Seeking Options to the Coin Toss

[davenowa]

Looking to those who may be able to think outside the box in seeking an alternative to having the pre-match coin toss hold so much value.  In the past, I had advocated for locked line-ups (presented to scoretable just prior to the national anthem), with the inability to alter your submitted entrant at each weight (much like in an individual tournament, or in other sports).  This would prevent ducking (perhaps accompanied by a change making a forfeit being worth 7 points in any weight class for which you submitted a wrestler and then withdrew), as well as preventing the coin toss from holding so much value.  This proposal met some resistance from traditionalists, so I am seeking any viable options.  I am not sure the college format would solve the issue for high school.  Here is the scenario I am seeking to avoid:

If I have a state champ at 113 and a decent kid at 120, and you have a really good kid at 113 (but not beating my state champ on your best day) and a JV-level kid at 120, the coin toss can be a 9 point swing or more.  If I win the toss, and force you to send first at 113, I am winning 2 matches, with at least a decision and a very likely pin against your JV-level, putting me ahead 9-0 (and if you bump your kid to 120, I would send out my JV 113 to take the forfeit and still have our 113's meet at 120, still leading 9-0 after 2 matches).  If you win the toss, and I must send first at 113, and you bump up your kid at 113 to 120, giving me a forfeit against my state champ, and then earning a pin at 120 against my decent kid, we have traded sixes and the score is 6-6.  

In scenario A, my team goes on to win 37-32.  In scenario B, with all 12 other matches being exactly the same, your team wins 38-34.  So if we meet in a regular season dual, and I win the coin toss, I win 37-32.  We meet again a month later for the state title, and you win the toss, and the results of the other 12 matches are exactly the same, and you win 38-34. Nothing at all changed except the outcome of the coin toss.

In my opinion, that places too much value on a pre-match toss of the coin.  Other sports (ie football) have made changes to minimize the impact of the coin toss.  Yes, I know that some senators will insist that I improve my decent 120's ability to not get pinned, or you will tell Team B to get better at 120, or a stronger back-up at 113...but my point here is that the outcome of the match was ENTIRELY DETERMINED BY A COIN TOSS with all other results being equal.  This noted scenario has been an impediment in attempting to create a dual meet state championship, as opposed to being determined by individually bracketed tournament.

I don't have a perfect solution, but would welcome any thoughts that minimize the value of the pre-match coin toss...without, apparently, detracting from a Wile E Coyote genius-level coach having the ability to out-strategize their opposition (which, in reality, is simply trying to win the toss next time).  Or could perhaps this could be done when submitting a locked line-up, based on what you know of the opposing coach.  Is he the kind of coach who would put the poison in his own goblet or his enemy's? 

 

[SetonHallPirate]

Here's my thinking (this may sound familiar to college fans, as it's the current rule):

There's a coin toss, and the winner gets choice of either start weight or odd/even matches (lightest to heaviest). Loser gets choice of the other. Thinking is that in high school, choice of one won't be that substantial over the other.

This differs from college, where I'd ideally like to get rid of an immediate coin toss, and have coaches "strike" weights alternately until two are left, and then flip from the two remaining weights. This is because the odd/even choice generally serves very little effect in college, and the start weight is a bit too overpowered.

Interested in hearing your thoughts, Dave.

[davenowa]

thanks SHP, and since I know you have given this topic some thought in the past, I was going to contact you directly, but figured maybe there was someone out there who could come up with a novel approach.  I guess the college format could be an improvement, except for a couple of issues.  First, in any multi-dual (ie quad of dual tourney), it would require a delay of up to 30 minutes to execute the new choice with each match, as opposed to the current NFHS rule that starts each subsequent round at the next higher weight class to eliminate the possibility of having to wait because you want to bump up the kid who wrestled last in the first round and would then be first in the next.  Secondly, to achieve your desired outcome, NFHS could institute the NCAA style assigned weight classes as odd and even, as opposed to the first match in NFHS being odd and the second being even, although I don't think that change alters the scenarios presented below (just the nomenclature of what is odd and even).

with those things in place, I guess that the NCAA plan would be better, because at least in that manner, every time I win the coin toss I would lose the dual in every scenario.  However, if I LOSE the toss, I win the dual! I will try to explain, but might have missed something in translation.  I will use the same weight classes noted in my prior example, as well as the same "status" of each team's entrant at 113 and 120.

Situation 1:  I win the coin toss and choose to start at 113.  As that would be an "even" class under the NCAA format, the coach of team B would choose "odd" and force me to send first at 113.  I send my stud, he forfeits and bumps up to 120 and wins by pin, so 6-6.

