NCAA tournament scoring - should it be overhauled?

[Metuo Accipiter]

I noticed that Okie State had 8 All-Americans - 2 more than any other school. They finished 43.5 points behind PSU (146.5-103) - a team that had 6 All-Americans. Now clearly OSU's guys finished much lower - but they did place (1 first, 2 fourth, 2 fifth, 2 sixth and 1 seventh). And I'm not arguing that OSU should have won just because they had more All-Americans. -- but it sure seems they should have been closer than 43 points behind.

Has there been any discussion the NCAA should look at the scoring system again? I know it was updated not so long ago - but I'm wondering if people like where it's at. It just seems that there should be more points awarded for all of the wrestlers who make it on the stand. It just seems to me a team with 10 All-Americans should beat a team with only 5 All-Americans (even if they are finalists) most of the time - but the current scoring structure certainly doesn't make that likely when the 5 finalists can score so many points. To me - that takes away from the team aspect of the competition.

 

[bbwretler]

I noticed that Okie State had 8 All-Americans - 2 more than any other school. They finished 43.5 points behind PSU (146.5-103) - a team that had 6 All-Americans. Now clearly OSU's guys finished much lower - but they did place (1 first, 2 fourth, 2 fifth, 2 sixth and 1 seventh). And I'm not arguing that OSU should have won just because they had more All-Americans. -- but it sure seems they should have been closer than 43 points behind.

Has there been any discussion the NCAA should look at the scoring system again? I know it was updated not so long ago - but I'm wondering if people like where it's at. It just seems that there should be more points awarded for all of the wrestlers who make it on the stand. It just seems to me a team with 10 All-Americans should beat a team with only 5 All-Americans (even if they are finalists) most of the time - but the current scoring structure certainly doesn't make that likely when the 5 finalists can score so many points. To me - that takes away from the team aspect of the competition.

Much of the difference in the score came from the bonus points accumulated by PS.

 

[DonHawkeye]

I think the scoring seemed about right, but can see a legitimate argument that bonus points are worth too much being made. Personally, I like that they are worth a lot, but when you have guys score more on the backside than guys that make it to the finals that system could be viewed as flawed.

Also not really sure you always find the best team when you can have 1 guy's bonus points effectively negate another teams All Americans point total.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

I think the scoring seemed about right, but I can see a somewhat legitimate argument that bonus points are worth too much being made. I like that they are worth a fair amount, but when you have guys score more on the backside than guys that make it to the finals that system could be viewed as flawed.

I have no idea why bonus points aren't halved just like advancement in wrestlebacks. There would still be a nice incentive to get bonus - just not an outsized incentive. Plus, many guys give up once on backside and bonus may come cheaper.

Oh, and not that it happens much at all, but the odder numbers caused by halving techs to .75 from 1.5 would help prevent or greatly decrease ties in team scores as well

 

[DonHawkeye]

I have no idea why bonus points aren't halved just like advancement in wrestlebacks. There would still be a nice incentive to get bonus - just not an outsized incentive. Plus, many guys give up once on backside and bonus may come cheaper.

Oh, and not that it happens much at all, but the odder numbers caused by halving techs to .75 from 1.5 would help prevent or greatly decrease ties in team scores as well

I don't think you can go that route. I think you half them across the board or not at all. Seedings & the random match up you get would become even more important.

 

[UndercoverHawk]

I have no idea why bonus points aren't halved just like advancement in wrestlebacks. There would still be a nice incentive to get bonus - just not an outsized incentive. Plus, many guys give up once on backside and bonus may come cheaper.

Oh, and not that it happens much at all, but the odder numbers caused by halving techs to .75 from 1.5 would help prevent or greatly decrease ties in team scores as well

Maybe drop everything a half point in wrestlebacks. Advancement .5 major .5 tech 1 fall 1.5

 

[hawknut]

I've done a lot of statistical studying on this topic, and really the rules committee needs to halve the team points of the teams that have a big horizontal white stripe on their singlet, because they are stupid.

