Four Regional Tournaments

[WrestlingFan89]

It’s time for D1 NCAA to go to regional tournaments to decide national qualifiers.  I’m tired of the bullshit ducking to protect ranking and win percentage.  This sport is becoming embarrassing.

[WrestlingFan89]

Teams could be placed in regions similar to basketball, place top 8 and you’re going to NCAA’s.  8 placers wrestle 1 placers.  

[ionel]

Been proposed many times before.  All you have to do is convince the b10 that their tournament isn't more important than the NCAA tournament. 

[WrestlingFan89]

This sport is becoming an absolute ***duck duck goose** embarrassment.  I pay a shitload of money for season tickets, streaming, travel and club support and I’m very close to being done with it.  

[Jason Bryant]

As a staunch advocate of realignment in wrestling, there isn't a whole lot that really can be done or suggested until the NCAA's Transformational Committee finishes its work.

Conference affiliation has been a constant excuse when it comes to shifty ADs looking to cut sports - if you take the conference aspect away from Division I wrestling, you put pretty much every program at risk if a conference has the out to no longer sponsor the sport. This is the primary reason I'm against regionalization models for Division I. While it may work to a decent degree (save the arguments in Division III for how tough some regions are from year to year and people being left home outside the Top 3), the Division II and Division III athletics model isn't the same as Division I and the conference affiliation is less of an issue for starting and maintaining programs. 

The NCAA (at least at Division I) got away from historical data to determine qualification methods. These conversations were held back at several NWCA Conventions and the issue is big time financial. It's also about how you distribute the teams. Geographical won't happen with equity. You wouldn't get Top 8 in 4 regions because the geographical imbalance would be too great. Shifting all these teams around just weeks before a regional creates that big financial issue. A hybrid model was broached, with the Top 16 teams being split into regionals and then keeping it primarily geographic, but there were too many financial hurdles there too. 

The system we have now is ultimately the best D1 has had since it was an open era prior to (I believe) 1968. One tournament doesn't make or break you for the entire season. Sick on the weekend of the regional? Too bad. Everything I've read from the fanbase about the current tournament is you want the best wrestlers there, right? Current format may have its flaws, but no system is perfect. 

I don't feel the playing field gets leveled for the mid-majors and smaller programs in a regional model. The big programs will just get shifted to each regional. Right now, we need to create MORE conferences to create more access. We need to create, not contract. 

The Big Ten isn't the roadblock, but I believe the dissolution of the sport's deepest and only full-sponsored conference (until the So Cal schools officially join) would be an absolutely terrible thing to happen. I feel protecting the teams we have is more important to the future of the sport than coaches doing what they do to exploit the qualfying/seeding rules to their advantage. We can change rules, but it's pretty damned hard to get a D1 team back after it's been dropped. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Jason Bryant

[WrestlingFan89]

11 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

As a staunch advocate of realignment in wrestling, there isn't a whole lot that really can be done or suggested until the NCAA's Transformational Committee finishes its work.

Conference affiliation has been a constant excuse when it comes to shifty ADs looking to cut sports - if you take the conference aspect away from Division I wrestling, you put pretty much every program at risk if a conference has the out to no longer sponsor the sport. This is the primary reason I'm against regionalization models for Division I. While it may work to a decent degree (save the arguments in Division III for how tough some regions are from year to year and people being left home outside the Top 3), the Division II and Division III athletics model isn't the same as Division I and the conference affiliation is less of an issue for starting and maintaining programs. 

The NCAA (at least at Division I) got away from historical data to determine qualification methods. These conversations were held back at several NWCA Conventions and the issue is big time financial. It's also about how you distribute the teams. Geographical won't happen with equity. You wouldn't get Top 8 in 4 regions because the geographical imbalance would be too great. Shifting all these teams around just weeks before a regional creates that big financial issue. A hybrid model was broached, with the Top 16 teams being split into regionals and then keeping it primarily geographic, but there were too many financial hurdles there too. 

The system we have now is ultimately the best D1 has had since it was an open era prior to (I believe) 1968. One tournament doesn't make or break you for the entire season. Sick on the weekend of the regional? Too bad. Everything I've read from the fanbase about the current tournament is you want the best wrestlers there, right? Current format may have its flaws, but no system is perfect. 

