Get rid of regular season tournaments

[1032004]

A result from a tournament 3 months ago that was probably attended by like 100 people that weren’t family of the wrestlers is the reason Maryland sat an undefeated wrestler in a dual tonight between 2 top 30 teams.

No one wants to watch wrestling outside of NCAA’s for 8 hours or whatever.

Midlands and Scuffle are shells of what they were, and the Paycom duals will likely water down CKLV.  And even within the tournaments we often see guys MFF out.   Keep opens for redshirts and backups, but starters should do more duals instead.  Maybe more dual tournaments if teams want guys getting used to several matches a day.

Duals are how we get fans more interested.  All teams should dual every team in their conference (and teams in small conferences can do more out of conference).  We also should probably implement @Husker_Du‘s idea of making seeding for conference tournaments based on whoever the team sends out for that weight

 

[fishbane]

I wouldn't assume this was a duck. Maryland lost this dual 14-23.  If Brown wrestled and won it's 17-18.  Not wrestling hands the dual to Purdue and with a win at 157 Maryland is still in it.  Not winning this dual is the difference between a winning season for the Terps and I don't think a loss for Brown significantly changes his postseason outlook.

I don't think in season tournaments should be eliminated they serve an essential purpose.  It would be nearly impossible for non-starters to accrue significant matches and they are an efficient way for a team/wrestler to compete against multiple opponents.

If you want to reduce ducking in Conference duals then eliminate the conference tournament and instead determine if the team gets a national qualifier at a weight based on the teams record in conference duals at that weight.  The number of allocations each conference has at a weight is based on rpi/coaches poll.  Wild cards round out the field.

[1032004]

5 hours ago, fishbane said:

I wouldn't assume this was a duck. Maryland lost this dual 14-23.  If Brown wrestled and won it's 17-18.  Not wrestling hands the dual to Purdue and with a win at 157 Maryland is still in it.  Not winning this dual is the difference between a winning season for the Terps and I don't think a loss for Brown significantly changes his postseason outlook.

I don't think in season tournaments should be eliminated they serve an essential purpose.  It would be nearly impossible for non-starters to accrue significant matches and they are an efficient way for a team/wrestler to compete against multiple opponents.

If you want to reduce ducking in Conference duals then eliminate the conference tournament and instead determine if the team gets a national qualifier at a weight based on the teams record in conference duals at that weight.  The number of allocations each conference has at a weight is based on rpi/coaches poll.  Wild cards round out the field.

I said to keep tournaments for backups and redshirts.

It was 100% a duck by Clemsen.   You think it’s just a coincidence he was replying to Willie talking about B10 seeding criteria?

 

If Miller is the 1, he could have both Kasak and Teemer on the other side.  If he loses to Blaze, he probably drops down to like the 5 seed.  Making the finals at B10’s (which if I had to bet, he won’t anyway) vs getting 4th or 5th likely makes a decent difference in NCAA seeding.  Plus no loss last night helps his winning % - I think that should go away as an NCAA seeding criteria 

[1032004]

5 hours ago, fishbane said:

 

 

If you want to reduce ducking in Conference duals then eliminate the conference tournament and instead determine if the team gets a national qualifier at a weight based on the teams record in conference duals at that weight.  The number of allocations each conference has at a weight is based on rpi/coaches poll.  Wild cards round out the field.

Conference tournaments still have value IMO.  The suggestion of making conference seeding (instead of NCAA qualification) based on the team’s record at the weight would probably accomplish nearly the same thing without needing to get rid of the conference tournament.
 

Maybe a separate topic and I know it won’t happen but I kinda feel like the conference tournaments should have a more similar number of teams.  Maybe something like:

Disband the PAC 12 for wrestling.  They only have 4 teams with only Oregon State as an actual member of the Pac 12. I know on FRL they talked about having an exemption for this year but has anything been announced for next season?

I know it doesn’t really make sense from a geography standpoint but if you put the 4 current B12 teams into the Socin that’s 11.

B10: 14 teams

B12: 14 teams

EIWA: 12 teams

MAC: 12 teams (not counting Cleveland State RIP)

Ivy + ACC: 13 teams (probably the least likely with Ivy just pulling out of EIWA)

Then back to my earlier point have every team dual every other team in the conference instead of regular season tournaments.

