A huge argument against tournaments deciding the best team!

[MSU158]

Article in Des Moines Register:http://www.desmoines...ersen/80820720/


Dynamic duos
One of the best team trophy races occurred in Class 1A, where Mason City Newman edged Highland of Riverside for third place. The notable part of the race: Both brought just two wrestlers.

Mason City Newman scored 52 points with 220-pound champ Colton Hansen and 113-pound runner-up Jeremiah Colon, who combined for six falls.

Highland scored 50.5 points with one family. The West twins both reached the finals. Bryce claimed his second title at 120. Drew was a runner-up at 126.

 

[artradley]

Hard to argue with that.

 

[93hawkeye]

We have a Dual tournament and a Traditional tournament.. One recognizes a solid lineup; the other recognizes individual performances. Neither is wrong or broken IMO

 

[MSU158]

It truly comes down to what you think constitutes a "team" and then how they should compete to beat other "teams".

 

[rossel 33]

sounds like 3 tournaments are needed...

Dual Tournament
Traditional Tournament
Duo Tournament

 

[OkieSpladle]

I completely agree with 93Hawkeye. This argument has been beaten to death, but one point I rarely see made is that duals also have their weaknesses when measuring a complete team, they simply marginalize a different group of wrestlers (and marginalize different wrestlers based on match-ups). Do you remember a few years back when all 4 of the 133 pound quarter-finals ended in falls? It is an over simplification (as always in these types of threads), but that evidence suggests that the top 4 in that weight would have the same result in a dual against the #5 guy or the worst guy. Thus, in a dual format against any of those 4 teams, who you have at 133 is irrelevant. The team that sends out the worst guy is equal to the team that sends out the 5th best guy in the country. Is that a fair measure of how strong those teams are?

Obviously, most of the time, it isn't that stark of a contrast, but then again rarely do you see a team do so well with only 2 wrestlers (and they didn't win the title...and states like Iowa with several layers of qualifying, and no wild cards, aren't really analogous to NCAAs...and...). It is all about what you want to reward and how much. Every fan has a different answer for that.

 

[artradley]

I completely agree with 93Hawkeye. This argument has been beaten to death, but one point I rarely see made is that duals also have their weaknesses when measuring a complete team, they simply marginalize a different group of wrestlers (and marginalize different wrestlers based on match-ups). Do you remember a few years back when all 4 of the 133 pound quarter-finals ended in falls? It is an over simplification (as always in these types of threads), but that evidence suggests that the top 4 in that weight would have the same result in a dual against the #5 guy or the worst guy. Thus, in a dual format against any of those 4 teams, who you have at 133 is irrelevant. The team that sends out the worst guy is equal to the team that sends out the 5th best guy in the country. Is that a fair measure of how strong those teams are?

Obviously, most of the time, it isn't that stark of a contrast, but then again rarely do you see a team do so well with only 2 wrestlers (and they didn't win the title...and states like Iowa with several layers of qualifying, and no wild cards, aren't really analogous to NCAAs...and...). It is all about what you want to reward and how much. Every fan has a different answer for that.

The flaw in your logic is that the chances of your scenario are rare, while the same thing happens in tournaments by design. Our 165-pounder might not be in a position to score any points at nationals, but could well hold a top opponent to 3 points in a dual meet. So compared to a very weak 165-pounder, who could well give up 6 points in a dual meet, our guy is an important part of our team. And if we wrestle the other team in a dual, the fact that our 165 pounder is better than theirs will materially affect the score of the meet. However, in a tournament, our "pretty good" wrestler will score exactly the same number of points as the terrible wrestler.

And, by design, this is the case for every wrestler below about 20th in the nation. The 21st wrestler is worth no more to his team than the 100th wrestler is to his team.

Bottom line: If our guy is better than the opponent's guy, that should give us an advantage. In a dual meet it always will. In a tournament it usually won't. So which makes more sense?