I don't feel the playing field gets leveled for the mid-majors and smaller programs in a regional model. The big programs will just get shifted to each regional. Right now, we need to create MORE conferences to create more access. We need to create, not contract. 

The Big Ten isn't the roadblock, but I believe the dissolution of the sport's deepest and only full-sponsored conference (until the So Cal schools officially join) would be an absolutely terrible thing to happen. I feel protecting the teams we have is more important to the future of the sport than coaches doing what they do to exploit the qualfying/seeding rules to their advantage. We can change rules, but it's pretty damned hard to get a D1 team back after it's been dropped. 

We need to figure out a way to reward wrestling matches.  As is, not wrestling matches is rewarded.

[Jason Bryant]

We need to figure out a way to reward wrestling matches.  As is, not wrestling matches is rewarded.

100%.

[SetonHallPirate]

28 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

As a staunch advocate of realignment in wrestling, there isn't a whole lot that really can be done or suggested until the NCAA's Transformational Committee finishes its work.

Conference affiliation has been a constant excuse when it comes to shifty ADs looking to cut sports - if you take the conference aspect away from Division I wrestling, you put pretty much every program at risk if a conference has the out to no longer sponsor the sport. This is the primary reason I'm against regionalization models for Division I. While it may work to a decent degree (save the arguments in Division III for how tough some regions are from year to year and people being left home outside the Top 3), the Division II and Division III athletics model isn't the same as Division I and the conference affiliation is less of an issue for starting and maintaining programs. 

The NCAA (at least at Division I) got away from historical data to determine qualification methods. These conversations were held back at several NWCA Conventions and the issue is big time financial. It's also about how you distribute the teams. Geographical won't happen with equity. You wouldn't get Top 8 in 4 regions because the geographical imbalance would be too great. Shifting all these teams around just weeks before a regional creates that big financial issue. A hybrid model was broached, with the Top 16 teams being split into regionals and then keeping it primarily geographic, but there were too many financial hurdles there too. 

The system we have now is ultimately the best D1 has had since it was an open era prior to (I believe) 1968. One tournament doesn't make or break you for the entire season. Sick on the weekend of the regional? Too bad. Everything I've read from the fanbase about the current tournament is you want the best wrestlers there, right? Current format may have its flaws, but no system is perfect. 

I don't feel the playing field gets leveled for the mid-majors and smaller programs in a regional model. The big programs will just get shifted to each regional. Right now, we need to create MORE conferences to create more access. We need to create, not contract. 

The Big Ten isn't the roadblock, but I believe the dissolution of the sport's deepest and only full-sponsored conference (until the So Cal schools officially join) would be an absolutely terrible thing to happen. I feel protecting the teams we have is more important to the future of the sport than coaches doing what they do to exploit the qualfying/seeding rules to their advantage. We can change rules, but it's pretty damned hard to get a D1 team back after it's been dropped. 

JB just hit the nail on the head. Actually...I take that back...I'd change exactly one letter in his post, in the word before "ADs"...I'll let you all figure out what the word actually would be.

[gimpeltf]

2 hours ago, Jason Bryant said:

The system we have now is ultimately the best D1 has had since it was an open era prior to (I believe) 1968.

Year of region was 1971. Then 1972 started conferences as qualifiers.

[manatree]

Just how would your regional proposal eliminate ducking during the regular season?

Edited December 20, 2022 by manatree

[nhs67]

7 hours ago, WrestlingFan89 said:

We need to figure out a way to reward wrestling matches.  As is, not wrestling matches is rewarded.

Seed conferences based off of conference dual meet results.  If schools face each other outside of the official conference meet, it gets used too (thinking Bedlam here).

Ignore the name of the wrestler entirely.  Input the school name during the seeding process.

It's a start and it will ensure that schools are a bit more honest, hopefully.

Edit #1: Not sure how we implement this to NCAAs, but one method to determine AQ is perhaps use the previous seasons NCAA results.  Top 24 earn AQ for the conference, with each conference earning at a minimum one (1) AQ - on the chance a conference has no Top 24 placers.  The balance becomes wild card (up to nine of them).

