Eagle26 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 Yup. I’ve been saying this for years. I like incentivizing bonus, but it’s definitely not proportional. A pin being double a decision, like it is in a dual meet, is still a great incentive and is a good balance IMO. Being worth 4x is just crazy.
NM1965 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 2 hours ago, 1032004 said: So Mark Manning isn't the only Karen coach in the B1G
Jason Bryant Posted March 28 Posted March 28 Tournament scoring as a whole is just bad to begin with. 1 1 Insert catchy tagline here.
1032004 Posted March 28 Author Posted March 28 57 minutes ago, BobDole said: What would be a good solution? Either increase wins to 2 on frontside and 1 on backside, or decrease bonus points on the backside.
WrestlingFan89 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 A front side pin is worth 3x a decision 3vs1, a back side pin is worth 5x 2.5vs.5. A front side major is 2x a decision and a back side major is 3x a decision.
MLB9 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 Would decreasing scoring opportunities in the consolation side not just create further disparity between the elite programs and one like Rutgers? Is this quote based off the Kasak run?
jdalu75 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 There was a discussion about this on the old Wrestling Report forum years ago when they first doubled the bonus points. A 5th-place finisher could score more points than a champion (I think we were talking about EIWAs specifically, when a champ earned just 12 placement points). Most agreed that there was too much emphasis on bonus points. Examples this year -- at EIWAs Ryan Crookham won and earned 20.5 points; had 1.5 bonus points. Kelvin Griffin finished 3rd and also earned 20.5 points; he had bonus points in all five of his wins, 8.0 points total. An NCAA champ earns a minimum of 20 points -- 16 placement, 4 advancement. Vito Arujau won and earned 24.0 points (4 MDs). Meyer Shapiro finished 3rd and earned 21.0 points (10 placement, 3.5 advancement, 7.5 bonus), so he earned a champion's points in finishing 3rd. There's no right or wrong here; it all depends on what you want to reward. If bonus points are reduced, we'll see less aggressive wrestling.
JuanMogen Posted March 28 Posted March 28 Bartlett gets a couple pins, and suddenly, scoring is a problem.
Idaho Posted March 28 Posted March 28 2 minutes ago, JuanMogen said: Bartlett gets a couple pins, and suddenly, scoring is a problem. If he were in consolation this would be true. Sponsored by INTERMAT
JuanMogen Posted March 28 Posted March 28 Just now, Idaho said: If he were in consolation this would be true. It’s just more Bobe Artlett hate. I won’t stand for it.
Dogbone Posted March 28 Posted March 28 Honestly, I think bonus points are the smallest issue with tournament scoring. 1st place gets 20 points w/o bonus. Rd 12 gets 2 points w/o bonus. No question first should be rewarded the most but I don't think it is 10 times better than the 9th place guy in the country. 8th earns 5.5 w/o bonus 7th = 6.5 so both are about 3.5 times less than 1st. To me, getting an AA should be better. The current scoring system really only rewards having top 4 finishers. I don't have a better system and I don't think a change will happen so it is what it is. Rutgers had 2 AAs and finished 20th, but they were 9 points behind 17th place W. Virginia. A few backside pins isn't making up that difference.
Dogbone Posted March 28 Posted March 28 If anything, the bonus points only highlight how few points a top 16/ RD 12 or low AA will earn for the team. 1
Wrestleknownothing Posted March 28 Posted March 28 11 minutes ago, Dogbone said: Honestly, I think bonus points are the smallest issue with tournament scoring. 1st place gets 20 points w/o bonus. Rd 12 gets 2 points w/o bonus. No question first should be rewarded the most but I don't think it is 10 times better than the 9th place guy in the country. 8th earns 5.5 w/o bonus 7th = 6.5 so both are about 3.5 times less than 1st. To me, getting an AA should be better. The current scoring system really only rewards having top 4 finishers. I don't have a better system and I don't think a change will happen so it is what it is. Rutgers had 2 AAs and finished 20th, but they were 9 points behind 17th place W. Virginia. A few backside pins isn't making up that difference. I think first place should be worth 10 times as much as anywhere between 9th and 12th place. If it is not you also have to compress the difference between first and second, first and third, etc. That kind of scoring compression has already happened multiple times over the years and I think we are in a good place there. For me the issue is as Goodale points out that bonus points in the consolation bracket are too high relative to advancement points. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge
Antitroll2828 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 This is all bc atleast half the fan base wants Goodale gone bc the program is stagnant and finished 20th at ncaas and for not capitalizing on having 2 ncaa champs and a top 10 finish at ncaas a few years back, Two AAs used to have Rutgers fans dancing in the street but now finishing behind schools like WVU they want to see progress ….. Goodale also wants to get rid of team scoring all together at ncaas and just have national duals ..Which is funny bc rutgers hasn’t won a dual they weren’t supposed too since 2015 … can’t succeed in the current system ? Well then let’s just change it
