New National Champs Format

[Winners Circle]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

 

The team aspect holds almost no value at the current tournament.  It barely gets acknowledged until the very end.  We should be CREATING value, including properties to sell to broadcasters like ESPN.  Determining the champ in a direct, on-the-mat competition between two teams is the best way, and is the easiest way to package the team champ to less intensive fans.

Playing devil's advocate here, but is it possible that it barely gets acknowledged currently because it's not been competitive? I remember being at NCAAs in Cleveland back in 2018 I think it was, when Penn State and Ohio State were neck and neck, and there was definitely a buzz around the arena involving the team race.

[Winners Circle]

5 minutes ago, NM1965 said:

Wait a second, are you saying in Illinois they have a dual championship, THEN BUMP UP A WEIGHT before states? That makes no sense. Make it make sense, please. 

The individual tourney is first.

[NM1965]

Just now, Winners Circle said:

The individual tourney is first.

That helps, thanks. 

[Rassling2]

3 minutes ago, NM1965 said:

I bet I could. I do have a slight 100 pound weight advantage over him though, and a not so slight 40 year edge as well. 

Ha!

[NM1965]

2 minutes ago, Winners Circle said:

Playing devil's advocate here, but is it possible that it barely gets acknowledged currently because it's not been competitive? I remember being at NCAAs in Cleveland back in 2018 I think it was, when Penn State and Ohio State were neck and neck, and there was definitely a buzz around the arena involving the team race.

It's almost always like that though. PSU is the top team now and smokes everybody at NCAAs, for the most part. When OSU was on top (best 5 years of John Smith's tenure) they were generally smoking everybody at NCAAs. When Iowa was top dog they usually smoked everybody. When was the last time there was a legitimate battle for who'd win? 

[NM1965]

Just now, Rassling2 said:

Ha!

It helps that I can bench Bouzakis weight with one arm

[Winners Circle]

6 minutes ago, NM1965 said:

It's almost always like that though. PSU is the top team now and smokes everybody at NCAAs, for the most part. When OSU was on top (best 5 years of John Smith's tenure) they were generally smoking everybody at NCAAs. When Iowa was top dog they usually smoked everybody. When was the last time there was a legitimate battle for who'd win? 

So you want a dual championship to make the landscape more competitive then. 

And 2018. 

[NM1965]

Just now, Winners Circle said:

So you want a dual championship to make the landscape more competitive then. 

And 2018. 

Not really. I don't have a problem with a juggernaut team that everybody takes their shots at. Also, I don't mind PSU at the top. I've seen several dynasties in my life and they are usually more-or-less good for sports. 

But you can see my point. The last really competitive NCAA tournament was 2018, and that was 7 years back. 

[Winners Circle]

7 minutes ago, NM1965 said:

Not really. I don't have a problem with a juggernaut team that everybody takes their shots at. Also, I don't mind PSU at the top. I've seen several dynasties in my life and they are usually more-or-less good for sports. 

But you can see my point. The last really competitive NCAA tournament was 2018, and that was 7 years back. 

I think the individual tournament is the best way to determine the best team. You should be rewarded for having guys that are extremely dominant. If Penn State wrestles Arizona State, and Pierson Manville pins Aaron Nagao, and Mitchell Mesenbrink pins Nico Ruiz, you cannot convince me that it is a fair representation of a team to say that Mitchell Mesenbrink is worth the same value as Pierson Manville.

Edited November 18, 2025 by Winners Circle

[Caveira]

30 minutes ago, NM1965 said:

Wait a second, are you saying in Illinois they have a dual championship, THEN BUMP UP A WEIGHT before states? That makes no sense. Make it make sense, please. 

Reverse.   Individual championship (made up date) march 1.   Dual championship (March 15)

paraphrasing qualifiers.  
 

il goes regional —> sectional —> state.  
 

teams qualify based on their regional results.   The “winner” of dual regional wrestles the winners of the other regional dual winners after sectionals.   Then dual state is after individual state.  So the weight bumps usually occur after state 

Edited November 18, 2025 by Caveira

[Pablo]

Just now, Winners Circle said:

I think the individual tournament is the best way to determine the best team. You should be rewarded for having guys that are extremely dominant. If Penn State wrestles Arizona State, and Pierson Manville pins Aaron Nago, and Mitchell Mesenbrink pins Nico Ruiz, you cannot convince me that it is a fair representation of a team to say that Mitchell Mesenbrink is worth the same value as Pierson Manville.

