Nationals Scoring

[NutZac]

Sorry for a new post but wanted to hear your guys thoughts on the natl tourney scoring and how a natl team champ is crowned. I don’t have an issue with it, but, would it help/hurt wrestling in ncaa If we changed the way we crowned a team champ.

Hate me but, nascar went to winner only mentality. To me, winning title on guys going scorched Earth on back sides is awesome.

Any thoughts on any changes? Again, sry if we’ve discussed this before.

 

[NutZac]

Just trying to think of ways to grow the sport.

 

[nitlion6]

As the national popularity of NASCAR continues to plummet i am uncertain NASCAR changes are great examples to use for growing the sport arguments.

 

[ih8iast8]

I stopped watching NASCAR after they went to the chase format bc it really started sucking.

 

[LutherAce]

Or when it was the same 5 drivers always winning.

 

[crablegs1]

Or when it was cars driving in the same circle for 5 hours straight.

 

[PapaBearSLIM]

Or when it was cars driving in the same circle for 5 hours straight.

Way too many safety advancements and precautions for NASCAR to hold my interest.

 

[Grip220]

Went down hill after Dale Sr. Untimely death....

 

[IAChief32]

I stopped when I found out Ricky Bobby wasn’t real.

 

[YoungGun07]

I think they should go to a figure 8 track, I would watch that.

 

[Jackhawk87]

So, back to the original question . . . I think the current system weighs way too heavily on champions/very high AAs and bonus. It really makes no difference to the team score whether you have a R12 guy or a guy that cannot even qualify. To me, a championship team should have a more complete team, not 5 top studs and 5 NQs (which in most years will win it in the current system). I don't think that the points a champion gets (with some bonus) should be equivalent to a full team of R12 guys, but that is the way it currently is.

Which should be the national championship team: Team A with 3 champs, 2 runner ups (with bonus points) and 5 nonqualifiers with losing records or Team B with 1 champ, one 3rd, one 4th, one 5th, one 7th, and one 8th, and 4 R12 guys but don't score a lot of bonus. The current system says Team A is the better team.

 

[LBlindHawk]

So, back to the original question . . . I think the current system weighs way too heavily on champions/very high AAs and bonus. It really makes no difference to the team score whether you have a R12 guy or a guy that cannot even qualify. To me, a championship team should have a more complete team, not 5 top studs and 5 NQs (which in most years will win it in the current system). I don't think that the points a champion gets (with some bonus) should be equivalent to a full team of R12 guys, but that is the way it currently is.

Which should be the national championship team: Team A with 3 champs, 2 runner ups (with bonus points) and 5 nonqualifiers with losing records or Team B with 1 champ, one 3rd, one 4th, one 5th, one 7th, and one 8th, and 4 R12 guys but don't score a lot of bonus. The current system says Team A is the better team.

Sure, but Team A would likely win that dual meet too. Or at worst it would be a coin flip depending on how the teams matched up.

 

[YoungGun07]

I could get on board with placement points for R12 guys. Maybe 1.5 points to the 4 guys that lose that round.

1st- 16
2nd- 12
3rd- 10
4th- 9
5th- 7
6th- 6
7th- 4
8th- 3
R12- 1.5

 

[lookleft goright]

I stopped when I found out Ricky Bobby wasn’t real.

Who said he wasn't real? They lied!!

 

[lookleft goright]

So, back to the original question . . . I think the current system weighs way too heavily on champions/very high AAs and bonus. It really makes no difference to the team score whether you have a R12 guy or a guy that cannot even qualify. To me, a championship team should have a more complete team, not 5 top studs and 5 NQs (which in most years will win it in the current system). I don't think that the points a champion gets (with some bonus) should be equivalent to a full team of R12 guys, but that is the way it currently is.

Which should be the national championship team: Team A with 3 champs, 2 runner ups (with bonus points) and 5 nonqualifiers with losing records or Team B with 1 champ, one 3rd, one 4th, one 5th, one 7th, and one 8th, and 4 R12 guys but don't score a lot of bonus. The current system says Team A is the better team.

Has anyone ever seen a team with 5 champs and 5 guys with losing records? Has anyone ever seen a team with 10 - R12 guys? These are great straw man arguments, but they never happen that way. Leave the system alone. No system is perfect, but the top 3 teams at the NCAA tourney are generally the top 3 dual meet teams also. Lets not tinker with it, because it is exciting as it is.

 

[YoungGun07]

I don't think major changes should be made, but I don't like that going 0-2 or NQ and making the R12 is a 1.5 or 2 point difference assuming no bonus.

 

[Pennstate1985]

I don't think major changes should be made, but I don't like that going 0-2 or NQ and making the R12 is a 1.5 or 2 point difference assuming no bonus.

It's not. It's a 4-5 point difference.

 

[LaxHawk174]

It's not. It's a 4-5 point difference.

Assuming no bonus, 2 pt difference is accurate, not 4-5.

R12 wrestler has 3 scenarios (not including pigtail scenarios).

1.) Win no champ side matches and win 3 consi matches, lose R12
2.) win 1 champ match, lose, then win 2 consis, lose R12
3.) win 2 champ matches, lose in quarters, then lose in R12.

 

[MSU158]

Without bonus 1.5 or 2 is exactly what the difference is. If you win your first two matches and then lose the next 2 you are a R12er. That is 2 advancement points. If you lose your 2nd match you get 1 advancement point and then Have to win 2 consi matches to get to R12 which would be .5+.5 totaling 2. If you lose your first match you would have to win 3 matches in consis to get to r12 so that would be 1.5 advancement pts.

So, unless you get bonus the difference is very minimal.

