NCAA tournament scoring - should it be overhauled?

[bbwretler]

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?

Well, if you were around and if you were observent there were programs dropping wrestling at that time, with Dan lobbying and doing everything in his power to stop that from happening. I don't see cael taking his team to compete in venues simply to promote the sport as Dan did then. To be fair part of the reason could be attributed to title 9, however, it was easy to pin point wrestling as the sport to drop based on attendence. There were many who were saying Dan and Iowa were bad for the sport and among those were the opposing coaches who were not willing or able to put in the time and efort to keep up. Then it was amatter of, hard work, to close the gap. Now it is a matter of the majority of top rated wrestlers, for whatever reason, forgoing scholarships...rich uncles or whatever, and the majority picking PS. Hard work will not negate that.

 

[MVPFAN]

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?

I thought they adjusted it before that year to give more weight to non champ placings?

 

[BruceK-PSU83]

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.

You can't mean the first sentence above. Such a scoring system would be far too skewed to first place. For instance, in the current system 1st place (16 points) is worth 1.6X 3rd place (10 points) and 4X 7th place (4 points). You want to change those factors to 3X and 7X, respectively? That would make 1st place worth like 28 or 30 points. That's nuts.

Regarding the second questions, ten 2nd place finishes would be worth 160 points (without any bonus), 12 placement points and 4 advancement points at each weight class. That would best PSU's 146.5 team points in 2017.

 

[FrontHeadlock2]

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

Agree 1000%. I've always thought this was an obvious rule change that needed to be made.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You can't mean the first sentence above. Such a scoring system would be far too skewed to first place. For instance, in the current system 1st place (16 points) is worth 1.6X 3rd place (10 points) and 4X 7th place (4 points). You want to change those factors to 3X and 7X, respectively? That would make 1st place worth like 28 or 30 points. That's nuts.

Regarding the second questions, ten 2nd place finishes would be worth 160 points (without any bonus), 12 placement points and 4 advancement points at each weight class. That would best PSU's 146.5 team points in 2017.

No, I'm just really bad at math. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[theIowaHawk]

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

Yes, you did, obviously so. Or do you think implications are nonexistent?

Your "comments" was clearly implying that the premise of this thread had anything to do with PSU winning, which nobody argued - at all.

 

[theIowaHawk]

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.

Thank you. I presumed so.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

I thought they adjusted it before that year to give more weight to non champ placings?

You are probably correct. I just remember they adjusted it.

 

[jvclark]

Yes, you did, obviously so. Or do you think implications are nonexistent?

Your "comments" was clearly implying that the premise of this thread had anything to do with PSU winning, which nobody argued - at all.

Well it wasn't too "obvious" to the other 100 people people that read this thread or to the five people that obviously agreed with me with the likes given to my original post.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put your "implications" into my mouth. Just because you took something one way, doesn't necessarily mean me or anyone else in this board meant it that way.

Calm down a bit. Have some coffee

 

[okinburg1]

Completely, 100% agree that points in the consi bracket should be 1/2 that of the championship bracket. Seems like a no brainer - do it immediately.

On the subject of a small number of high point scorers winning a title vs a larger number of lower point scorers winning, I don't see the argument. Wrestling is like track and field in this way - both are team sports where individuals earn points to decide a team title (except for the 3 relay events in track). So, in both sports, the emphasis is on winning, since you get the most points for doing so. In wrestling, you get are able to get bonus points for "winning more impressively," so to speak, which should motivate ALL wrestlers to win big to maximize points scored.

 

[Herkuleez5]

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!!

Actually I believe Minnesota would have won that year even before the point scoring change albeit by a very thin margin. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

P.S. On a side note that was awesome when the entire arena was chanting ZERO ZERO!

 

[jvclark]

Actually I believe Minnesota would have won that year even before the point scoring change albeit by a very thin margin. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

P.S. On a side note that was awesome when the entire arena was chanting ZERO ZERO!

Yeah. They may have. We had 7 placers two 1sts and 2nds, so we scored a bunch.

But that zero zero chant was cool

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Well, if you were around and if you were observent there were programs dropping wrestling at that time, with Dan lobbying and doing everything in his power to stop that from happening. I don't see cael taking his team to compete in venues simply to promote the sport as Dan did then. To be fair part of the reason could be attributed to title 9, however, it was easy to pin point wrestling as the sport to drop based on attendence. There were many who were saying Dan and Iowa were bad for the sport and among those were the opposing coaches who were not willing or able to put in the time and efort to keep up. Then it was amatter of, hard work, to close the gap. Now it is a matter of the majority of top rated wrestlers, for whatever reason, forgoing scholarships...rich uncles or whatever, and the majority picking PS. Hard work will not negate that.

Let's take a look at some teams on PSU's schedule over the last few years, shall we?

2012:Utah Valley State (Upstart program)
2013: Boston (who was about to shut their program down)
2015: Army

 

[nitlion6]

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.

Just out of curosity, do you believe in recent history the current scoring model has misidentified the best team?

 

[nitlion6]

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?

We could do that. 16 for first, 12 for 2nd.
Then 13 for 3rd and 9 for 4th.
Then 11 for 5th and 6 for 5th.

That doesn't work well.
16
12
10
9
7
6
4
3.
From 1 through 8, how would you distribute placement points?

 

[nitlion6]

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.

I wonder how wrestling actually survived the Gable era? All that Hawkeye sucess and everything.
Yes I know tons of wrestling teams were discontinued during the Gable era. That had nothing to with Iowa's success.

 

[nitlion6]

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.

The idea a team doesn't win the team title is silly, and the silliness grows exponentially when arguing Penn State's 5 champs, 1 4th placer and 2 round of 12 competitors wasn't a team effort but rather just a summation of individual titles, but the 2009 Iowa championship effort was without any champions a team effort.

