NCAA Dual Team Championship

[Truzzcat]

Have not read through the thread just wanted to say in a recent interview Cael mentioned likely not taking part in such event. I think if he maintains that stance its really going to hurt the legitimacy of the event, don't get me wrong I am still very excited it's just hard to get pumped for an event when far and away (for the time being... I hope) 1 team is not partaking.

[Dogbone]

44 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Let me make the counter point, because I do not think this is correct.

Team is an artificial construct in wrestling. When you are on the mat, your teammates cannot help you. In true team sports they can. So to get a sense of the "team" strength in individual sports there needs to be some accounting of how strong the individuals are. Dual scoring compresses the differences in quality too much.

In a dual setting a lot of the true separation in teams is lost. Carter Starocci may only win by decision every time out (well, not so far this year, but still) and he only ever gets credit for a decision. But in a tournament, where no one can beat him, he gets credit for the true extent of his dominance over the whole field even if he never wins in dominating fashion (score-wise).

If we are talking basketball or football a team of average athletes may certainly be better than one with a single superstar, but I do not think that is the case in a team of individuals.

Can I make a counter counter point?

Yes, your teammates can't help you on the mat, but they do help you more in the practice room and maybe more than other team sports like basketball or baseball.   Your workout partners probably had more impact on your success than a baseball player who watches his teammate hit a home run. 

I would also agree that the when you have a dominant wrestler like Carter that the scoring isn't too top heavy but I don't think that is the case at most weights every year.  For example, I don't think Richie Figs was 3 times as dominant as Jore Volk last year. 

Tournament scoring is top heavy.  Last year, Cornell finished 2nd with 3 AAs and Nebraska finished 9th with 5 AAs.   Likewise, dual scoring probably compresses the difference too much.  A double OT win via riding time  is worth 3 points while a 14 point win is only worth 1 additional team points.  

[Pinnacle]

The "idea" of what most fans think a National Duals Tournament is and what the Paycom Duals is are two very different things.

Paycom wants teams to come to Oklahoma where the event would/will become synonymous with Oklahoma State. I can't see Cael doing that and I can't see Brands doing it either. 

[Jason Bryant]

4 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

The "idea" of what most fans think a National Duals Tournament is and what the Paycom Duals is are two very different things.

Paycom wants teams to come to Oklahoma where the event would/will become synonymous with Oklahoma State. I can't see Cael doing that and I can't see Brands doing it either. 

Scheduling/Calendar aside, what makes anyone think the power players are going to do anything to cede a perceived competitive advantage to one of their chief competitors? That's been a sticking points in the past - always having to go to Iowa in January. Now, climate in November is slightly more favorable in Oklahoma, but the point above has some merit. 

The power players are going to be for something if its on their terms. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Jason Bryant

[BigRedFan]

9 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

 

Tournament scoring is top heavy.  Last year, Cornell finished 2nd with 3 AAs and Nebraska finished 9th with 5 AAs.   Likewise, dual scoring probably compresses the difference too much.  A double OT win via riding time  is worth 3 points while a 14 point win is only worth 1 additional team points.  

FWIW, in the 2024 NCAA tournament Nebraska scored 10 bonus points (not counting the one MFF they received). Cornell scored 19.5 bonus points.  So, 7.5 (counting that MFF) of the 12 point difference between the teams was due to bonus victories.

I don't dispute your statement, by the way.  Cornell has done well recently at NCAAs by having a few guys score huge points.

[1032004]

7 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

Scheduling/Calendar aside, what makes anyone think the power players are going to do anything to cede a perceived competitive advantage to one of their chief competitors? That's been a sticking points in the past - always having to go to Iowa in January. Now, climate in November is slightly more favorable in Oklahoma, but the point above has some merit. 

The power players are going to be for something if its on their terms. 

$200k gives them some incentive…

[Jason Bryant]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

$200k gives them some incentive…

This is true. 

[Pinnacle]

Just now, 1032004 said:

$200k gives them some incentive…

Both Iowa and Penn St can make 200k without yearly wrestling Oklahoma State in front of an Oklahoma fan base for a "duals" title. That is what would come of this.

What coach would agree to an away- away-infinity away schedule for anything that the opposition would promote?  You'd need to be dumb.

 

 

[BruceyB]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Let me make the counter point, because I do not think this is correct.