 

[Gusaford]

Who said he wasn't real? They lied!!

"From now on, it's magic man and el diablo."
"What does 'el diablo' mean?"
"It's Spanish for 'fighting chicken'."
"That's so awesome!"

 

[YoungGun07]

It's not. It's a 4-5 point difference.

False. As stated above.

A guy could lose first round, win his next 3, then lose and score 1.5 points. The difference between 0-2 and 3-2 is the same as the bonus points from a Tech Fall. A single MFF is worth as much or more than a R12 guy.

 

[HKI]

I stopped watching NASCAR after they went to the chase format bc it really started sucking.

Driving around in circles changed when they counted end results differently? Edit: I didn't mean this to denigrate NASCAR watching, I'm curious how it changes your interest in an individual race vs. eventual champion.

 

[ih8iast8]

Driving around in circles changed when they counted end results differently? Edit: I didn't mean this to denigrate NASCAR watching, I'm curious how it changes your interest in an individual race vs. eventual champion.

Winner takes all was interesting to me, although boring. Scoring Championship points because you were the leader 1/2 through the race but you crashed out before the finish, makes no sense to me.

 

[SDHN2013]

False. As stated above.

A guy could lose first round, win his next 3, then lose and score 1.5 points. The difference between 0-2 and 3-2 is the same as the bonus points from a Tech Fall. A single MFF is worth as much or more than a R12 guy.

Well when you put it that way it sounds pretty bad

 

[nitlion6]

So, back to the original question . . . I think the current system weighs way too heavily on champions/very high AAs and bonus. It really makes no difference to the team score whether you have a R12 guy or a guy that cannot even qualify. To me, a championship team should have a more complete team, not 5 top studs and 5 NQs (which in most years will win it in the current system). I don't think that the points a champion gets (with some bonus) should be equivalent to a full team of R12 guys, but that is the way it currently is.

Which should be the national championship team: Team A with 3 champs, 2 runner ups (with bonus points) and 5 nonqualifiers with losing records or Team B with 1 champ, one 3rd, one 4th, one 5th, one 7th, and one 8th, and 4 R12 guys but don't score a lot of bonus. The current system says Team A is the better team.

So how many recent team champs have had 3 champs, 2 runner-ups and 5 non-qualifiers.

Better yet. In the current system when was the last time you believe a non deserving team was crowned champion?

 

[Pennstate1985]

Assuming no bonus, 2 pt difference is accurate, not 4-5.

R12 wrestler has 3 scenarios (not including pigtail scenarios).

1.) Win no champ side matches and win 3 consi matches, lose R12
2.) win 1 champ match, lose, then win 2 consis, lose R12
3.) win 2 champ matches, lose in quarters, then lose in R12.

Without bonus 1.5 or 2 is exactly what the difference is. If you win your first two matches and then lose the next 2 you are a R12er. That is 2 advancement points. If you lose your 2nd match you get 1 advancement point and then Have to win 2 consi matches to get to R12 which would be .5+.5 totaling 2. If you lose your first match you would have to win 3 matches in consis to get to r12 so that would be 1.5 advancement pts.

So, unless you get bonus the difference is very minimal.

False. As stated above.

A guy could lose first round, win his next 3, then lose and score 1.5 points. The difference between 0-2 and 3-2 is the same as the bonus points from a Tech Fall. A single MFF is worth as much or more than a R12 guy.

I didn't see the caveat where it was stated, "not including bonus". My bad. That said, I went back to last year's nationals and looked at all R12 guys that lost.

Most points scored individually was 5.0 (Justin Oliver)
Least points scored individually was 1.5 (Colgan and Hemida)
Average points scored by the 40 R12 wrestlers was 2.9
The lower five weights averaged 3.2 points per wrestler
The upper five weights averaged 2.6 points per wrestler

 

[MSU158]

I didn't see the caveat where it was stated, "not including bonus". My bad. That said, I went back to last year's nationals and looked at all R12 guys that lost.

Most points scored individually was 5.0 (Justin Oliver)
Least points scored individually was 1.5 (Colgan and Hemida)
Average points scored by the 40 R12 wrestlers was 2.9
The lower five weights averaged 3.2 points per wrestler
The upper five weights averaged 2.6 points per wrestler

Time well spent. Thanks for the data. Still, the difference between R12 and 0-2 is pretty significant which does truly show that NCAA scoring is extremely top heavy. The difference between finishing 9-12(which is essentially what R12 is) was 1.5 to 5. The difference between 1st and 9-12 ranged from 23 to 26.5(using Retherford's 28 since he was the highest point total).

 

[ISUChip]

I think they should go to a figure 8 track, I would watch that.

Get to Primghar on a summer Saturday night.

 

[LumbeeIndian]

Went down hill after Dale Sr. Untimely death....

3

 

[buf87]

The year Earl Hall got 8th, he scored us 5 points.

 

[Vallholl]

I stopped when I found out Ricky Bobby wasn’t real.

Wait, what?

 

[IAChief32]

Wait, what?

Sorry bro...I shed a tear when I found out. Kept looking in the Daytona 500 lineup for him. I thought the movie was a documentary.

 

[AmazenBlue88]

Or when it was the same 5 drivers always winning.

Well those days in wrestling are about to change...again.

 

[butchinmi]

I stopped when I found out Ricky Bobby wasn’t real.

It was quite the surprise to find out Ricky Bobby was fake and Dick Trickle was real.

 

[MSU158]

 

[cidhawkeye]

It was quite the surprise to find out Ricky Bobby was fake and Dick Trickle was real.

Dick Trickle? I heard there was medicine to help cure that.