 

[hawknut]

Also, the teams that wear a different colored singlet every day and their fans wear t-shirts to match the different colors of singlets each day, they shouldn't lose points, they just deserve to get kicked in the junk for being little bitches.

 

[CumberlandHawk]

It would seem that 10 AAs should at least be a close race with 5-6 champs. It is loaded very heavily that way. IMO the best team is the deepest team with fewer holes. 8th place isnt worth much.

 

[ih8iast8]

Wait....AA trumps Champs? Didn't PSU have 5 champs & OkSU only 1? The team score reflects this difference.

 

[Jackhawk87]

Also not really sure you always find the best team when you can have 1 guy's bonus points effectively negate another teams All Americans point total.

I personally would not mind if they essentially halved bonus points across the board (maybe even drop them another .25 on the backside). A wrestler taking 2nd or 3rd (maybe even 4th) but scoring a lot of falls, forfeits or TFs can essentially outscore the champ. A team with 5 bonus scoring high finishers and 5 NQs will still beat a team like Okie St this year even if all 10 AAed. Just messed up.

 

[CumberlandHawk]

If i am thinking right you have to win 4 matches to get 7th and 5 to win a title. We have all seen a bracket get blown up and a champ have an easier road than a guy on the backside. Every team has had a top 5 seed go to the backside and immediatly face another top 5. I remember a discussion about Frank the Tank and how he didnt have to face the higher seeds in his title run.Maybe things should be leveled out a bit. A bad draw or a bad ref(Rivera) and things go South in a hurry. A 1 point difference from 3rd to 4th and a 4 point diff. from 2nd to 1st seems out of wack in a team perspective.

 

[dtripp26]

It would seem that 10 AAs should at least be a close race with 5-6 champs. It is loaded very heavily that way. IMO the best team is the deepest team with fewer holes. 8th place isnt worth much.

Yeah that's called National Duals. Care to take a guess who won that too?

Flawed logic ITT. The best team won and won convincingly by racking up more bonus points and crowing 5 champs.

 

[pumpdog20]

I'd like to see more than 1 point awarded for winning in the placement matches. You get 4 to go from 2nd to 1st. In the other matches you're only 1 point better?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Yeah that's called National Duals. Care to take a guess who won that too?

Flawed logic ITT. The best team won and won convincingly by racking up more bonus points and crowing 5 champs.

Nobody is claiming otherwise. The discussion is if the current system needs some updates - not if the best team won. It's a legitimate question to ask if we think a team of 5 wrestlers should have an advantage over a team of 10 All-Americans. The current scoring structure favors a team with a few elite wrestlers over a team with many very good wrestlers - and it's at least worth discussing whether there needs to be an adjustment to the scoring system.

Look at it this way - Retherford scored 28 team points and Nickal scored 27.5. Each scored more than 5th place Brock (11 pts), 6th place Boyd (9 pts) and 7th place Crutchmer (7 pts) combined. I know Retherford and Nickal are amazing/dominant champs - but should they each be able to outscore a 5th, 6th and 7th combined?

To put it another way - Penn State's top 5 this year scored enough points to win 10 of the last 12 NCAA tournaments. With this sort of scoring system - and only 9.9 scholarships - it makes no sense to concentrate on building a deep 10-wrestler lineup - you need elite wrestlers to score big. That doesn't seem indicative of a 'team' championship.

I'm sure many people are fine with the current scoring structure - and that's fine. I just thought it was worth discussing and wondered what others thought.

 

[PSUranger]

I like the bonus points being valuable and believe it leads to a more exciting style of wrestling that encourages a more BONSAI style.Without it we might see more 2 - 1 dance-a-thons.

I do agree that wrestleback's should not "pay" as much as the winners bracket.