 

[dtripp26]

Article in Des Moines Register:http://www.desmoines...ersen/80820720/


Dynamic duos
One of the best team trophy races occurred in Class 1A, where Mason City Newman edged Highland of Riverside for third place. The notable part of the race: Both brought just two wrestlers.

Mason City Newman scored 52 points with 220-pound champ Colton Hansen and 113-pound runner-up Jeremiah Colon, who combined for six falls.

Highland scored 50.5 points with one family. The West twins both reached the finals. Bryce claimed his second title at 120. Drew was a runner-up at 126.

I missed the part where MCN or HR won the state wrestling championship. They were a very distant 3rd/4th behind Alburnett and Lisbon who scored 119.5 and 111 respectfully. It doesn't really matter but the same two teams finished 1st/2nd in the dual tournament

Also, do they have "team" competitions for Track & Field or Swimming & Diving? Funny those sports seem to do well with a championship based on individual placing.

 

[CradleKing26]

If college wrestling had so much parity that the 3rd place team was one who placed two guys in the finals, I would be ecstatic.

 

[MSU158]

The "point" is that it is "possible for 2 people to win it all in High School and it is actually possibly for 3 to do so in College. 90 or so points has won it several times. It would take 3 absolute beasts for it to happen but it could happen.

The reason I am such a big proponent of how a team championship is decided, is because I want all 10 wrestlers to matter. The grinder that has worked his ass off for 5 years and is finally a starter for a year, but isn't quite good enough to qualify for NCAA's can still make a difference in a dual. Having ALL 10 guys be very solid would also matter. Instead you can have 5 really good guys, 2 solid guys, 1 decent and 2 holes and RUN AWAY with it in a Tournament.

VTech is a good example of that this year. They wouldn't be a favorite to win a Dual Championship Tournament, but they would have a decent shot. They have less than a 1% chance of winning the Tournament. Hell, I don't think they have a very good chance at bringing home a Top 4 Trophy and they don't even have a proverbial weak link.

To me, a team is about ALL 10 guys. In a dual, your guy doing his best to avoid bonus against another's top guy is nearly as important as your top guy winning by pin. In a tournament setting, that guy avoiding bonus may not even qualify.

Sadly, in the end, this is like arguing Politics or religion. Nearly everyone has a super strong polarizing opinion that you just aren't going to budge each other!

 

[OkieSpladle]

The flaw in your logic is that the chances of your scenario are rare, while the same thing happens in tournaments by design. Our 165-pounder might not be in a position to score any points at nationals, but could well hold a top opponent to 3 points in a dual meet. So compared to a very weak 165-pounder, who could well give up 6 points in a dual meet, our guy is an important part of our team. And if we wrestle the other team in a dual, the fact that our 165 pounder is better than theirs will materially affect the score of the meet. However, in a tournament, our "pretty good" wrestler will score exactly the same number of points as the terrible wrestler.

And, by design, this is the case for every wrestler below about 20th in the nation. The 21st wrestler is worth no more to his team than the 100th wrestler is to his team.

Bottom line: If our guy is better than the opponent's guy, that should give us an advantage. In a dual meet it always will. In a tournament it usually won't. So which makes more sense?

The scenario I picked to clearly illustrate the point may be rare, but make no mistake, the same is always true it is simply the details and how many wrestlers are effected that changes. Right now Nolf is going to pin what, the anyone outside the top 30? For Tomasello, he might only pin anyone outside the top 50? Its still the same result, anyone outside of that is the same in a dual format. The tournament does the same to anyone outside of the top 24, but I would argue that knowing that ahead of time is an advantage to the dual format where it is always changing based on styles and match-ups. Regardless of which you prefer, the same thing occurs. It also occurs within bands as you go down the rankings. Your 21st ranked 165 is likely to produce the same results as the guys ranked 15-25 against common opponents. In a head-to-head one would be favored over the other, but over a potential National Dual Championship? Likely no difference. The better guy doesn't always provide an advantage in dual tournaments either.

And we haven't even touched on how the differences in dual scoring incentivize conservative wrestling and/or stalling in lower ranked wrestlers.

