What is the longest D1 dual meet win streak?

[Wrestleknownothing]

@Jason Bryant says it is 76 in a row by the 1937 - 1951 Oklahoma State Cowboys (Wikipedia agrees).

JB article

The National Wrestling Coaches Association least year said it was 69 in a row by Oklahoma State (twice) and Iowa.

NWCA article

And Yesterday Flo's Andrew Spey said it was 70 without stating who holds the record (can you ask him who had the 70 and when @Jon_Kozak?).

Flo match notes

So does PSU already have the record? Or are they tied for the record? Or are they still 6 wins short of the record?

 

P.S. This NCAA article would suggest JB is correct as the minimum stands at 73 using their annual results.

Then the question becomes, why are the NWCA and Flo wrong?

[666]

76 might be right. Maybe I'm not remembering this well, but I seem to remember Iowa was about tied with OSU for longest streak, and then OSU tied them? Feel free to correct me on this, I seem to remember it was 71 matches or so? 

[Jason Bryant]

The NWCA thing from last year is an error and is on me. I wrote that section - I handle the Coaches Poll - and when I was writing it, I meant to include a modern-era time descriptor, since the Iowa and Oklahoma State (one of them) streaks ended in 1999 and 2011, while the other Oklahoma State streak is from 1932. I've since updated that post from last year to avoid the issue arising again with something that was missing proper context. 

I've since written (multiple times, I believe) what the record is in NWCA poll releases. The "Division I" record is 76 (broken in 1951).

The NCAA record is 77 (St. Cloud State, broken in 2022 one match after they set a new record).

Since Oklahoma State's 76 was in an era prior to Divisions, I call that "major college" since it's a current Division I institution in an era that pre-dated even the college division. 

The modern era record would be 70. 

The all-time "D1" record is 76. 

The NCAA record is 77. 

Here's the working list (since that article was written in the midst of Grand View's win streak)

https://almanac.mattalkonline.com/top-college-dual-meet-win-streaks/

Edited Monday at 07:18 PM by Jason Bryant

[Wrestleknownothing]

13 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

The NWCA thing from last year is an error and is on me. I wrote that section - I handle the Coaches Poll - and when I was writing it, I meant to include a modern-era time descriptor, since the Iowa and Oklahoma State (one of them) streaks ended in 1999 and 2011, while the other Oklahoma State streak is from 1932. I've since updated that post from last year to avoid the issue arising again with something that was missing proper context. 

I've since written (multiple times, I believe) what the record is in NWCA poll releases. The "Division I" record is 76 (broken in 1951).

The NCAA record is 77 (St. Cloud State, broken in 2022 one match after they set a new record).

Since Oklahoma State's 76 was in an era prior to Divisions, I call that "major college" since it's a current Division I institution in an era that pre-dated even the college division. 

The modern era record would be 70. 

The all-time "D1" record is 76. 

The NCAA record is 77. 

Here's the working list (since that article was written in the midst of Grand View's win streak)

https://almanac.mattalkonline.com/top-college-dual-meet-win-streaks/

Nice. Thank you.

It is interesting that when I googled it, the first NWCA article in the search results was the older version without the clarification.

[PortaJohn]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

And Yesterday Flo's Andrew Spey said it was 70 without stating who holds the record

 

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Then the question becomes, why are the NWCA and Flo wrong?

Apologies to Kozak because it is his buddy but no one should ever take Andrew Spey seriously when it comes to wrestling.  

[Jason Bryant]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Nice. Thank you.

It is interesting that when I googled it, the first NWCA article in the search results was the older version without the clarification.

I made the clarification on the older post (From last year) after you posted it here. I figured it would make sense and go back to update the original post you linked to, so past references would be accurate. 

[AgaveMaria]

I can see Penn State getting the record for duals.

I don't see them winning Nine Titles in a row.

 

[SocraTease]

I think FLO was referring to the Big Ten record, which is now held by Penn State at 70.  It was formerly 69.

It would be interesting to see a dual between PSU and OK State when PSU hits either 76 or 77 (if we include non-D1 schools) because it would add some big drama to the next season: the old record vs. the record-breaking attempt; Cael vs. DT, two of the top perennial powerhouses, etc.  

I imagine these teams could schedule that match early enough in the coming season, but National Duals might conceivably interfere with it.  Or PSU could participate on opposite sides of the tournament from OK State and hope they meet in the finals.  

[ionel]

2 hours ago, Jason Bryant said:

The modern era record would be 70. 

What is this "modern era" you speak of?  Am assuming since advent of self driving cars.  