 

[minnhawkeye]

Most likely for the next maybe 5 years or more it will be like it is if they can keep on getting the best recruits. Sadly I could be wrong but believe this will maybe cause more schools to drop wrestling. Putting all the talent on one team and then hoping for good attendance when they come to town is a false economy.

 

[jvclark]

I think it's intersting. Keep in mind I am a lifelong Iowa wrestling fan I also realize that not all in this board are Iowa fans and not all on this thread would like a change to the scoring.

But, when we were rolling in the 80's and 90's we always had the most champions and most always had the most all americans. Looking back I would like to think we scored as many or more bonus points than any one else as well.

I can't think of a single fan that would have changed the scoring back then. But then, and some people said the NCAA did it because of our dominance, the scoring was changed to increase points for places 3-8. Well in 2000-2001 Minnesota had ten all Americans and no champs. No finalists actually. We had 7 all Americans and 4 finalists and 2 champs. Minnesota won the title, and trust me there were a BOATLOAD of us hawkeye fans that were pissed. Minnesota was chanting "ten ten". We were chanting "zero zero". But they won, and because of the rule change.

First of all be, be careful what you wish for, cause as our big time recruits start competing, placing high, and(cross my fingers) to score a lot of bonus points, we will be glad stuff is the way it is. Secondly, although the NCAA changed the rule so that four champs wouldn't likely win a title, this isn't the dual meet championship. Individual EXCELLENCE has been, should be and will hopefully continue to be rewarded.

The right team won this year. Period. As much as it pains me to say it, they kicked ass and deserve the title.

With that said, the only change I could see where bonus points in the losers side of the bracket could be lowered just like the advancement points.

GO HAWKS!!

 

[GOLDBANGER]

I don't think you can go that route. I think you half them across the board or not at all. Seedings & the random match up you get would become even more important.

I thought the object was to reward the wrestler/team that worked for the fall? So all these years I've misunderstood the sport.

 

[DonHawkeye]

I thought the object was to reward the wrestler/team that worked for the fall? So all these years I've misunderstood the sport.

I didn't argue that.

 

[BruceK-PSU83]

I'd like to see more than 1 point awarded for winning in the placement matches. You get 4 to go from 2nd to 1st. In the other matches you're only 1 point better?

I hear you, but if spread out the placement points, 1st place will be worth even more. And I think the premium (or "reward") from 2nd to 1st place should be more than the premium from 8th to 7th, 6th to 5th, and 4th to 3rd.

 

[theIowaHawk]

...encourages a more BONSAI style.Without it we might see more 2 - 1 dance-a-thons.

But is that actually true?

Was IMAR seeking more bonus points so that Illinois could place higher than 11th, or was he simply seeking to win a title (and failed, obviously)?

In hindsight the team title wasn't in contention this year, but 2-5 were, separated by ~20 points. Was Mizzou really seeking bonus points to move up the ladder? Is that bonus what stopped them from having "dance-a-thons"?

I tend to disagree. Wrestlers who wrestle for big points (see: PSU's top 3) wrestle for bonus, wrestlers who don't wrestle for bonus don't wrestle for bonus. I doubt the team race, in the last decade, has altered many matches really at all. At best, imo, it only applies to the schools at the tippy-top: PSU, Iowa, OSU, tOSU, Minnesota, and sprinkle in maybe a couple more every few years.

But, then again, it is not a "team" tournament, it is an individual tournament, and most points scored can be a p4p metric. PSU won a "team" title because of individuals, not because of the team. Iowa, in 2008-2009 for example, won a "team" title because of the team and had no individual title holders. Iowa, by 2017 numbers, would have beaten that 2009 team by half a point.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I hear you, but if spread out the placement points, 1st place will be worth even more. And I think the premium (or "reward") from 2nd to 1st place should be more than the premium from 8th to 7th, 6th to 5th, and 4th to 3rd.