I can also see the counter argument.  

It's a great game-theory exercise and I don't think there is an obvious answer.

I've done wrestling-like game competitions where I've done the head-to-head matchups and then into an individual tournament where I've had the the undefeated head-to-head team go to the individual tournament and basically get shut out.  I still don't know how that happened, but that balance between exellence and balance is really fascinating.

 

[NM1965]

1 minute ago, Coastal said:

The difference is that Iowa was only on top due to the cheating.  It's now questionable if they've ever won a non-tainted title.   Even 2021 should have an asterisk since the Ivies didn't attend.

Cheating? What sort of cheating did they engage in? 

[NM1965]

31 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Reverse.   Individual championship (made up date) march 1.   Dual championship (March 15)

paraphrasing qualifiers.  
 

il goes regional —> sectional —> state.  
 

teams qualify based on their regional results.   The “winner” of dual regional wrestles the winners of the other regional dual winners after sectionals.   Then dual state is after individual state.  So the weight bumps usually occur after state 

Thanks for the clarification.

[NM1965]

1 minute ago, Coastal said:

They awarded more scholarships than allowed and were caught.  Turns out that Gable was a fraud.

I never liked Gable, but I've never heard that allegation. 

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, Winners Circle said:

Playing devil's advocate here, but is it possible that it barely gets acknowledged currently because it's not been competitive? I remember being at NCAAs in Cleveland back in 2018 I think it was, when Penn State and Ohio State were neck and neck, and there was definitely a buzz around the arena involving the team race.

The buzz was great, but also helps to exemplify my point.  That happened because of the fortuitous match up of wrestlers from the two teams going for the title with Bo Nickal vs. Myles Martin.  

As to your question, it's a function of how the tournament is structured.  It highlights the individual wrestlers and their quests to win individual national titles.  And it is absolutely FANTASTIC at doing that.  It's bad at highlighting and centering the team championship, and thus fans see it that way.  And the team title is often decided by Friday night or Saturday morning after a wrestler from like the second place team loses to an unrelated wrestler, thus bringing that team's maximum possible points beneath the champ's (usually Penn State) current score.  It's complicated, arcane, indirect, and needless.

The TEAM championship should be decided in a TEAM format with direct, on-the-mat competition, the winner of that competition being the TEAM champion.  I saw someone, possibly you, talking about Pierson Manville pinning Aaron Nagao not being as important as Mitchell Mesenbrink pinning Nicco Ruiz, and I could not disagree more.  Sports championships are often decided by someone other than the stars.  I was arguing with Willie about this on the Hawkeye board; I'm a NY Giants fan, and one of the greatest moments and upsets in NFL history was accomplished thanks to the efforts of special teamer David Tyree pinning a ball against his helmet.  The best and most popular sports championships are often high variance.  NFL Playoffs.  March Madness.  College football playoffs.  The "best" team doesn't always win and the events aren't designed for that; they're designed to determine who wins the championship.

Hell the individual NCAA tournament isn't about crowning "the best wrestler" at each weight.  It's actually crowning the guy who won the tournament as champion, but it isn't ALWAYS the best wrestler that wins.  It's a 5 match sample size; if we really wanted to crown the "best" wrestler, we would do a round robin of all the qualifiers at each weight, assign points, etc.  But for some reason when it comes to crowing our TEAM champion, we want to add huge amounts of data, make it complicated to understand and background it so that most people aren't even paying attention to it, all in the name of saying "best", when we should be targeting creating an appealing product.

 

[Winners Circle]

1 minute ago, VakAttack said:

The buzz was great, but also helps to exemplify my point.  That happened because of the fortuitous match up of wrestlers from the two teams going for the title with Bo Nickal vs. Myles Martin.  

As to your question, it's a function of how the tournament is structured.  It highlights the individual wrestlers and their quests to win individual national titles.  And it is absolutely FANTASTIC at doing that.  It's bad at highlighting and centering the team championship, and thus fans see it that way.  And the team title is often decided by Friday night or Saturday morning after a wrestler from like the second place team loses to an unrelated wrestler, thus bringing that team's maximum possible points beneath the champ's (usually Penn State) current score.  It's complicated, arcane, indirect, and needless.