 

[MSU158]

The scenario I picked to clearly illustrate the point may be rare, but make no mistake, the same is always true it is simply the details and how many wrestlers are effected that changes. Right now Nolf is going to pin what, the anyone outside the top 30? For Tomasello, he might only pin anyone outside the top 50? Its still the same result, anyone outside of that is the same in a dual format. The tournament does the same to anyone outside of the top 24, but I would argue that knowing that ahead of time is an advantage to the dual format where it is always changing based on styles and match-ups. Regardless of which you prefer, the same thing occurs. It also occurs within bands as you go down the rankings. Your 21st ranked 165 is likely to produce the same results as the guys ranked 15-25 against common opponents. In a head-to-head one would be favored over the other, but over a potential National Dual Championship? Likely no difference. The better guy doesn't always provide an advantage in dual tournaments either.

And we haven't even touched on how the differences in dual scoring incentivize conservative wrestling and/or stalling in lower ranked wrestlers.

Actually the pinning scenario is considerably different in tournaments vs. duals. In a tournament, how you lose doesn't matter one bit. In a dual meet, wrestlers that are expected to lose ARE expected(by their coaches) to lose in a certain way. It is A LOT harder to pin a guy when his main objective is to stay off his back. Stalling aside, I actually like seeing the overmatched guy do his absolute best to avoid being dominated. It actually gives him a way to help his team.

With the above said, I take my hat off to Nolf when he was wrestling Blees. He could have easily had the last takedown to get the techfall, but he kept waiting for the pin opportunity and got it.

 

[OkieSpladle]

Actually the pinning scenario is considerably different in tournaments vs. duals. In a tournament, how you lose doesn't matter one bit. In a dual meet, wrestlers that are expected to lose ARE expected(by their coaches) to lose in a certain way. It is A LOT harder to pin a guy when his main objective is to stay off his back. Stalling aside, I actually like seeing the overmatched guy do his absolute best to avoid being dominated. It actually gives him a way to help his team.

With the above said, I take my hat off to Nolf when he was wrestling Blees. He could have easily had the last takedown to get the techfall, but he kept waiting for the pin opportunity and got it.

If the day ever comes where a national title is decided by a guy "only" losing by 7 because he ran all match, it will be a sad day for the sport, IMO.

 

[MSU158]

Did I not say, stalling aside? You can wrestle your butt off in a losing effort and not be stalling the whole match. I don't think Collica stalled one bit in his match with Retherford. I never expected him to win, but he did a great job keeping the match close. I don't want to see guys stalling the whole match to avoid bonus, but I do like seeing a guy refuse to be turned and do his best when severely outmatched.

 

[OkieSpladle]

Did I not say, stalling aside? You can wrestle your butt off in a losing effort and not be stalling the whole match. I don't think Collica stalled one bit in his match with Retherford. I never expected him to win, but he did a great job keeping the match close. I don't want to see guys stalling the whole match to avoid bonus, but I do like seeing a guy refuse to be turned and do his best when severely outmatched.

You did, but there is a difference between trying to win and trying to keep it close. Trying to keep it close and stalling are thinly separated if at all. In the rule book, they are one and the same. I'd much rather see a guy try a desperation throw at the end of a match then be content to lose. In a dual, that is often a bad strategy.

 

[MSU158]

Trying to win against a super wrestler and trying to lose faster are also thinly separated, if at all. Although it annoys most people the most common practice when severely outmatched is trying to keep it close and "stealing" a win late. I know many wrestlers have the 1st or last mentality and a ton of fans do as well. But, that isn't realistic. No matter how hard Mitch Rogaliner wrestles against Tomasello, he isn't going to win by opening up, barring injury. His only incentive is to try to keep it close and hope to capitalize on the superior wrestler getting frustrated and getting out of position being overaggressive.

 

[who r u]

The "point" is that it is "possible for 2 people to win it all in High School

your own OP seems to contradict this statement, the two teams were 3rd and 4th not 1st and 2nd.