Team is an artificial construct in wrestling. When you are on the mat, your teammates cannot help you. In true team sports they can. So to get a sense of the "team" strength in individual sports there needs to be some accounting of how strong the individuals are. Dual scoring compresses the differences in quality too much.

In a dual setting a lot of the true separation in teams is lost. Carter Starocci may only win by decision every time out (well, not so far this year, but still) and he only ever gets credit for a decision. But in a tournament, where no one can beat him, he gets credit for the true extent of his dominance over the whole field even if he never wins in dominating fashion (score-wise).

If we are talking basketball or football a team of average athletes may certainly be better than one with a single superstar, but I do not think that is the case in a team of individuals.

I fundamentally disagree with your view of the concept of team in wrestling. I would agree that in a tournament that the construct of team is artificial, because it is your individuals vs everyone else's individuals. However, in a dual it is your team vs another team. There is a winning team and losing team in a dual. In a tournament, the wins and losses aren't by the team, but by individuals.

Aaron Brooks would have taken 18th at last year's NCAAs as an individual. How is that reflective in anyway of a teams value?

Golf actually does it right.

"All 30 teams and six individuals will complete 54 holes of stroke play. Following 54 holes of competition, the top 15 teams along with the top nine individuals not on an advancing team will advance for one additional day of stroke play to determine the top eight teams for match-play competition and the 72-hole stroke-play individual champion. The top eight teams after 72 holes of play will be placed into a bracket thereafter."

In wrestling terms, this would be having the NCAA championships to crown the individual national champions at each weight. Then you would take the top 8 scoring teams, and have them face in a bracketed dual tournament for the team title.

How anyone could be against this format is absolutely insane to me. It would be awesome watching teams trying to qualify for the team tournament for the first time, or jockeying for seeding position. Imagine a weekend where on Friday you have 4 duals to watch, Saturday night you have the two semi-finals, and then on Sunday a two hour dual for the national title.

[Gene Mills Fan]

5 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

I fundamentally disagree with your view of the concept of team in wrestling. I would agree that in a tournament that the construct of team is artificial, because it is your individuals vs everyone else's individuals. However, in a dual it is your team vs another team. There is a winning team and losing team in a dual. In a tournament, the wins and losses aren't by the team, but by individuals.

Aaron Brooks would have taken 18th at last year's NCAAs as an individual. How is that reflective in anyway of a teams value?

Golf actually does it right.

"All 30 teams and six individuals will complete 54 holes of stroke play. Following 54 holes of competition, the top 15 teams along with the top nine individuals not on an advancing team will advance for one additional day of stroke play to determine the top eight teams for match-play competition and the 72-hole stroke-play individual champion. The top eight teams after 72 holes of play will be placed into a bracket thereafter."

In wrestling terms, this would be having the NCAA championships to crown the individual national champions at each weight. Then you would take the top 8 scoring teams, and have them face in a bracketed dual tournament for the team title.

How anyone could be against this format is absolutely insane to me. It would be awesome watching teams trying to qualify for the team tournament for the first time, or jockeying for seeding position. Imagine a weekend where on Friday you have 4 duals to watch, Saturday night you have the two semi-finals, and then on Sunday a two hour dual for the national title.

Much better than a November dual. where Teams possibly ranked from the previous year placements?   a different roster to guess seed and individuals not yet down to their tournament weights. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

7 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

I fundamentally disagree with your view of the concept of team in wrestling. I would agree that in a tournament that the construct of team is artificial, because it is your individuals vs everyone else's individuals. However, in a dual it is your team vs another team. There is a winning team and losing team in a dual. In a tournament, the wins and losses aren't by the team, but by individuals.

Aaron Brooks would have taken 18th at last year's NCAAs as an individual. How is that reflective in anyway of a teams value?

Golf actually does it right.

"All 30 teams and six individuals will complete 54 holes of stroke play. Following 54 holes of competition, the top 15 teams along with the top nine individuals not on an advancing team will advance for one additional day of stroke play to determine the top eight teams for match-play competition and the 72-hole stroke-play individual champion. The top eight teams after 72 holes of play will be placed into a bracket thereafter."

In wrestling terms, this would be having the NCAA championships to crown the individual national champions at each weight. Then you would take the top 8 scoring teams, and have them face in a bracketed dual tournament for the team title.