The TEAM championship should be decided in a TEAM format with direct, on-the-mat competition, the winner of that competition being the TEAM champion.  I saw someone, possibly you, talking about Pierson Manville pinning Aaron Nagao not being as important as Mitchell Mesenbrink pinning Nicco Ruiz, and I could not disagree more.  Sports championships are often decided by someone other than the stars.  I was arguing with Willie about this on the Hawkeye board; I'm a NY Giants fan, and one of the greatest moments and upsets in NFL history was accomplished thanks to the efforts of special teamer David Tyree pinning a ball against his helmet.  The best and most popular sports championships are often high variance.  NFL Playoffs.  March Madness.  College football playoffs.  The "best" team doesn't always win and the events aren't designed for that; they're designed to determine who wins the championship.

Hell the individual NCAA tournament isn't about crowning "the best wrestler" at each weight.  It's actually crowning the guy who won the tournament as champion, but it isn't ALWAYS the best wrestler that wins.  It's a 5 match sample size; if we really wanted to crown the "best" wrestler, we would do a round robin of all the qualifiers at each weight, assign points, etc.  But for some reason when it comes to crowing our TEAM champion, we want to add huge amounts of data, make it complicated to understand and background it so that most people aren't even paying attention to it, all in the name of saying "best", when we should be targeting creating an appealing product.

 

So you want a dual meet championship because there's a better chance of an upset, or a surprise team winning the title? As for your reference of other sports, I almost mentioned this in my previous post. Teams that have a dominant player (Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, Shohei, etc.) are rewarded for that in terms of results more times than not. Having one (or more) of those dominant players usually leads to good results. Wrestling should not be any different. Having a guy that scores bonus points through the whole tournament should be worth more than having a guy that finishes in the R12. Just like having a Michael Jordan is worth more than anyone else, because Michael Jordan is better.

[Le duke]

25 minutes ago, NM1965 said:

I never liked Gable, but I've never heard that allegation. 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/1993/07/26/ncaa-set-to-punish-big-10/

[Winners Circle]

8 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

The buzz was great, but also helps to exemplify my point.  That happened because of the fortuitous match up of wrestlers from the two teams going for the title with Bo Nickal vs. Myles Martin.  

As to your question, it's a function of how the tournament is structured.  It highlights the individual wrestlers and their quests to win individual national titles.  And it is absolutely FANTASTIC at doing that.  It's bad at highlighting and centering the team championship, and thus fans see it that way.  And the team title is often decided by Friday night or Saturday morning after a wrestler from like the second place team loses to an unrelated wrestler, thus bringing that team's maximum possible points beneath the champ's (usually Penn State) current score.  It's complicated, arcane, indirect, and needless.

The TEAM championship should be decided in a TEAM format with direct, on-the-mat competition, the winner of that competition being the TEAM champion.  I saw someone, possibly you, talking about Pierson Manville pinning Aaron Nagao not being as important as Mitchell Mesenbrink pinning Nicco Ruiz, and I could not disagree more.  Sports championships are often decided by someone other than the stars.  I was arguing with Willie about this on the Hawkeye board; I'm a NY Giants fan, and one of the greatest moments and upsets in NFL history was accomplished thanks to the efforts of special teamer David Tyree pinning a ball against his helmet.  The best and most popular sports championships are often high variance.  NFL Playoffs.  March Madness.  College football playoffs.  The "best" team doesn't always win and the events aren't designed for that; they're designed to determine who wins the championship.

Hell the individual NCAA tournament isn't about crowning "the best wrestler" at each weight.  It's actually crowning the guy who won the tournament as champion, but it isn't ALWAYS the best wrestler that wins.  It's a 5 match sample size; if we really wanted to crown the "best" wrestler, we would do a round robin of all the qualifiers at each weight, assign points, etc.  But for some reason when it comes to crowing our TEAM champion, we want to add huge amounts of data, make it complicated to understand and background it so that most people aren't even paying attention to it, all in the name of saying "best", when we should be targeting creating an appealing product.

 

How is it complicated to understand? You add up the scores of every team's qualifiers and whichever team has the most points wins. 

[NM1965]

5 minutes ago, Le duke said:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/1993/07/26/ncaa-set-to-punish-big-10/

Link is blocked! 