I'd have to think more about that, but I think I disagree. I don't think 1 is that much better than 2, at least not more so than 2 better than 3 and so on. I get that "If you aint first yer last," but I think that is a strangely insulting premise. AA is still a big deal, runner up is still a big deal, unless of course we want to pretend that Taylor and Metcalf are just equal to all other two time champions. My initial thought on reading your post and the one you responded to is that I would probably approve of the current scoring on placement. A first is probably worth two seconds, three thirds, four fourths, etc.

I think the more interesting mathematical question would be a team of 10 second places vs. PSU's team this year. Who would win? Rarely has there been teams more impressive than PSU's five this year, but ten 2nd places would be something special, if just for the strangeness of it.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I thought the object was to reward the wrestler/team that worked for the fall? So all these years I've misunderstood the sport.

They do get rewarded, the match ends and they get more points. The question posed is how much more points and should it count equally on the front and back of the bracket.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The right team won this year. Period. As much as it pains me to say it, they kicked ass and deserve the title.

Not one single poster argued otherwise. Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[bphawkeye_Rivals]

No - it should not be overhauled. I would just like a true dual team Champ. 2 weeks after the Individual tourney - top 4 - 8 point scoring teams go at it one weekend. Current National Duals suck!

 

[Flying_Tiger]

But, then again, it is not a "team" tournament, it is an individual tournament, and most points scored can be a p4p metric. PSU won a "team" title because of individuals, not because of the team. Iowa, in 2008-2009 for example, won a "team" title because of the team and had no individual title holders. Iowa, by 2017 numbers, would have beaten that 2009 team by half a point.

Penn State also beat OSU soundly in their dual 7-3 and that was without Suriano. They were the best team this year and the NCAA tournament was just more confirmation of this.

Aside from that, are 7th and 8th place finishers really that much better then rd of 12 wrestlers? Seems to me those guys are interchangeable most years and their draw in consolations has a lot to do with whether they end up AAs or not.

 

[The catman]

What about the team thsy travels the furthest without near fall points? Shouldn't they at least get some recognition or maybe just .83 of a bonus "travel" point?

 

[Pennstate1985]

It's a legitimate question to ask if we think a team of 5 wrestlers should have an advantage over a team of 10 All-Americans.

To put it another way - Penn State's top 5 this year scored enough points to win 10 of the last 12 NCAA tournaments. With this sort of scoring system - and only 9.9 scholarships - it makes no sense to concentrate on building a deep 10-wrestler lineup - you need elite wrestlers to score big. That doesn't seem indicative of a 'team' championship.

What team had 10 AA's this year? Answer is none. What team won the title with five wrestlers? Answer is none. So it's not a legitimate question to ask if the underlying premise is not true.

PSU had 8 scorers of 4 or more points at nationals this year, as I believe Gulibon and Cutch fell in r12, but could be wrong there. They would have had nine if Suriano were healthy. Is 8 scorers close enough to 10, or did they need 9? What about 7? Does that make a team? A lineup of 9 strong wrestlers seems like a team to me.

Fact is that in the last 10 years, only two teams have attained 8 AA's at nationals, so your standard is actually a rare exception. Interestingly, both teams (MN in 2013) finished 3rd. 6-7 AA's is the standard at nationals for the top 3. Most of those teams had 8-10 scorers too.

 

[Pennstate1985]

Aside from that, are 7th and 8th place finishers really that much better then rd of 12 wrestlers? Seems to me those guys are interchangeable most years and their draw in consolations has a lot to do with whether they end up AAs or not.

This is an important point. The different between 6th and DNP is often a bad draw in consis. We see it all the time.

 

[Pennstate1985]

I'd have to think more about that, but I think I disagree. I don't think 1 is that much better than 2, at least not more so than 2 better than 3 and so on. I get that "If you aint first yer last," but I think that is a strangely insulting premise. AA is still a big deal, runner up is still a big deal, unless of course we want to pretend that Taylor and Metcalf are just equal to all other two time champions. My initial thought on reading your post and the one you responded to is that I would probably approve of the current scoring on placement. A first is probably worth two seconds, three thirds, four fourths, etc.

