the idea was cute and would add some kind of interest or intrigue or drama to have a pigtail match.   

Obviously, it doesn't generate either revenue or additional interest except for wrestler #33 and his family

Either that ... or because 33 is:

 

 

Odometer Humor By Clousky Co. Oldometer 32-33 Years Old Funny 33rd Birthday Men Women Throw Pillow, 18x18, Multicolor

  • Fire 1
Posted
It used to be(and still is) 330 wrestlers but before the recent formula based auto qualification process with 33 wrestlers per weight, some weights might have 35 others 29. 

That’s right. It didn’t matter back then that it was 330 qualifiers because the brackets weren’t all going to be nice and neat anyway. Then when they switched to the new formula, no one wanted to vote to get rid of an extra qualifier per weight even though it would make more sense to have an even 32 man bracket
Posted

That’s right. It didn’t matter back then that it was 330 qualifiers because the brackets weren’t all going to be nice and neat anyway. Then when they switched to the new formula, no one wanted to vote to get rid of an extra qualifier per weight even though it would make more sense to have an even 32 man bracket

Prior to the current field size of 33, it was a larger tourney. Yes, the single pigtail was introduced when the current AQ and ‘at-large’ process replaced the process based on the five-year R12 average and ‘Wild Card’ system.

The drop to 33 occurred around the same time the eleven scholarships were dropped to 9.9.

Here is an example of a bracket with nearly 360 participants. 40 pigtails and two ‘byes’ made a field of 358. Eight pigtails at 134 and 167.
http://www.wrestlingstats.com/ncaa/pdf/brackets/NCAA%201989.pdf


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Fire 3
Posted
I think the scholarship drop was a year or two later but yes close in time. Also around when the coach limit of 4 came into play.

It took Minnesota a while to get the memo on that one. I seem to remember them having upwards of 7-8 Administrative Assistants around the time the Schlatter brothers were graduating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Posted

I like the idea of inviting the top 2 placers in the Division II tournament and the top guy in Division III to the Division I dance.

Give them a low seeding (even #'s 31-33) and see what they can do.  

  • Fire 2
Posted
1 hour ago, SocraTease said:

I like the idea of inviting the top 2 placers in the Division II tournament and the top guy in Division III to the Division I dance.

Give them a low seeding (even #'s 31-33) and see what they can do.  

I like this idea, but instead of taking the place of 31-33, how about having 4 pigtails instead of 1? 33 gets D2 champ, 32 gets D3 champ, 31 gets D2 runner up, and 30 gets 29 in the four pigtails.

  • Fire 2

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
6 hours ago, SocraTease said:

I like the idea of inviting the top 2 placers in the Division II tournament and the top guy in Division III to the Division I dance.

Give them a low seeding (even #'s 31-33) and see what they can do.  

Why an auto low seed?  If they deserve it, seed them! Don't ruin a d1 studs tourney by not seeding them 

  • Fire 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Alces Alces Gigas said:

Why an auto low seed?  If they deserve it, seed them! Don't ruin a d1 studs tourney by not seeding them 

I like that idea. 

Posted
1 hour ago, TexRef said:

Only in places that don't have internet 

Shhhhh...

a3f0b02da22cc00dd47be305dcd968b1.jpg

The 1st session has just been completed and he's waiting on the results.

D3

  • Haha 1

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Posted
13 hours ago, SocraTease said:

I like the idea of inviting the top 2 placers in the Division II tournament and the top guy in Division III to the Division I dance.

Give them a low seeding (even #'s 31-33) and see what they can do.  

Many of us on these boards remember when the DII and DIII champs did a lot of damage at the NCAA DI tournament: Carlton Haselrig of UPJ, Karl Monaco of Montclair State, just to name a couple wrestlers. 

I believe the NCAA ended DII and DIII participation in all NCAA DI championships (track, too) in order to "preserve the integrity of competition within each division". I don't believe this change did any favors to DII or DIII wrestling.

Dan McDonald, Penn '93
danmc167@yahoo.com

Posted
2 hours ago, Voice of the Quakers said:

Many of us on these boards remember when the DII and DIII champs did a lot of damage at the NCAA DI tournament: Carlton Haselrig of UPJ, Karl Monaco of Montclair State, just to name a couple wrestlers. 

I believe the NCAA ended DII and DIII participation in all NCAA DI championships (track, too) in order to "preserve the integrity of competition within each division". I don't believe this change did any favors to DII or DIII wrestling.

There were too many complaining that "they already went to Nationals, they shouldn't be able to take away from the D1 kids!"

That my friends, was the birthplace of the snowflake. 

  • Fire 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Bring back NAIA too, while we are at it.

I think this is the complete list of non-D1 D1 champs. Bolded and underlined means they were also outstanding wrestler that year.

image.thumb.png.b3b1454a174bde624e0c03256017d0c5.png

You would figure that the NCAA would look at it from a money grab position, and add back the NAIA, D3, & D2 top placing kids. 

I am surprised we don't have a 64 man bracket! 

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...