1032004 Posted March 28 Author Posted March 28 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Antitroll2828 said: This is all bc atleast half the fan base wants Goodale gone bc the program is stagnant and finished 20th at ncaas and for not capitalizing on having 2 ncaa champs and a top 10 finish at ncaas a few years back, Two AAs used to have Rutgers fans dancing in the street but now finishing behind schools like WVU they want to see progress ….. Goodale also wants to get rid of team scoring all together at ncaas and just have national duals ..Which is funny bc rutgers hasn’t won a dual they weren’t supposed too since 2015 … can’t succeed in the current system ? Well then let’s just change it Can’t he just want the scoring to more accurately reflect the difficulty, and it not be about how it may have effected his team? Edited March 28 by 1032004
Formally140 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 2 minutes ago, Antitroll2828 said: This is all bc atleast half the fan base wants Goodale gone bc the program is stagnant and finished 20th at ncaas and for not capitalizing on having 2 ncaa champs and a top 10 finish at ncaas a few years back, Two AAs used to have Rutgers fans dancing in the street but now finishing behind schools like WVU they want to see progress ….. Goodale also wants to get rid of team scoring all together at ncaas and just have national duals ..Which is funny bc rutgers hasn’t won a dual they weren’t supposed too since 2015 … can’t succeed in the current system ? Well then let’s just change it I'm kinda done with the "no team points at tournament" crap. Especially when it's much more realistic for smaller hs and college programs to be able to get a top 25, top 15 top 10 etc finish and highlight that to promote their program to admin/boosters. And build support Im very well aware of the arguments both ways of doing championships. for it so hearing them told to me isn't interesting. But its very hard to take people seriously if they talk about growing the sport/helping not big programs then promote not keeping team points
gimpeltf Posted March 28 Posted March 28 About 25 years ago the NCAA rules committee discussed rules changes for tournament scoring. I felt a simple solution to the situation where a few placers outweighed a balanced team. My solution was simply to use HS advancement points rather than college version. Keep the 16-12-9-7-5-3-2-1 but give 2 for championship advancement and 1 for consolations instead of the current 16-12-10-9-7-6-4-3 and 1 and .5. They bought into the compressed place point scheme. It did produce Minnesota winning with 10 placers and no finalists which is what they wanted but also produced what @jdalu75 said above. 1
Eagle26 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 2 hours ago, BobDole said: What would be a good solution? I’d like to see winners bracket advancement 2 points, consis 1 pt. All pins or techs 1 pt. And all majors .5 pt. Majors should be 10 points now and techs 20 due to point inflation with takedowns and near falls. I think that will still incentivize bonus but give a better balance.
Eagle26 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 4 minutes ago, gimpeltf said: About 25 years ago the NCAA rules committee discussed rules changes for tournament scoring. I felt a simple solution to the situation where a few placers outweighed a balanced team. My solution was simply to use HS advancement points rather than college version. Keep the 16-12-9-7-5-3-2-1 but give 2 for championship advancement and 1 for consolations instead of the current 16-12-10-9-7-6-4-3 and 1 and .5. They bought into the compressed place point scheme. It did produce Minnesota winning with 10 placers and no finalists which is what they wanted but also produced what @jdalu75 said above. You posted while I was typing, but I like your breakdown of the placement points better too. I would still advocate for 1pt pins/techs and .5 major
ionel Posted March 28 Posted March 28 2 hours ago, BobDole said: What would be a good solution? Dual Championship 2 2BPE 11/17/24 SMC
Antitroll2828 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, MLB9 said: Would decreasing scoring opportunities in the consolation side not just create further disparity between the elite programs and one like Rutgers? Is this quote based off the Kasak run? No it’s because of the amount of points his team scored with 3 guys making the R12…and yes it would in my opinion make the gap bigger probably more to do with Ty Watters, he scored as many points in the tournament as a guy who wins the whole thing with no bonus , for reference Rutgers won 21 matches at ncaas , WVU won 11 , both had 2 placers (Rutgers 7th,7th plus one R12, WVU had 4th, 7th and only one other guy win a match. both had one guy make the 1/4s then lose and in the end West Virginia finished with 10 more points then Rutgers bc Watters and Hall are bonus point guys , this is the kind of stuff I think Goodale wants changed …overall you would look at Rutgers who had 6 different guys win matches and out 3 in bloodround and think they had a better tournament then WVU yet finished way behind them mostly bc Hall and Watters alone beat Rutgers bc they went bonus crazy on the backside Edited March 28 by Antitroll2828 1
Antitroll2828 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 21 minutes ago, 1032004 said: Can’t he just want the scoring to more accurately reflect the difficulty, and it not be about how it may have effected his team? No bc he’s a head coach at a major big 10 school whose been catching more and more heat , it’s a little naive to think he’s doing this for the greater good of the sport when half the fan base is at his ass and for the record scoring bonus in college is really really difficult, so guys should be rewarded more for a pin then a 1-1 OT Lewan style win
Sam Herring Bishop McCort, Pennsylvania Class of 2026 Committed to Penn State Projected Weight: 141, 149
Luke Murray Peninsula Catholic, Virginia Class of 2025 Committed to Gardner-Webb Projected Weight: 157, 165
Recommended Posts
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