 

[nitlion6]

Let's take a look at some teams on PSU's schedule over the last few years, shall we?

2012:Utah Valley State (Upstart program)
2013: Boston (who was about to shut their program down)
2015: Army

Rider and the trip through California.
My favorite attendance impact was this year. Ohio State beat their previous high by 4,000 wrestling Penn State and then Ohio State doesn't put their best team on the mat.

 

[pumpdog20]

We could do that. 16 for first, 12 for 2nd.
Then 13 for 3rd and 9 for 4th.
Then 11 for 5th and 6 for 5th.

That doesn't work well.
16
12
10
9
7
6
4
3.
From 1 through 8, how would you distribute placement points?

How about 18 points for first and a 3 point premium for being a champ instead of runner up, then a 2 point premium for every other placement.

18
15
13
11
9
7
5
3

 

[jvclark]

How about 18 points for first and a 3 point premium for being a champ instead of runner up, then a 2 point premium for every other placement.

18
15
13
11
9
7
5
3

Don't hate it. I would prefer there to be bigger gap(3pts?) between 3rd and 4th. I mean 3rd only loses one match during the whole tourney. Maybe had 5-1 or potentially 6-1 record for the three days

 

[RoarLions1]

Don't hate it. I would prefer there to be bigger gap(3pts?) between 3rd and 4th. I mean 3rd only loses one match during the whole tourney. Maybe had 5-1 or potentially 6-1 record for the three days

Don't hate it either. But what do you do with the 2 guys (6th & 8th), that are the only ones to lose 3 bouts...by your logic they should be penalized, no? pumpdog's idea has merit.

 

[nitlion6]

How about 18 points for first and a 3 point premium for being a champ instead of runner up, then a 2 point premium for every other placement.

18
15
13
11
9
7
5
3

I am ok with it. Of course I am OK with the current model.

 

[jvclark]

Don't hate it either. But what do you do with the 2 guys (6th & 8th), that are the only ones to lose 3 bouts...by your logic they should be penalized, no? pumpdog's idea has merit.

Good point. Wasnt trying to solve the whole problem with that one observation

Just that there are only two guys in the whole tourney with just one loss. And we all know there is often a very fine line between 2nd and 3rs and sometimes because of weird seeding that the wrong guys gets in the final.

I'm not sure what best idea is

 

[TheGLOV]

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.

You should ask Jeff Gordon how he felt when they changed the NASCAR scoring system back then. Without the change, he wins two more championships.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Recruit better.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Fascinating that in a thread that has a bunch of ideas on changing the scoring model, no one has actually run their ideas through several years and conditions to determine what their ideas would have done to scoring. Run the numbers for a few years where one team was dominant, then through a few years where there was pretty good parity. Then, take a couple of #1-3 seeds and see what happens when they drop to consies early. What happens to your scoring model when you have the Minnie 10 AA year?

As it is, this is going on:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...2414254c6fdda3c297dfe6e4fcbbdad6&action=click

 

[Pennstate1985]

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.

For anyone interested, I also did the math on bonus by placement. 1st and 2nd place averaged 3.2 and 3.4 bonus points respectively over the period. This was the highest level of bonus per placement, which probably isn't a great surprise. What may be surprising is that for the greater number of consi matches a wrestler has, bonus per placement is not as great as it is for those finishing top 2. If I recall, bonus points averaged 1.5 to 2.5 per placement for 3rd through 8th. So bonus on the backside is not as great as some would think, although one individual wrestler can certainly rack up excessive bonus just like on topside.

Because this analysis was done via hand-to-hand combat by looking at each bracket, some errors may have occurred, but I don't think it effects the outcome.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The idea a team doesn't win the team title is silly, and the silliness grows exponentially when arguing Penn State's 5 champs, 1 4th placer and 2 round of 12 competitors wasn't a team effort but rather just a summation of individual titles, but the 2009 Iowa championship effort was without any champions a team effort.

Huh? It is an individual tournament. It wasn't an insult or slight. I only used the Iowa team as an obvious comparison. PSU this year was far more impressive than 09 Iowa.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Just out of curosity, do you believe in recent history the current scoring model has misidentified the best team?

No, and that clearly wasn't the purpose of the thread, stop wishing to be a victim.

 

[pablow]

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 didn't analyze this much, but six third place wrestlers outscored the runner up - Sorensen > Mayes, Massa > Martinez, Valencia > Jordan, Moore > Pfarr, and Hall > Medberry. This should raise some eyebrows.

 

[RoarLions1]

Good point. Wasnt trying to solve the whole problem with that one observation

Just that there are only two guys in the whole tourney with just one loss. And we all know there is often a very fine line between 2nd and 3rs and sometimes because of weird seeding that the wrong guys gets in the final.

I'm not sure what best idea is

Maybe leave it as is? It's worked for a very long time, with only minor tweaks since 1979, when Placement Points were awarded through 8th Place (it was 6 Places prior). That's almost 40 years, and the Wrestling Championship is now a sellout annually, and among the most exciting of all NCAA "events".

 

[Kwoodhawk]

Maybe leave it as is? It's worked for a very long time, with only minor tweaks since 1979, when Placement Points were awarded through 8th Place (it was 6 Places prior). That's almost 40 years, and the Wrestling Championship is now a sellout annually, and among the most exciting of all NCAA "events".

Speaking of annual sellout. This years Tournament in St. Louis was the 3rd highest for attendance with 111,454 total and 19,657 Finals behind 113,013 here in 2015 and 112,393 in 2012. St Louis has 7 of the top 9 3 day attendance marks in history. Madison Square Garden was 110,,194 last year and 104,260 in Philadelphia. This was the 8th time in St. Louis since 2000. Ya'all come back ya hear.