Edit #2: Keep NCAA seeding and WC selection the same, as-is.  I like it.  Match count requirements, RPI, record, etc.

Edit #3: I would also like to see D2, D3, and NAIA each get their champion (or highest accepting placer) a chance at D1 as well.  The caveat is that those three cannot participate in the pig tails, so at the very minimum they must be seeded 26-28 at the lowest.  Oh!  Also conference champions cannot be seeded in the pig tails either!

Edited December 20, 2022 by nhs67

[wrestlingphish]

3 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

Seed conferences based off of conference dual meet results.  If schools face each other outside of the official conference meet, it gets used too (thinking Bedlam here).

Ignore the name of the wrestler entirely.  Input the school name during the seeding process.

It's a start and it will ensure that schools are a bit more honest, hopefully.

Edit: Not sure how we implement this to NCAAs, but one method to determine AQ is perhaps use the previous seasons NCAA results.  Top 24 earn AQ for the conference, with each conference earning at a minimum one (1) AQ - on the chance a conference has no Top 24 placers.  The balance becomes wild card (up to nine of them).

This could get wild in duals if coaches start to play the bump game.

[nhs67]

36 minutes ago, wrestlingphish said:

This could get wild in duals if coaches start to play the bump game.

Good.

[Jason Bryant]

Edit #3: I would also like to see D2, D3, and NAIA each get their champion (or highest accepting placer) a chance at D1 as well. 

The NAIA is a completely separate organization. That would never happen. In the old days, schools that wrestled in both were dual affiliates. The NAIA champ never “qualified” for the NCAA tournament through their tournament. That practice isn’t allowed anymore.

It’s an unpopular opinion, but I believe
if your goal is to be a Division I champion, pick a Division I school, either out of HS or transfer to one. No other sport gives you “two bites at the apple,” and the potential for this to happen is not realistic or remotely possible. The option for schools to potentially pick their division per sport MAY be something that comes out of the transformational committee.

[Jason Bryant]

Year of region was 1971. Then 1972 started conferences as qualifiers.

Thanks Gimp!

[nhs67]

46 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

The NAIA is a completely separate organization. That would never happen. In the old days, schools that wrestled in both were dual affiliates. The NAIA champ never “qualified” for the NCAA tournament through their tournament. That practice isn’t allowed anymore.

It’s an unpopular opinion, but I believe
if your goal is to be a Division I champion, pick a Division I school, either out of HS or transfer to one. No other sport gives you “two bites at the apple,” and the potential for this to happen is not realistic or remotely possible. The option for schools to potentially pick their division per sport MAY be something that comes out of the transformational committee.

Eh, I hear you and understand.  I can still want what I want.

Vasbinder of MSU did it.  Because they want gents wrestling the wrong weight classes he must go 285.

[ionel]

10 hours ago, Jason Bryant said:

As a staunch advocate of realignment in wrestling, there isn't a whole lot that really can be done or suggested until the NCAA's Transformational Committee finishes its work.

Conference affiliation has been a constant excuse when it comes to shifty ADs looking to cut sports - if you take the conference aspect away from Division I wrestling, you put pretty much every program at risk if a conference has the out to no longer sponsor the sport. This is the primary reason I'm against regionalization models for Division I. While it may work to a decent degree (save the arguments in Division III for how tough some regions are from year to year and people being left home outside the Top 3), the Division II and Division III athletics model isn't the same as Division I and the conference affiliation is less of an issue for starting and maintaining programs. 

The NCAA (at least at Division I) got away from historical data to determine qualification methods. These conversations were held back at several NWCA Conventions and the issue is big time financial. It's also about how you distribute the teams. Geographical won't happen with equity. You wouldn't get Top 8 in 4 regions because the geographical imbalance would be too great. Shifting all these teams around just weeks before a regional creates that big financial issue. A hybrid model was broached, with the Top 16 teams being split into regionals and then keeping it primarily geographic, but there were too many financial hurdles there too. 

The system we have now is ultimately the best D1 has had since it was an open era prior to (I believe) 1968. One tournament doesn't make or break you for the entire season. Sick on the weekend of the regional? Too bad. Everything I've read from the fanbase about the current tournament is you want the best wrestlers there, right? Current format may have its flaws, but no system is perfect. 