1. Alburnett 119.5
2. Lisbon 111.0
3. Newman Catholic-Mason City 52.0
4. Highland-Riverside 50.5
5. Underwood 49.0

they were not even close to "winning it all"

 

[who r u]

it is actually possibly for 3 to do so in College. 90 or so points has won it several times. It would take 3 absolute beasts for it to happen but it could happen.

its actually almost possible for 3 guys to win a dual in college.

this is fun coming up with crazy things that are possible or almost possible.

 

[PSU Mike]

Actually I feel the best argument for futility of crowning a dual champ definitively arises from cycling, or lack of transitivity. It's not at all uncommon for say the top 3 teams to be 1-1 against each other (if they wrestled one another), making a bracketed format too dependent on seeding, and not definitive.

 

[MSU158]

your own OP seems to contradict this statement, the two teams were 3rd and 4th not 1st and 2nd.

1. Alburnett 119.5
2. Lisbon 111.0
3. Newman Catholic-Mason City 52.0
4. Highland-Riverside 50.5
5. Underwood 49.0

they were not even close to "winning it all"

Did I ever say that team won? They still won a team trophy. Any scoring format that can put 2 teams in the top 4 with 2 of 14 wrestlers is suspect to me.

If your perception leads you to believe I was contradictory you are adding words that aren't there. Because it happened for 3rd place instead of 1st does not make my argument any less valid.

 

[MSU158]

its actually almost possible for 3 guys to win a dual in college.

this is fun coming up with crazy things that are possible or almost possible.

You are just being contradictory for the sole purpose of bein an A-Hole! It isn't almost possible. It is possible and I showed legitimate numbers as to why. In fact, I tried to stay in a reasonable realm by giving a minimum realm of 90 pts for a team win. It is DEFINITELY possible to win with less.

In 2008, 2nd place scored 79 pts.

Finally, all I have been trying to say is that the current Tournament system has some serious flaws. A team can win with less than half of their 10 starters ever stepping on the mat. I simply have a hard time with a format that rewards the best "team" that way.

 

[CholleyVandine]

your own OP seems to contradict this statement, the two teams were 3rd and 4th not 1st and 2nd.

1. Alburnett 119.5
2. Lisbon 111.0
3. Newman Catholic-Mason City 52.0
4. Highland-Riverside 50.5
5. Underwood 49.0

they were not even close to "winning it all"

Sure. But other than the facts, you have to admit it was a pretty solid argument.

 

[who r u]

Did I ever say that team won? They still won a team trophy. Any scoring format that can put 2 teams in the top 4 with 2 of 14 wrestlers is suspect to me.

If your perception leads you to believe I was contradictory you are adding words that aren't there. Because it happened for 3rd place instead of 1st does not make my argument any less valid.

you posted an article about two teams fighting for 3rd and 4th and then proceeded state that the point was that they could have won it all

The "point" is that it is "possible for 2 people to win it all in High School

when in fact they were not even close to winning it all.
now i guess what the problem could be is that we have a different definitions of what "winning it all" means. i think it means winning 1ST PLACE, what do you feel the meaning is?

 

[CholleyVandine]

VTech is a good example of that this year. They wouldn't be a favorite to win a Dual Championship Tournament, but they would have a decent shot. They have less than a 1% chance of winning the Tournament. Hell, I don't think they have a very good chance at bringing home a Top 4 Trophy and they don't even have a proverbial weak link.

I don't get this. It wouldn't be a huge surprise for any one of Dance, Epperly or Walz to win a title. They're all ranked in the top 3. Chisko, Brascetta, Zavatsky and Haught are all solid AA contenders. (In fact, they're all ranked in the top 8 right now.) McFadden is capable of scoring a point or two at nationals. I would love to know how a guy who thinks Penn State ain't all that comes up with a "less than 1% chance" for Va Tech. Flo has them as the 3rd ranked tournament team. So does Intermat. Do you really want to use them as your poster child for why duals should be more important?