I think the more interesting mathematical question would be a team of 10 second places vs. PSU's team this year. Who would win? Rarely has there been teams more impressive than PSU's five this year, but ten 2nd places would be something special, if just for the strangeness of it.

I once did the math on placement at the last 10 nationals. If I recall, 2nd place averaged 19.4 points over that time period. So to answer your question, a team of ten 2nd place guys would set the all time scoring record.

 

[Cali_Nittany]

Most likely for the next maybe 5 years or more it will be like it is if they can keep on getting the best recruits. Sadly I could be wrong but believe this will maybe cause more schools to drop wrestling. Putting all the talent on one team and then hoping for good attendance when they come to town is a false economy.

Don't be sad. You're wrong.

 

[jvclark]

Not one single poster argued otherwise. Pull your

Dear head up my ass:

Did I say anywhere in my post that anyone did?

I didn't point the statement at anyone, much less you. It was a comment, my opinion, which I think is part of what this room is here for.

Signed,

Just say no to bitter posters

 

[Pennstate1985]

I would like to see defaults at nationals be zero or one bonus point, and not two. By sheer luck a kid can walk on the mat and earn the same bonus as what another kid must earn by pin. Not fair to me, and it happens a lot on Saturday as the dings add up.

 

[Cali_Nittany]

I would like to see defaults at nationals be zero or one bonus point, and not two. By sheer luck a kid can walk on the mat and earn the same bonus as what another kid must earn by pin. Not fair to me, and it happens a lot on Saturday as the dings add up.

That's an interesting idea. A certain Big 10 coach between Cleveland and Cincinnati might pull shenanigans with this one though.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

What team had 10 AA's this year? Answer is none. What team won the title with five wrestlers? Answer is none. So it's not a legitimate question to ask if the underlying premise is not true.

Nobody claimed those things happened. And the examples were used to illustrate the current scoring system - not to specifically complain about the results this year. Whether those things happened this year is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not the scoring system is the best/most equitable it can be.

 

[redghost1974]

We want to win this thing, there can't be anymore 0-0 first periods. This is one trend that has mystified me under Brands. I know the sport has evolved, but a Hawk should never have zero points in the first period. Even Morningstar had a single leg he could 95% complete, he just refused to pull the trigger until the 3rd period. From what I have gathered PSU focuses a lot on scrambles and pinning combinations from those scrambles. Their chain wrestling puts them in position to bonus. If we can't land top 5 recruits, start taking chances on rough athletes we can coach up.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Most likely for the next maybe 5 years or more it will be like it is if they can keep on getting the best recruits. Sadly I could be wrong but believe this will maybe cause more schools to drop wrestling. Putting all the talent on one team and then hoping for good attendance when they come to town is a false economy.

Penn State has consistently filled up gyms where the host team has absolutely no shot at winning, and that is from the East Coast to the West Coast. Was this a concern back in Gable's day, or does it just concern you now?

 

[Pennstate1985]

Nobody claimed those things happened. And the examples were used to illustrate the current scoring system - not to specifically complain about the results this year. Whether those things happened this year is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not the scoring system is the best/most equitable it can be.

You didn't claim it happened, but you used it as a premise to ask your 'legitimate question'. Since it has never happened, nor even close to it, is the question then legitimate? To me, NO. You then used the premise to rail against the scoring system for best team, even though again nothing like it has happened. The top five teams each year have 8-10 scorers. To me, that's a legitimate team whether they all AA or not. If a school brought only five Retherford/Nolf guys and won the title, then I think you have a legit claim that the system is rigged too top heavy since 5 is definitely not a team.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Didn't they adjust the scoring after the year in which Minnesota won the team title with 10 all-americans and no on who made the finals?