[Jason Bryant]

Klingman, myself and a couple of the other wrestling historian types have tended to define the "modern era of college wrestling" to be full freshman eligibility (save the outlier '47 season), so from 1969 on. It's basically the era of "four time" anything ... 

[SocraTease]

32 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

Klingman, myself and a couple of the other wrestling historian types have tended to define the "modern era of college wrestling" to be full freshman eligibility (save the outlier '47 season), so from 1969 on. It's basically the era of "four time" anything ... 

That sounds like a reasonable watershed.  So it is basically BG (Before Gable) and AG (After Gable) ... though of course Gable wrestled until 1970 in college   

It would be an interesting (and also controversial) enterprise to attempt to define wrestling eras based on changes in style—e.g., "the postmodern era" as commencing with, say, "Funk" (circa the arrival of Askren though preceded by Schalles, among possible others.). And now there might be a post-post modern era where extremely talented high schoolers transition quickly to college ... and so on.

Perhaps future historians will designate a BC (Before Cael) and AC (After Cael) era based particularly on his coaching style:  Points + Fun + Gratitude ... or something like that

Edited Tuesday at 03:40 AM by SocraTease

[ionel]

16 hours ago, Jason Bryant said:

Klingman, myself and a couple of the other wrestling historian types have tended to define the "modern era of college wrestling" to be full freshman eligibility (save the outlier '47 season), so from 1969 on. It's basically the era of "four time" anything ... 

I remember 1969.  Most folks had a single rotary dial phone in their house and the party line system was still in use.  Some establishments still had outhouses, maybe that hasn't changed much cause now we have @PortaJohns. Sure the 69 Pontiac GTO was one of the coolest cars ever but it ain't worth $300k today because its modern.  Pat Smith brought in a newer "modern" era showing you could win 4x even as a true freshman.  However, the 4x thing didn't really take off until Cael showed the way.  It was rare even then for true freshman to start, most just didn't have the defensive skills out of high school and needed a year in the room.  The next new modern came after high school and club coaching improved so much that these kids had the defense and technique right out of high school or before.  I'd say there was another new modern when Cael started coaching.

No one is saying 1969 is the "modern era."  We simply have one long history of wrestling with a lot of changes throughout.  

[BruceyB]

7 minutes ago, ionel said:

No one is saying 1969 is the "modern era."  We simply have one long history of wrestling with a lot of changes throughout. 

2024-2025 is a much different era than 2009.

[ionel]

39 minutes ago, BruceyB said:

2024-2025 is a much different era than 2009.

Good point cause I forgot to mention 1) the grade transfer era, 2) the Covid illegibility era, 3) the portal era, 4) NIL era, 24/25 and 5) the whats next era.  

[Jason Bryant]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

I remember 1969.  Most folks had a single rotary dial phone in their house and the party line system was still in use.  Some establishments still had outhouses, maybe that hasn't changed much cause now we have @PortaJohns. Sure the 69 Pontiac GTO was one of the coolest cars ever but it ain't worth $300k today because its modern.  Pat Smith brought in a newer "modern" era showing you could win 4x even as a true freshman.  However, the 4x thing didn't really take off until Cael showed the way.  It was rare even then for true freshman to start, most just didn't have the defensive skills out of high school and needed a year in the room.  The next new modern came after high school and club coaching improved so much that these kids had the defense and technique right out of high school or before.  I'd say there was another new modern when Cael started coaching.

No one is saying 1969 is the "modern era."  We simply have one long history of wrestling with a lot of changes throughout.  

It's the era of four-year eligibility, that's the determining factor between wrestling before and wrestling after - save the one instance of 1947. 

Statistically, everything before then is different. Hence, why those of us who spend heavy time researching and archiving things that have never been properly chronicled have tended to look at it. Is the term "modern era" incorrect? It might be. Maybe it's the "four-year-eligibility era" but that's too annoying to write repeatedly. 

MLB's modern era is considered anything after 1901. MLB even designates some differences in stats from when they lowered the mound and the advent of the DH. I'm not saying its universally accepted or will be universally accepted, but that is the one clear line in the sport that separates the stats of old from the stats of today. 

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

It's the era of four-year eligibility, that's the determining factor between wrestling before and wrestling after - save the one instance of 1947. 

Statistically, everything before then is different. Hence, why those of us who spend heavy time researching and archiving things that have never been properly chronicled have tended to look at it. Is the term "modern era" incorrect? It might be. Maybe it's the "four-year-eligibility era" but that's too annoying to write repeatedly. 

MLB's modern era is considered anything after 1901. MLB even designates some differences in stats from when they lowered the mound and the advent of the DH. I'm not saying its universally accepted or will be universally accepted, but that is the one clear line in the sport that separates the stats of old from the stats of today. 