[VakAttack]

3 minutes ago, Winners Circle said:

So you want a dual meet championship because there's a better chance of an upset, or a surprise team winning the title? As for your reference of other sports, I almost mentioned this in my previous post. Teams that have a dominant player (Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, Shohei, etc.) are rewarded for that in terms of results more times than not. Having one (or more) of those dominant players usually leads to good results. Wrestling should not be any different. Having a guy that scores bonus points through the whole tournament should be worth more than having a guy that finishes in the R12. Just like having a Michael Jordan is worth more than anyone else, because Michael Jordan is better.

One of many reasons, sure.  And they already get that benefit, because the absolute best wrestlers are more likely to get bonus points than "lesser" wrestlers.  That's why they typically have higher bonus point percentages.  But even Michael Jordan needed a John Paxon to win a game for him on occasion.

2 minutes ago, Winners Circle said:

How is it complicated to understand? You add up the scores of every team's qualifiers and whichever team has the most points wins. 

It's extremely complicated to understand, you're just steeped in it so you can't see it.  "Wrestlers are in a match, and they get this number of points for doing this, and this number of points for dong that, and then if they get up by a 8 points they get get this many 1 point (not in the match); if they get up by 15, they get 1.5 points; if they get a pin they get 2.  Also they get 1 point for advancement, or if they're in the consolations, they get 0.5 points for advancement.  Then if they place, they are awarded points by their lowest possible placement, until they finally reach their final placement, where their full points are awarded."  The dual scoring is simpler, easier to track, and is immediately decided right there on the mat between the two teams.

[Caveira]

31 minutes ago, Coastal said:

It's not an allegation.  It is proven by the NCAA and a matter of public record.

I’ll “make up an allegation too”

a team in a non revenue sport.  That now is paying players legally just left $250,000 on the table.   How much $$$ do you have to have in your coffers while you’re losing $$$ to not go get that.    

[Pinnacle]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

I’ll “make up an allegation too”

a team in a non revenue sport.  That now is paying players legally just left $250,000 on the table.   How much $$$ do you have to have in your coffers while you’re losing $$$ to not go get that.    

PSU net had they participated may have been fully offset by pocketing 100 percent of the proceeds from their Bryce Jordan Center dual with Oklahoma. The angle you are trying to shoehorn into this lacks credibility.

[Caveira]

19 minutes ago, Coastal said:

realize that Iowa fans aren't the most intelligent but there's a difference between a verifiable fact like Iowa cheated and received  punishment from the NCAA and an allegation, which is something that hasn't been proven.

 

Are you really going to try to deny the fact that Iowa gave out too many scholarships during Gable's tenure?

You can take your unsubstantiated rumors and raise Carl paying people out of the otc for $1000.

[Nak21]

3 hours ago, NM1965 said:

I never liked Gable, but I've never heard that allegation. 

It wasn’t an allegation, they were actually slapped on the wrist by the NCAA and given sanctions for the infractions - can’t remember if it was considered minor or major by the NCAA. BUT they were definitely fast and loose and playing financial/scholarship games during their heyday. Also if I recall correctly the closest a program has come to the NCAA death penalty since SMU football, was Oklahoma State wrestling during the 1990s

[Caveira]

15 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

PSU net had they participated may have been fully offset by pocketing 100 percent of the proceeds from their Bryce Jordan Center dual with Oklahoma. The angle you are trying to shoehorn into this lacks credibility.

When a business is losing money do they generally go after easy money?

 

let’s ask ai 

Would you say this is stretching? There is a sports business that is losing money annually. They elected to not enter a competition where they were a 99% favorite to win 250,000 dollars. Is it weird they didn’t enter ?

 

answer : 

Why It  probably is Weird / Counterintuitive

1. Left Money on the Table
   If they were a 99% favorite to win $250,000, that’s a very high expected value. Even after accounting for costs, that looks like a strong upside. Declining an almost sure payout seems like a lost opportunity.

2. Sign of Weak Execution or Confidence
   Refusing to enter might raise questions: Do they lack confidence in their operations (despite being “favorite” on paper)? Or is their internal assessment more pessimistic than external perception?

3. Poor Incentive Alignment
   If they're losing money annually, you would think they’d be hungry for every revenue opportunity, especially one with limited downside. Turning down such a prize could suggest misaligned priorities or poor financial discipline.