I don't feel the playing field gets leveled for the mid-majors and smaller programs in a regional model. The big programs will just get shifted to each regional. Right now, we need to create MORE conferences to create more access. We need to create, not contract. 

The Big Ten isn't the roadblock, but I believe the dissolution of the sport's deepest and only full-sponsored conference (until the So Cal schools officially join) would be an absolutely terrible thing to happen. I feel protecting the teams we have is more important to the future of the sport than coaches doing what they do to exploit the qualfying/seeding rules to their advantage. We can change rules, but it's pretty damned hard to get a D1 team back after it's been dropped. 

Good grief!  Teams are traveling all over the country as it is.  How far is it from Maryland to USC, is it more expensive to fly from Rutgers to Lincoln, NE or to Vegas or Florida.  This isn't that complicated, its simple math not rocket science.  You developed a simple system that rotates teams based on their "seeds" which could be a simple math formula using last years place and current year rank.  Its a simple matter of assigning to 4 regions where your are splitting up the teams based on rank and conference but keeping in mind location such that no one is at home every year or traveling to the furthest region every year.  Sure you could end up with a very tough say 141lb bracket at one region, but the goal is to make sure all AA's have a chance to make the NCAA tournament, with 8 qualifying out of each region you are guaranteed the top 8 make NCAA.  Sure you still could get some duck'n trying to get a better seed at the region but ... hey ducks are gonna duck.  This has a real chance to grow the sport.  Look at how popular NCAA has become and how expensive and hard to get a ticket.  This is a chance to spread this excitement out into 5 locations every year.  Also, the 4 regions would not be competing with March Madness BB so there's an opportunity for significant increase in TV etc. revenue.  But of course, what to do with the conference tournaments?  Well each could decide but could be an early season tourney, hold it during the winter break mid Dec to early Jan (of course that impacts Midlands, its pretty dead anyway, and Scuffle.    But again the biggest hurdle is all the excuses above and the B10 thinks their tournament is the best in the world and don't want to change. 

[Ban Basketball]

I find this kind of "ducking" far less demeaning to the sport than I do what goes on during the "conference" and "national" tournaments. 

The system completely allows for rasslers to either forfeit or injury default their ways into three Big Dance,  which is a joke. 

Under this current system, and if I was a coach who had rasslers who could "qualify" this easy,  I'd deliberately see to it that all of them don't brassle, just as a means to add further mockery to the system. 

All of this crap has been in place since Craig Henning didn't make it out of the conference tournament after being a national finalist the year before. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Ban Basketball

[ionel]

39 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

I find this kind of "ducking" far less demeaning to the sport than I do what goes on during the "conference" and "national" tournaments. 

The system completely allows for rasslers to either forfeit or injury default their ways into three Big Dance,  which is a joke. 

Under this current system, and if I was a coach who had rasslers who could "qualify" this easy,  I'd deliberately see to it that all of them don't brassle, just as a means to add further mockery to the system. 

All of this crap has been in place since Craig Henning didn't make it out of the conference tournament after being a national finalist the year before. 

And a 4 region system would eliminate that.  1st place will wrestle 8th place the first match of NCAA, the region/draw system would be random every year, make the draw/reveal (could be a big deal on Espn) after conclusion of 4 regions.   So sure, you could still injury default down to 8th to get in but you are going to wrestle a 1st place region your first match of the NCAA.  

[Jason Bryant]

46 minutes ago, ionel said:

Good grief!  Teams are traveling all over the country as it is.  How far is it from Maryland to USC, is it more expensive to fly from Rutgers to Lincoln, NE or to Vegas or Florida.  This isn't that complicated, its simple math not rocket science.  You developed a simple system that rotates teams based on their "seeds" which could be a simple math formula using last years place and current year rank.  Its a simple matter of assigning to 4 regions where your are splitting up the teams based on rank and conference but keeping in mind location such that no one is at home every year or traveling to the furthest region every year.  Sure you could end up with a very tough say 141lb bracket at one region, but the goal is to make sure all AA's have a chance to make the NCAA tournament, with 8 qualifying out of each region you are guaranteed the top 8 make NCAA.  Sure you still could get some duck'n trying to get a better seed at the region but ... hey ducks are gonna duck.  This has a real chance to grow the sport.  Look at how popular NCAA has become and how expensive and hard to get a ticket.  This is a chance to spread this excitement out into 5 locations every year.  Also, the 4 regions would not be competing with March Madness BB so there's an opportunity for significant increase in TV etc. revenue.  But of course, what to do with the conference tournaments?  Well each could decide but could be an early season tourney, hold it during the winter break mid Dec to early Jan (of course that impacts Midlands, its pretty dead anyway, and Scuffle.    But again the biggest hurdle is all the excuses above and the B10 thinks their tournament is the best in the world and don't want to change. 