It simply a made up distinction by a small group.  After 69 most still only wrestled So - Sr years. So many others era changes after.  

[Jason Bryant]

21 minutes ago, ionel said:

It simply a made up distinction by a small group.  After 69 most still only wrestled So - Sr years. So many others era changes after.  

After 1969, freshman COULD wrestle, whereas before, there were rules against it. Pretty clear line of demarcation in regards to historical significance. No other changes, as of this moment, impacted eligibility and the sport's records like that change did. The exceptions are the 1947 year of freshman eligibility and the additional COVID year. 

The fact coaches became the arbiter of who wrestled when is immaterial - they were not allowed prior, making it a logical place to separate eras - the three-year era and the four-year era. Not sure why it's so bothersome. 
 

One other separator could simply be 1973-74 - the Divisional era, where the NCAA went to three divisions. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:45 PM by Jason Bryant

[ionel]

18 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

After 1969, freshman COULD wrestle, whereas before, there were rules against it.

We all know this and they didn't, doesn't mean it was the major chance.  We could go with point scoring instead. 

[Jason Bryant]

4 minutes ago, ionel said:

We all know this and they didn't, doesn't mean it was the major chance.  We could go with point scoring instead. 

Which Points?
The advent of points vs. a fall & time advantage?
Team Scoring Changes? 
Match Points? 
Advent of the superior decision?
Removal of the SD and advent of the major and technical fall?
advent of overtime in dual meets?
advent of criteria in team scoring events with dual advancement? 
advent of criteria in regular season duals?
return of ties in duals?
return of criteria in regular season duals?
First takedown is 2 points, then all of them 1 point?
Back to all takedowns being 2 points?
Falls being 3 seconds? 
Falls being 2 seconds? 
Falls being 1 second?

You see the issue with selecting an era based on a scoring rule? There's just too many. 

A scoring rule change didn't change the number of athletes who could or couldn't compete en masse and how many years they can compete like the FR eligibility did - Divisional Era is probably the most logical, since it set into motion what we have today.

I'm not saying it's THE solution, but given the structure and history of the sport, the two above options make more sense to set clear eras apart from one another. 

[ionel]

19 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

Which Points?
The advent of points vs. a fall & time advantage?
Team Scoring Changes? 
Match Points? 
Advent of the superior decision?
Removal of the SD and advent of the major and technical fall?
advent of overtime in dual meets?
advent of criteria in team scoring events with dual advancement? 
advent of criteria in regular season duals?
return of ties in duals?
return of criteria in regular season duals?
First takedown is 2 points, then all of them 1 point?
Back to all takedowns being 2 points?
Falls being 3 seconds? 
Falls being 2 seconds? 
Falls being 1 second?

You see the issue with selecting an era based on a scoring rule? There's just too many. 

A scoring rule change didn't change the number of athletes who could or couldn't compete en masse and how many years they can compete like the FR eligibility did - Divisional Era is probably the most logical, since it set into motion what we have today.

I'm not saying it's THE solution, but given the structure and history of the sport, the two above options make more sense to set clear eras apart from one another. 

Exactly ... there is no "modern era."  Now you are getting it.

[Jason Bryant]

I get it, you don’t like the terminology, just like I don’t like the archaic, redundant and misapplied term pinfall.

Cheers

[Fadzaev2]

11 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

I get it, you don’t like the terminology, just like I don’t like the archaic, redundant and misapplied term pinfall.

Cheers

No kidding....is it a pin or is it a fall...

[fishbane]

I think the overall number has already been settled thoroughly by JB and others.   I had looked into this before the start of the season and the OSU media guide had 76 as their record win streak. I checked other D1 programs and that was the longest I could find.  One thing to note about that streak is that is spanned the tenures of two different head coaches.  So the longest dual winning streak by a single head coach at the D1 level is 69.  Some of the references articles may have been said the longest streak by a coach and not a program.

Another detail is that the longest unbeaten streak by a team (or coach) in D1 is slightly longer at 84.  OSU did this 1959-1966 and Iowa equalled it under Tom Brands.  I think Iowa's steak had a higher winning percentage as it only included 1 draw and OSUs included 2.  It's interesting that Iowa's last loss before starting their 84 match unbeaten streak was to OSU. The tie that prevented them from claiming the winning streak record was against OSU.  And the loss that ended the unbeaten streak was also against OSU.

 

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

19 minutes ago, fishbane said:

So the longest dual winning streak by a single head coach at the D1 level is 69.  

Was 69. Is 70.

[fishbane]

20 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Was 69. Is 70.

Right!  Spey was probably talking about the record for a single coach and the answer is Sanderson.