 

[BuckyBadger]

Setting aside fan interest, tournaments are important for wrestlers to get used to the grind of making weight multiple days in a row and wrestling 3-4+ matches a day. This is one of the most grueling aspects of nationals and if you haven’t done it during the season you are at a potential disadvantage.

[1032004]

3 minutes ago, BuckyBadger said:

Setting aside fan interest, tournaments are important for wrestlers to get used to the grind of making weight multiple days in a row and wrestling 3-4+ matches a day. This is one of the most grueling aspects of nationals and if you haven’t done it during the season you are at a potential disadvantage.

 

8 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Maybe more dual tournaments if teams want guys getting used to several matches a day.

 

[fishbane]

7 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I said to keep tournaments for backups and redshirts.

It wouldn't make sense to exclude starters from them.  Is the NCAA or tournament director going to determine who the starter is?  They are still an efficient way for teams from small conferences to wrestle multiple Big ten/12 teams.

 

7 hours ago, 1032004 said:

It was 100% a duck by Clemsen.   You think it’s just a coincidence he was replying to Willie talking about B10 seeding criteria?

...

If Miller is the 1, he could have both Kasak and Teemer on the other side. If he loses to Blaze, he probably drops down to like the 5 seed.  Making the finals at B10’s (which if I had to bet, he won’t anyway) vs getting 4th or 5th likely makes a decent difference in NCAA seeding.  Plus no loss last night helps his winning % - I think that should go away as an NCAA seeding criteria 
If Miller is the 1, he could have

It's possible it was done for those reasons, but if that's the case he's likely to be disappointed.  It's also possible that Miller sustained some kind of injury in the past week and Clemson was bemoaning the lack of defined seeding criteria no because it would give him insight as to how this may affect his wrestler's seed.

Supposing Miller gets the 1 seed then there are really only two candidates for the 2 seed.  Kasak who has only lost to Miller and Blaze who also only has lost to Miller (assuming he beats Taylor).  The other should get the 3.  The 4 and 5 seeds go to Taylor and Teemer.  Do you have Teemer falling all the way to the 6?  I don't think that is likely with his win over Askey last night.

If Miller loses he might not even fall to 4/5.  He still has the win over Kasak so he might only be the 2 seed (Blaze 1, Kasak 3) which would only put him on the same side as both Teemer and Kasak if Teemer is somehow the 6 seed which is unlikely.  Same if he's the 3 seed with Blaze and Kasak ahead of him.  I think it takes some chaos for him to be 4/5.  Like he loses to Blaze who then loses to Taylor.  The order is probably Kasak, Taylor, Blaze, Miller, Teemer.

The risk vs reward doesn't seem worth it to throw away the dual and a winning season.  The lack of defined seeding criteria makes it less likely to work and more unpredictable.  If the coaches perceive the top two wrestlers to be Kasak and Teemer as it seems you do, then they will likely find a way to keep them on different sides.  I've been in college seeding meetings like this before - no defined criteria.  It's funny how a coach will make a case for their guys to get top seed one minute and then after it goes to someone else they pivot and now their guy should be 4 because the wrestler they wanted to avoid is definitely getting 2 or 3.

Edited Saturday at 06:17 PM by fishbane

[fishbane]

6 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Conference tournaments still have value IMO.  The suggestion of making conference seeding (instead of NCAA qualification) based on the team’s record at the weight would probably accomplish nearly the same thing without needing to get rid of the conference tournament.

It would also remove the argument for not having starters wrestle in season tournaments.  This would make UMDs loss at 157 last night the seeding criteria rather than the match at CKLV.

The conference tournaments had value which has been diminishing over time.  In the past a wrestler used to have to perform at a conference tournament to make NCAAs.  Now that is not the case.  Since the adoption of national wild cards we've seen multiple wrestler go 0-2 and either not take the mat at all or "wrestle" 1-3s and still qualify.  From a fan interest and financial perspective only one conference tournament really makes sense every year and that's the Big Ten tournament.  Even in that we've seen large numbers of forfeits in the consolations and more recently the finals too. Last year even with the new rule that a med forfeit in a tournament would count as a loss on a wrestlers record this was still happening.  