How anyone could be against this format is absolutely insane to me. It would be awesome watching teams trying to qualify for the team tournament for the first time, or jockeying for seeding position. Imagine a weekend where on Friday you have 4 duals to watch, Saturday night you have the two semi-finals, and then on Sunday a two hour dual for the national title.

You are just repeating the word team over and over again and saying it has meaning in one context but not the other for unclear reasons.

For example, you imply in a dual the wins and losses are not determined at the individual level. But they are. The score in a dual is just the sum of the individual results translated into a scoring system, just like basketball. And unlike in basketball, none of your teammates are assisting you in any way while you compete alone. 

In wrestling you can have a dual meet in 10 separate locations and just add up the results. You cannot do that in a true team sport.

I am not against anything. But claiming a dual championship is somehow superior to a tournament ignores that team is artificial in wrestling.

And as an aside, how does Aaron Brooks come in 18th at last year's NCAA? That one really confuses me.

[MPhillips]

1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You are just repeating the word team over and over again and saying it has meaning in one context but not the other for unclear reasons.

The bigger his post the smarter the post...

[Gus]

 

[BruceyB]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You are just repeating the word team over and over again and saying it has meaning in one context but not the other for unclear reasons.

For example, you imply in a dual the wins and losses are not determined at the individual level. But they are. The score in a dual is just the sum of the individual results translated into a scoring system, just like basketball. And unlike in basketball, none of your teammates are assisting you in any way while you compete alone. 

I don't know that I could change your mind, as it may just be a difference of opinion. A dual tournament is just more team centric, in my opinion, than an individual tournament. In duals you win as a team, and lose as a team. Even if you do well as an individual, you can only advance as far as the rest of your team.

I always felt like a team during duals and a team of individuals in a tournament (if that makes any sense).

I don't know if this made what I am trying to say any clearer or not, but I tried.

[okokzach]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

In wrestling you can have a dual meet in 10 separate locations and just add up the results. 

... team is artificial in wrestling.

That's a very narrow view of what a team is, and I think it's wrong. Wrestling matches obviously aren't collaborative in the way a basketball game is, but the matches aren't isolated like you're saying either. The matches don't happen in a vacuum. Your teammates affect you and your coaches affect you. In training and also during the match. There is also a momentum that affects how a dual goes. That's pretty clear when watching it, but it's also been explicitly stated by the wrestlers time and again. It's also evidenced by things like Cael refusing to start the recent Nebraska dual at 125. 

[PortaJohn]

1 minute ago, okokzach said:

It's also evidenced by things like Cael refusing to start the recent Nebraska dual at 125. 

He did? 

[okokzach]

Just now, PortaJohn said:

He did? 

Yes. The coaches didn't agree on what weight to start, so they flipped a coin. PSU won the coin toss and they started at 174. 

[PortaJohn]

7 minutes ago, okokzach said:

Yes. The coaches didn't agree on what weight to start, so they flipped a coin. PSU won the coin toss and they started at 174. 

I gotcha but Penn State was winning that dual no matter what.  I assumed it had more to do with what was assumed to catch Nebraska with their weight cuts and less to do with getting momentum and winning the dual.   

[okokzach]

5 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

I gotcha but Penn State was winning that dual no matter what.  I assumed it had more to do with what was assumed to catch Nebraska with their weight cuts and less to do with getting momentum and winning the dual.   

Big coincidence then...

[PortaJohn]

3 minutes ago, okokzach said:

Big coincidence then...

I guess indeed.  You have Pinto and Allred wrestling down a weight this year.  Big advantage to get them right off the scale.  

On the team convo I think yourself, WKN, and Brucey all have valid points.  We've all seen duals where the result of a match creates momentum into the following one.  But WKN makes a sound point in that the team aspect in wrestling is somewhat artificial

[Wrestleknownothing]

On the flip side, I once did a swim meet by mail. It was awful.

[okokzach]

7 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

I guess indeed.  You have Pinto and Allred wrestling down a weight this year.  Big advantage to get them right off the scale.  

Sorry but I have a hard time believing Cael's game plan was to prioritize giving Carter Starocci an advantage lol

[PortaJohn]

14 minutes ago, okokzach said:

Sorry but I have a hard time believing Cael's game plan was to prioritize giving Carter Starocci an advantage lol

Ha! Fair enough.