The expense isn't about the school, the expense is a regional would have an NCAA logo on it, meaning the NCAA would be on the hook to pay for every single entry and everything that goes with it. The income generated from three days in March IS significant, but it's not enough to move the entire sport to the NCAA paying the same way they do for March Madness, which brings in money our sport will never see. 

I will still forever insist that under the current way D1 athletics operates, removing the relevance of a conference is a death knell. 

I also want to say I don't disagree with your rationale behind this, but even if the NCAA doesn't pick it up, but there are teams that still compete regionally and don't really travel much and don't have the budget (and their admins will likely be unwilling to invest MORE in money-losing sports). 

The "spread excitement" into 5 regions is a great thought, but TWO tournaments draw. TWO. Big Tens and the NCAAs. Until the season moves away from the high school postseasons, we'll always cannibalize our potential fanbase in March. None of these potential regionals will draw. Remember, we only have 102 duals ALL TIME that have drawn over 10,000 fans in a single punch. 

I'm not trying to be a debbie downer, but the NCAA will not make changes without actual data. Nothing is going to happen unless there is a real, tangible, replicable benefit here. We aren't calling the shots, we're beholden to the leftovers of basketball and football with NCAA rules and regulations. That's the world we live in. 

[Jason Bryant]

I spent months on a realignment proposal for D1. To flush out a regional format, let's see how it breaks down. Split the teams up with some data-based information and let's discuss it. 

[Ban Basketball]

7 minutes ago, ionel said:

And a 4 region system would eliminate that.  1st place will wrestle 8th place the first match of NCAA, the region/draw system would be random every year, make the draw/reveal (could be a big deal on Espn) after conclusion of 4 regions.   So sure, you could still injury default down to 8th to get in but you are going to wrestle a 1st place region your first match of the NCAA.  

What I proposed many years ago before my mat.com ban was far more exclusive and simplified than that. 

But,  man,  did the villagers ever turn on me after that proposal! I'd still stand behind it today,  as it would entirely eliminate any of that nonsense and the real,  deserving rasslers are in the Big Dance. 

[Jason Bryant]

4 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

What I proposed many years ago before my mat.com ban was far more exclusive and simplified than that. 

But,  man,  did the villagers ever turn on me after that proposal! I'd still stand behind it today,  as it would entirely eliminate any of that nonsense and the real,  deserving rasslers are in the Big Dance. 

Can you just post it? Few, if anyone, here remembers what you were banned for (It was before me, so I don't know), so just post it. Might I recommend not continually bringing up the old bans? This is a new home, no need to keep dredging that up. I don't think it matters to anyone. 

So, what's your proposal? 

[Ban Basketball]

4 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

Can you just post it? Few, if anyone, here remembers what you were banned for (It was before me, so I don't know), so just post it. Might I recommend not continually bringing up the old bans? This is a new home, no need to keep dredging that up. I don't think it matters to anyone. 

So, what's your proposal? 

I respect you and your asking,  but it went over like a fart in church years ago and I just don't have what it takes any more to sit and defend myself with everyone. 

Getting too old,  I think. 

[Caveira]

I do sometimes find the “grow the sport comments”.    As if.  
 

Parent:   hey little Johnny.  Wanna go out for wrestling this year?

7 year old Johnny:   Nah.  I think I’ll play soccer. 

parent:  interesting.  Why?

Johnny:   I don’t like the conference tournament deciding who goes to NCAAs.  It’s not fair.   Now if they had a regional qualifier.  I would totally be in.