I agree with a lot of what you wrote on conferences.  I'd prefer them to be more balanced too, but possibly a little smaller than your proposal.  If conference duals were to replace the conference tournament I'd like to see a full round robin where each team wrestles every other team in a dual. With 14 team conferences 13 duals means a lot of travel and eats up too much schedule.  Even if it doesn't replace the conference tournament I think wrestling every other team in the conference is a plus.  As it stands we aren't guaranteed to see Iowa-PSU, Iowa-Michigan, Iowa-Minnesota, Iowa-Nebraska, ect every year.  And who cares about 9th and 11th place matches at conferences to decide automatic qualifiers?  Smaller more balanced conferences would eliminate/reduce them.  Unfortunately Football determines the conferences and all other sports are stuck with it.

[ugarles]

In-season tournaments allow injured starters to build up their resumes for RPI, among other things. Also, anyone arguing in favor of "less wrestling" is probably doing it out of parochial interest or in reaction to a recent event. There is no way to fully prevent tactical ducking.* Getting rid of in-season tournaments is bad for the sport.

* Cards on the table, I advocated that Cornell want to leave Shapiro at home for today's dual against Arizona State because going to the in-season tournament at Lock Haven tomorrow is the only way I can see him getting 15 matches before NCAA seeding.* Finishing the season with 14 matches and no RPI is an annoying way to have to battle through 3-2-1 starting in the quarters. Same situation as Vito last year. He would have had 14 matches, but he lost in the semis to. The loss probably had the same effect as no RPI, putting him at 6. Of course, that ended up not being a problem.

* unless he loses in the ILT semi, in which case he's not in the running for a top-3 seed anyway.

[Idaho]

12 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Disband the PAC 12 for wrestling.  They only have 4 teams with only Oregon State as an actual member of the Pac 12. I know on FRL they talked about having an exemption for this year but has anything been announced for next season?

They have a 2 year exemption, so they are good next. year too... oh and they are committed to building the conference back up. 

12 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I know it doesn’t really make sense from a geography standpoint but if you put the 4 current B12 teams into the Socin that’s 11.

It makes more sense for Wyoming, Cal Baptist, N. Colorado, UVU and Air Force to move to the Pac 12 and Little Rock to the Socon. 

One last thing...

 

[ionel]

10 minutes ago, Idaho said:

It makes more sense for Wyoming, Cal Baptist, N. Colorado, UVU and Air Force to move to the Pac 12 and Little Rock to the Socon. 

One last thing...

 

  Why would it make sense for WY, NCo and AF, they are on the east side of the rockies with the main part of the conference.  

 

PS:  nobody likes Idaho much ... except for the spuds.  

Edited Sunday at 12:04 AM by ionel

[Idaho]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

... and you're not throwing Wyoming in there because?  Why would it make sense for NCo and AF, they are on the east side of the rockies with the main part of the conference.  

Wyoming is the first team on my list.... 

[ionel]

1 minute ago, Idaho said:

Wyoming is the first team on my list.... 

Woops ... at least Bob gave me 15 minutes. 

[Idaho]

Because Colorado is Western state. 

[MadMardigain]

Been thinking for awhile a higher value should be put on winning matches, especially against high quality opponents, during the last half of the season compared to the starting half.  Doesn’t fix everything but seems like it could bring the rating of wrestlers down who are dodging competition later in the season. 

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, Idaho said:

Because Colorado is Western state. 

Have you ever flown from say OK to Greeley? Thats easy.  Now on to Idaho or Utah is a different matter.  🏔 

[Idaho]

44 minutes ago, ionel said:

Have you ever flown from say OK to Greeley? Thats easy.  Now on to Idaho or Utah is a different matter.  🏔 

[BruceyB]

36 minutes ago, ionel said:

Have you ever flown from say OK to Greeley? Thats easy.  Now on to Idaho or Utah is a different matter.  🏔 

I hear you, but we're talking about a college landscape where Stanford is in the ACC. These aren't your father's conferences. Competition-wise Northern Colorado, Wyoming, AF, etc. probably do fit better among the Pac-whatever teams than with the bigger programs in the B12. But it doesn't make any sense currently to hold onto the relic that was the Pac12. All of the major sports programs are gone, and it would probably be better for the Pac schools to just do the same and get absorbed by the B12 if possible. I'd imagine it would only help ASU and Oregon with recruiting to be in a more legitimate conference.