Situation 2: I win the coin toss and choose odd, forcing him to send first at 113.  He then opts to start at 120, where I must then send first.  I send my original decent 120, he bumps up his better kid from 113 to 120, pins my kid and gets 6, while my stud at 113 ends of taking a forfeit to end the match, so still 6-6 net from those 2 bouts.

Situation 3: I win the toss and choose even, so will need to send first at 113. Coach B chooses to start at 113, so same net result of 6-6.

Situation 4: I win the toss and choose to start at 120.  Coach B then selects even, forcing me to send first at 120.  If I bump up my stud, he counters with his weaker kid.  I get 6, but he gets 6 at 113 from his good guy pinning my JV 113.  Net 6-6.

Situation 5: I LOSE the coin toss.  Coach B opts to start at 113, so I choose odd.  He must send first, so if he sends his good kid, I send my stud and get 3.  I then also beat his JV kid at 120, so I am up 9-0.

Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss.  Coach B opts to start at 120, so I choose even.  He must send first, so if he bumps up his 113, I bump up my 113, take 3 points, and then it comes down to a pair of JV kids meeting at 113.  I guess I should have clarified in my original post the status of our JV 113 kids (if we have any), but had implied I had a JV 113 and Coach B did not, so would be up 9-0 from those 2 bouts.

Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss.  Coach B opts to choose odd or even, and selects odd.  Since I must send first at 113, I elect to start at 120, where he must send first. Same result as situation 6.

Situation 7: I LOSE the coin toss.  Coach B selects even.  I then opt to start at 113, where he must send first. Same result as situation 5.

So...since 3.8.1 (NCAA version) does not allow me to defer choice if I win the coin toss, the only way I can win the match is by losing the coin toss. At least with this format, I would have a strategy, but can see some confusion on the faces of all others gathered at the coin toss as we celebrate losing!  And if all involved are as aware of the possible outcomes, the end result still comes down to a coin toss.  I guess I can only hope that Coach B does not know I have a dizzying intellect.

 

[SetonHallPirate]

4 hours ago, davenowa said:

thanks SHP, and since I know you have given this topic some thought in the past, I was going to contact you directly, but figured maybe there was someone out there who could come up with a novel approach.  I guess the college format could be an improvement, except for a couple of issues.  First, in any multi-dual (ie quad of dual tourney), it would require a delay of up to 30 minutes to execute the new choice with each match, as opposed to the current NFHS rule that starts each subsequent round at the next higher weight class to eliminate the possibility of having to wait because you want to bump up the kid who wrestled last in the first round and would then be first in the next.  Secondly, to achieve your desired outcome, NFHS could institute the NCAA style assigned weight classes as odd and even, as opposed to the first match in NFHS being odd and the second being even, although I don't think that change alters the scenarios presented below (just the nomenclature of what is odd and even).

with those things in place, I guess that the NCAA plan would be better, because at least in that manner, every time I win the coin toss I would lose the dual in every scenario.  However, if I LOSE the toss, I win the dual! I will try to explain, but might have missed something in translation.  I will use the same weight classes noted in my prior example, as well as the same "status" of each team's entrant at 113 and 120.

Situation 1:  I win the coin toss and choose to start at 113.  As that would be an "even" class under the NCAA format, the coach of team B would choose "odd" and force me to send first at 113.  I send my stud, he forfeits and bumps up to 120 and wins by pin, so 6-6.

Situation 2: I win the coin toss and choose odd, forcing him to send first at 113.  He then opts to start at 120, where I must then send first.  I send my original decent 120, he bumps up his better kid from 113 to 120, pins my kid and gets 6, while my stud at 113 ends of taking a forfeit to end the match, so still 6-6 net from those 2 bouts.

Situation 3: I win the toss and choose even, so will need to send first at 113. Coach B chooses to start at 113, so same net result of 6-6.

Situation 4: I win the toss and choose to start at 120.  Coach B then selects even, forcing me to send first at 120.  If I bump up my stud, he counters with his weaker kid.  I get 6, but he gets 6 at 113 from his good guy pinning my JV 113.  Net 6-6.

Situation 5: I LOSE the coin toss.  Coach B opts to start at 113, so I choose odd.  He must send first, so if he sends his good kid, I send my stud and get 3.  I then also beat his JV kid at 120, so I am up 9-0.

Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss.  Coach B opts to start at 120, so I choose even.  He must send first, so if he bumps up his 113, I bump up my 113, take 3 points, and then it comes down to a pair of JV kids meeting at 113.  I guess I should have clarified in my original post the status of our JV 113 kids (if we have any), but had implied I had a JV 113 and Coach B did not, so would be up 9-0 from those 2 bouts.

Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss.  Coach B opts to choose odd or even, and selects odd.  Since I must send first at 113, I elect to start at 120, where he must send first. Same result as situation 6.

Situation 7: I LOSE the coin toss.  Coach B selects even.  I then opt to start at 113, where he must send first. Same result as situation 5.

So...since 3.8.1 (NCAA version) does not allow me to defer choice if I win the coin toss, the only way I can win the match is by losing the coin toss. At least with this format, I would have a strategy, but can see some confusion on the faces of all others gathered at the coin toss as we celebrate losing!  And if all involved are as aware of the possible outcomes, the end result still comes down to a coin toss.  I guess I can only hope that Coach B does not know I have a dizzying intellect.

 

Hadn't thought of what you suggested, but allowing "defer" actually might be a good idea to combat this sort of zugzwang (yes, that's a word...I didn't just make it up) scenario.

As far as the back-to-back dual issue, my suggestion would be to waive the rest rule in that specific instance...although doesn't the rest rule specifically apply to tournaments and not duals as written? I'd have no issue with the rest rule being waived in this specific instance, as after the second match is over, you know the wrestler is getting a fairly long (at least the length of the dual) rest anyway.

[gimpeltf]

Rest is irrespective of match type- other than if a match was won by forfeit/med ff.

[SetonHallPirate]

19 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

Rest is irrespective of match type- other than if a match was won by forfeit/med ff.

I get that, Gimp, but we're discussing rules suggestions here, and the wording and parameters to make them work. This is why Secretary-Rules Editors exist at the college level, after all.

[gimpeltf]

3 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

.although doesn't the rest rule specifically apply to tournaments and not duals as written? 

 

3 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Rest is irrespective of match type- other than if a match was won by forfeit/med ff.

 

2 hours ago, SetonHallPirate said:

I get that, Gimp, but we're discussing rules suggestions here, and the wording and parameters to make them work. This is why Secretary-Rules Editors exist at the college level, after all.

But that is what I was responding to in your post. That wasn't a suggestion.

[SetonHallPirate]

5 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

 

 

But that is what I was responding to in your post. That wasn't a suggestion.

Gotcha.

[BobDole]

What do you have against gamesmanship? The bump or no bump is an exciting part of dual meets, especially ones with high stakes. It is something you don't get to see much in wrestling due to having weight classes and most of the times very few toss-up matches.

The solution is simple, if you have a weak kid and he would be overmatched coach him up. Teach him to stay off his back and slow the match down. Make the kid better, plain and simple. 

High stakes duals with lineup shifts are exciting. See the Iowa vs. Iowa State match from this weekend as a great example.

[davenowa]

nothing against gamesmanship, which I would see as expecting you to submit your traditional line-up that you have used all season (and which was unchanged since your Kemp days...Jack, not Lee) and I surprise you and the still-standing crowd by moving my 126 to 132 when the locked line-up is announced after the anthem is played.  otherwise, I call it for what it is...a coin toss determining the outcome of a dual when ALL OTHER RESULTS are exactly the same and the opposite outcome in terms of which team wins the match occurs when the other team wins the toss.  Not sure of any other sport that would tolerate a coin toss determining which team wins (and I say that based on the evidence presented where the outcome only changes based on the result of said coin toss).

still looking for someone to suggest a better method that is perhaps completely different than anything that has been used or proposed.  enjoyed the recent collegiate line-up shift, but have not analyzed whether it was made possible by the coin toss or not, but I am sure someone could shed some light on that situation.

[BobDole]

18 hours ago, davenowa said:

nothing against gamesmanship, which I would see as expecting you to submit your traditional line-up that you have used all season (and which was unchanged since your Kemp days...Jack, not Lee) and I surprise you and the still-standing crowd by moving my 126 to 132 when the locked line-up is announced after the anthem is played.  otherwise, I call it for what it is...a coin toss determining the outcome of a dual when ALL OTHER RESULTS are exactly the same and the opposite outcome in terms of which team wins the match occurs when the other team wins the toss.  Not sure of any other sport that would tolerate a coin toss determining which team wins (and I say that based on the evidence presented where the outcome only changes based on the result of said coin toss).

still looking for someone to suggest a better method that is perhaps completely different than anything that has been used or proposed.  enjoyed the recent collegiate line-up shift, but have not analyzed whether it was made possible by the coin toss or not, but I am sure someone could shed some light on that situation.

How often does the coin toss determine a dual in your mind? You act like this happens way more than it truly does.

The gamesmanship is great for the sport. A coach going to a line-up shift due to some results earlier in the dual is fun. Having a locked lineup is flat out dumb and serves no purpose.