 

[MSU158]

I don't get this. It wouldn't be a huge surprise for any one of Dance, Epperly or Walz to win a title. They're all ranked in the top 3. Chisko, Brascetta, Zavatsky and Haught are all solid AA contenders. (In fact, they're all ranked in the top 8 right now.) McFadden is capable of scoring a point or two at nationals. I would love to know how a guy who thinks Penn State ain't all that comes up with a "less than 1% chance" for Va Tech. Flo has them as the 3rd ranked tournament team. So does Intermat. Do you really want to use them as your poster child for why duals should be more important?

Do you honestly think VTech scores over 90 pts?(which wouldn't be enough Anyway). I would bet you they don't all day. Missouri was ranked that high because of dual performance last year. How did their tournament go?

 

[MSU158]

Who r u,

I never said they "won it all" I simply deduced that if you could have two teams take 3rd and 4th with 2 guys it is possible that they could win it. Even if they didn't, they are the 3rd and 4th best overall teams?

How about this, the 3rd place team would have won it with 5 guys if they added two scoring the same and one more scoring 16. If they won it with 5 guys is that truly indicative of a great "team"?

You sound like a reasonably intelligent guy. Why attack my post like a politician instead of a wrestling fan? You know what I was trying to get at. I wasn't pointing to likely scenarios. It was extremely unlikely you would have ended up with a Toyota that had a sticking accelerator. Should they not have recalled it all because it was such a slight possibility?

 

[rollo84]

In almost all team sports, it is the superstars who matter the most to their team. Put Lebron James as a senior in high school on ANY high school team in the state of Iowa and they would win the state tournament. In the NBA two superstars on a team dominate, way more than who has the better benchwarmers ranked 5-10. Almost all team sports are dominated by superstars. In baseball the starting pitcher is the most critical player by far. In dual meets, the tenth best wrestler matters as much as the 1st best wrestler. Not in tournaments. In wrestling the most important thing from most wrestlers is winning an NCAA title themselves, as it should be! By the way, the top tournament teams every year are also the top dual teams in college. I think Dan Gable only had one year ever that his Iowa teams lost more than one dual meet. Wrestling keeps trying to fix what isn't broke. Trust me on this dual meets do matter, but the NCAA is what REALLY matters. In dual meets, often times, a wrestler who is an underdog, often doesn't take risks when behind to try his best to win because it will cost his team more points if he loses by fall or a tech or a major. This is rarely true in the NCAA tournament but it has happened there in the finals.

 

[artradley]

In almost all team sports, it is the superstars who matter the most to their team. Put Lebron James as a senior in high school on ANY high school team in the state of Iowa and they would win the state tournament. In the NBA two superstars on a team dominate, way more than who has the better benchwarmers ranked 5-10. Almost all team sports are dominated by superstars. In baseball the starting pitcher is the most critical player by far. In dual meets, the tenth best wrestler matters as much as the 1st best wrestler. Not in tournaments. In wrestling the most important thing from most wrestlers is winning an NCAA title themselves, as it should be! By the way, the top tournament teams every year are also the top dual teams in college. I think Dan Gable only had one year ever that his Iowa teams lost more than one dual meet. Wrestling keeps trying to fix what isn't broke. Trust me on this dual meets do matter, but the NCAA is what REALLY matters. In dual meets, often times, a wrestler who is an underdog, often doesn't take risks when behind to try his best to win because it will cost his team more points if he loses by fall or a tech or a major. This is rarely true in the NCAA tournament but it has happened there in the finals.

A couple of things. First no basketball team will win with only two or three guys on the court. Second considering the state of college wrestling in this country I am amazed at how many people use the argument "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

 

[rollo84]

Art I never said that a basketball team would win with only 2 or 3 players on the court. However clearly the team with two superstars usually wins and championships are usually won by the team with the best superstars rather than who has the better 5-10 players. This is true in baseball, soccer, basketball, football, and wrestling. As far as college wrestling, it is broken and needs fixing, but the NCAA tournament itself is not broken. The NCAA's are a great event and do not need fixing. I have been to 40 consecutive NCAA tournaments, 4 of which I wrestled in. The biggest thing we need to do to fix wrestling is very simple, CALL STALLING, make it exciting again.

 

[artradley]

Art I never said that a basketball team would win with only 2 or 3 players on the court. However clearly the team with two superstars usually wins and championships are usually won by the team with the best superstars rather than who has the better 5-10 players. This is true in baseball, soccer, basketball, football, and wrestling. As far as college wrestling, it is broken and needs fixing, but the NCAA tournament itself is not broken. The NCAA's are a great event and do not need fixing. I have been to 40 consecutive NCAA tournaments, 4 of which I wrestled in. The biggest thing we need to do to fix wrestling is very simple, CALL STALLING, make it exciting again.

I know you didn't say a basketball team could win with only two or three guys on the court. That was my point, that several guys on the wrestling team don't even need to show up for that team to win a tournament. As dominating as Sandy Koufax was the Dodgers would not have one many games if they didn't have a left fielder or second baseman on the field.

As for the NCAA tournament not being broken, I would argue that it will never be a televised event because the format simply does not support it. I would like to see college wrestling have a premier event that could potentially be a television event. Also, because individual dual meets have absolutely no meaning it is difficult to think of a way to increase attendance during the season. I will go to my grave believing that a dual meet is far more exciting than a tournament. And so I have always been unhappy that there is no dual team tournament that fans will support.

 

[rollo84]

MSU 158 not trying to start a fight here but anything is theoretically possible, but I don't think any team has ever won the NCAA title with less than 5 All Americans in the last 50 years. I may be wrong, haven't looked it up. Iowa has won 23 titles and I bet they had at least 7 qualifiers every year. Wrestling does have many problems, and does need some "fixing" but I believe that the way we determine the team title at the NCAA tournament is not a problem that needs fixing.

 

[LaxHawk174]

MSU 158 not trying to start a fight here but anything is theoretically possible, but I don't think any team has ever won the NCAA title with less than 5 All Americans in the last 50 years. I may be wrong, haven't looked it up. Iowa has won 23 titles and I bet they had at least 7 qualifiers every year. Wrestling does have many problems, and does need some "fixing" but I believe that the way we determine the team title at the NCAA tournament is not a problem that needs fixing.

Ohio state would've won last year with only 4 all americans. Even if Courts scored 0 points and didnt AA, the points from Tomasello/Stieber/Jordan/Snyder was enough to win the title. I know it technically doesn't count, but curious if there have been similar scenarios in history.

 

[rollo84]

that is 40% of your team being in the top 3 in the nation with 2 champs and a runnerup who would win the worlds, any college football team with that type of top end talent would probably fare pretty well in their sport. I am sure there are years where you could count the top four Hawkeyes scorers at the NCAA's where they may have scored enough points to win the NCAA tournament but they all had more than just those four.

 

[MSU158]

It isn't that tournament scoring is a bad way to decide a team championship. I simply think a dual tournament more accurately measures the best 10 weight team. The example that matters most to me is a team of 10-9th ranked wrestlers. They all lose in the R12 and the team is unlikely to finish top 20. As a dual team they would be exceptionally difficult to beat. That type of team make up appeals to me more than 3 or 4 studs a couple solid guys and a few holes in the lineup.

 

[slicone]

Tell me a team good enough to win the ncaa tournament that would not be able to win the duel championship. I am not saying they all would, but I'm sure they would be right in the ballgame. Nebraska, this year has like 9 or 10 ranked guys, how many duels have they lost? 3 for sure, maybe more. Yes, tosu got beat by Lehigh last year, so were they the better team? I would say No, not even close. Superstars win you ncaas, nothing wrong with that

 

[MSU158]

My argument isn't about teams that win the tournament being able to win duals. It's more about teams that couldn't win the tournament that really could win the duals. Missouri was a super tough dual team last year. They simply Were not top heavy enough to win a tournament format. I think this is the same with VTech and NCState this year. Although, in this year's case PSU may actually be a better dual team than tournament team.