[SetonHallPirate]

On 12/1/2023 at 7:58 AM, BobDole said:

How often does the coin toss determine a dual in your mind? You act like this happens way more than it truly does.

The gamesmanship is great for the sport. A coach going to a line-up shift due to some results earlier in the dual is fun. Having a locked lineup is flat out dumb and serves no purpose.

Which is kind of why I'm trying to find some ways to mitigate things. Obviously we don't want a zugzwang situation like the one the OP mentioned in his response post to what I said, but I'm trying to make the coin toss situation interesting, to blunt the disadvantage (in that the coin toss loser doesn't get to choose anything in the current rules).

I used to think the locked lineup thing was a good idea, but I've gotten to the point where I realize it's probably better to blunt the impact of the coin toss than it is to totally eliminate it, and I feel like start weight choice is an effective way to do that.

And much as I've previously said "it's about the kids", I needed to stop living in the land of make-believe.

[davenowa]

Not sure how often the coin toss is the deciding factor, as obviously inconsequential in a rout.  However, I will compare it to the NFL situation, in which they have modified their overtime rules to minimize the impact of the coin toss, especially as is now in place for playoffs.  Therefore, even if the toss only impacts a small percentage of close outcome matches, that is no reason to not seek improvement.  

Not to invoke too many other sports for comparative purposes, but tennis would be mayhem if wrestling coaches were in charge.  Rather than putting their top player at #1 singles, and 2nd at #2 etc, Mr. Wrestling would send out a JV scrub at #1 singles against Rival HS, rationalizing that although we would be behind 4-0 after singles, since each of Rival schools' corresponding kids were slightly better than ours, by bumping our 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 and 3 to 4, we come out ahead 3-1 instead of down 4-0.  Sounds genius to our wrestling coach, but in most tennis conferences, this would be an illegal substitution, unless the coach could provide written documentation showing the recent date and time that our JV Scrub beat our #1 singles player.

Additionally, locked line-ups would also minimize the current prevalence of some coaches ducking good wrestlers when the outcome of the dual is not even remotely in question.  Currently, the parents and family of the state champ expecting to see a decent match against the all-conference kid at that weight know that against some teams, the odds of the match taking place are 50/50.  Lacking a significant change, I would offer an addendum that any bump/duck resulting in a forfeit must be accompanied by the coach who presents the forfeit immediately being required to walk (crawl?) to the opposing fan section with a cash refund for the admission fee handed back to those parents.

[BobDole]

1 hour ago, davenowa said:

Not sure how often the coin toss is the deciding factor, as obviously inconsequential in a rout.  However, I will compare it to the NFL situation, in which they have modified their overtime rules to minimize the impact of the coin toss, especially as is now in place for playoffs.  Therefore, even if the toss only impacts a small percentage of close outcome matches, that is no reason to not seek improvement.  

Not to invoke too many other sports for comparative purposes, but tennis would be mayhem if wrestling coaches were in charge.  Rather than putting their top player at #1 singles, and 2nd at #2 etc, Mr. Wrestling would send out a JV scrub at #1 singles against Rival HS, rationalizing that although we would be behind 4-0 after singles, since each of Rival schools' corresponding kids were slightly better than ours, by bumping our 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 and 3 to 4, we come out ahead 3-1 instead of down 4-0.  Sounds genius to our wrestling coach, but in most tennis conferences, this would be an illegal substitution, unless the coach could provide written documentation showing the recent date and time that our JV Scrub beat our #1 singles player.

Additionally, locked line-ups would also minimize the current prevalence of some coaches ducking good wrestlers when the outcome of the dual is not even remotely in question.  Currently, the parents and family of the state champ expecting to see a decent match against the all-conference kid at that weight know that against some teams, the odds of the match taking place are 50/50.  Lacking a significant change, I would offer an addendum that any bump/duck resulting in a forfeit must be accompanied by the coach who presents the forfeit immediately being required to walk (crawl?) to the opposing fan section with a cash refund for the admission fee handed back to those parents.

Your war on the coin flip is weird. I can only imagine you were out maneuvered a couple times now you want to eliminate that. You can't even tell me how many times the coin flip has affected duals so your big war on this doesn't have any legs.

Comparing to tennis is dumb, it's totally different.

Would a coach be penalized if after the "locked" lineup he forfeits and says his kid got dinged up in warmups? 

Locked lineups are stupid and should never happen.

The coin flip can add excitement and gives coaches flexibility in a sport where there is very little. Keep the excitement and ability to shift your lineup during the dual. Coaches want the option to be able to pull off a lineup shift late in a dual.