Simply put, to me a "team" is the whole lineup. I know that this sport is an individual sport so it messes up the team viewpoint, but I want to see all 10 guys matter when saying who the best team is.

But I have learned this isn't something worth arguing over. Like politics or religion most are so firmly entrenched in their point of view that you simply aren't going to change each other's minds.

 

[slicone]

My argument isn't about teams that win the tournament being able to win duals. It's more about teams that couldn't win the tournament that really could win the duals. Missouri was a super tough dual team last year. They simply Were not top heavy enough to win a tournament format. I think this is the same with VTech and NCState this year. Although, in this year's case PSU may actually be a better dual team than tournament team.

Simply put, to me a "team" is the whole lineup. I know that this sport is an individual sport so it messes up the team viewpoint, but I want to see all 10 guys matter when saying who the best team is.

But I have learned this isn't something worth arguing over. Like politics or religion most are so firmly entrenched in their point of view that you simply aren't going to change each other's minds.

They were plenty top heavy enough to win it, the tournament basically came down to the the semis at 125 and 197 where the number 1 seeded Missouri wrestlers lost

 

[rollo84]

MSU158 Missouri had 3 guys seeded #1 last year and Levian Mayes seeded 3rd. If they wrestled to their seeds they would have probably won the tournament considering that 2 of their Number one seeds lost to the #4 seed from Ohio State in the semis, and Mayes ended up 7th instead of 3rd, put Thomasello and Snyder in the wrestlebacks and give Mayes 3rd place and Cox and Waters 1s place and Missouri probably wins. Just like in dual meets, the team that performs the best wins. Missouri had a great chance to win if they perform up to their seeds.
in almost all team sports, when the superstars perform, their team wins, much more than how good the tenth best player in their lineup performs. The top dual teams are almost always the top tournament teams also. Whoever performs the best during a dual during the season wins, and whoever performs the best at the NCAA wins.

 

[rollo84]

MSU who wins a dual meet between Ohio State and Missouri last year if Cox and Waters both lose? I'm guessing Ohio State. Who wins the dual if both Cox and Waters win, I'm guessing Missouri.

 

[MSU158]

You guys are acting like Missouri had a bad tournament. They had all 10 qualifiers and 9 of them won at least 2 matches. Synon was the only qualifier not to win a match and he wasn't seeded. They still lost by 28.5 points.

125: Waters took 3rd. It's not like he slid off the map. His style relied so much on his riding and defense. I kept saying last season that it would catch up with him, and it did. He didn't have one bonus point win. But for sake of argument if he wrestled perfect and won it all he would have scored 6.5 more points. 13.5 points
133: Synon was unseeded and lost 2 close matches. 0 points
141: Mayes was seeded 3rd. How many people thought he was actually better than Carter. In fact, Carter beat him to drop him to the 7th place match, where he won maximum points due to winning by forfeit. Still give him 5 more points for 3rd place. 10.5 points
149: Houdashelt took 1st. Enough said. 22 points
157: Lavallee went 2-2 from the 9 seed with a bonus pt. win drawing Brascetta 1st round. He definitely did not under-perform. 2 points
165: England wasn't seeded. He went 3-2 with a bonus win, losing in the R12. 3 points
174: Eblen somehow got the 4 seed and went 2-2 with both bonus wins. 3 points---------Deducted for DQ.
184: Miklus was unseeded and took 7th with 2 pins. 10.5 points
197: Cox took 5th losing to Snyder and McIntosh. Neither were monumental upsets. But we can say add 10 for him taking 1st. 10 points(actual).
285: Mellon(11 seed) went 3-2 losing in R12. 2 points

They had a VERY STRONG tournament relative to team strength. Even if you give Waters and Cox 1st along with Mayes 3rd, adding 20ish points, they still lose by 8+ points. And that is giving them a nearly perfect tournament relative to seeding(which a couple of their guys were unquestionably seeded higher than they should have been-Mayes and Eblen). That is with them having ALL 10 GUYS qualify!