Those are impressive numbers for a once-a-year event with little to no outside promotion.
However, the 2015 NCAA Championships won't be remembered for its successes as much as its failures, namely questionable refereeing, arrogant NCAA oversight and a lack of on-the-mat action.
Since this is one of the largest mailbags yet, here are 10 (quick) solutions for improving the NCAA Championships for 2016.
1. Video reviews should be broadcast to the in-arena network. International wrestling allows for this to ensure that fans can see the disputed action. If 18k people are in the arena and the NCAA finals endure back-to-back challenges isn't it silly to keep those attending in the dark? When asked the NCAA responded, "No other sports do it, so wrestling can't either."
2. There should be an active student-athlete and a member of the press (or other outside mind) on the NCAA Championships and Wrestling Rules committees. The current committee is too detached, too bureaucratic and answers to powers not knowledgeable of the sport. Wrestling is not an easily scored contest and needs subjective solutions when mathematical formulas fail.
3. Going to a knee before contact is made from neutral should result in an automatic stall call and point. Falling to your hands and knees blocks action and is the ultimate in stalling. Not a difficult fix, but an epidemic in the lighter weights.
4. Interlocking fingers should be a warning, and then a stall call.
5. Back exposure for a two count under any circumstances is counted against the wrestler. This will prevent wild scrambles of questionable control. Exposing your belly to the sky is an infraction in almost every style on earth, including Americas. Why allow for such a widening gray area?
6. One referee should be present at every scorer's table. Their job is to monitor the scoreboard. They don't leave the table. They watch the match and make sure that the table workers (volunteers) get the score right.
7. A referee committee should be formed OUTSIDE of the NCAA. There is no reason that the NCAA member should ever be involved in on-the-mat issues. The international federation has separated these roles and so should the NCAA. This avoids corruption and making decisions for the sake of PR, instead of pursuing what is right and just.
8. Scoreboards should be updated to include names, schools, records, etc. We are well past the days of light bulb numbers. As great a presentation as the NCAA and ESPN provides to viewers at home, the in-arena presentation is woeful.
9. Pushout rule. Stop running out of bounds.
10. True out-of-bounds. These are tied to each other.
To your questions ...
Q: The Brian Realbuto vs. Ian Miller quarterfinal match was a doosey. I still don't know what to make of it. Did the official award an escape point? My review of the match doesn't answer the question. If the ref erred and didn't award a point then as much as I hate to say it the fault of the outcome is on Kent State coach Jim Andrassy for not challenging. Now, if the ref did award an escape point it appears there was an error with the table or the computer system. If that's the case I don't fully understand how a video challenge applies in the situation. That is unless there are dedicated cameras on the scoring table to determine an error. Regardless of our views on this I feel it is safe to assume that there will be some adjustments made to the rules regarding these types of rare scenarios.
-- Jacob R.
Foley: A series of adjustments will be made by the NCAA, but as many are pointing out online, the rules in place put the onus for the correct score on the referees. However ...
The first and most important improvement would be to remove the NCAA from the situation. Why are wrestlers at the NCAA appealing their decisions to bureaucrats who have spent three hours all season watching wrestling? Also, doesn't their position in the organization corrupt their ability to make the right decision for the wrestler? Of course it does. The winner of the Realbuto-Miller match was Miller, but due to their set of faulty rules, the NCAA took the win from Miller. Why? PR. Throw the head coach under the bus instead of admitting that your whole review system is a poorly thought out sham with only one master -- the NCAA.
Scoring should not need to be challenged by a coach. That's simply ridiculous. Scoring is always an objective outcome of fair play, and coaches are meant to challenge the subjective nature of refereeing. Counting is not a judgment call.
What if Kent State didn't have any challenges? How then would they have challenged the score of the match? How did the referees pushing the coaches back to the corner influence their desire and ability to challenge a call?
Nose-diving an airplane into the Alps is also rare, but it will result in changes. The NCAA should take note and get off the mat and reestablish true and honest means of scoring their matches.
Edinboro coach Tim Flynn talks with A.J. Schopp at the NCAAs (Photo/Tony Rotundo, WrestlersAreWarriors.com)-- Tim J.
Foley: Tim Flynn is the most underrated coach in the NCAA. EVERY SINGLE YEAR we write the same thing about his coaching prowess and every year the big schools fail to pick him up. I'd guess that when the coaching positions begin to open up in a few weeks we'll see his name floated for the top jobs. Should he land one of the big jobs (maybe he doesn't want to leave Edinboro?) then I'd expect Rosselli to apply and probably land the Edinboro job.
Q: I'm sure you are buried in rants about frustrations with the video review challenge system at the NCAA tournament. One match I noticed that I haven't been able to get over is a lesser known match that most people probably overlooked. First-round wrestleback at 197 pounds, Jake Smith of WVU vs. Zach Nye of Virginia. The match was in its final ultimate tiebreaker with Nye on top. Nye had Smith on his belly flattened out with maybe 10 seconds left. Sammie Henson runs over to the table and starts screaming for a challenge of locked hands. The ref stops the match! While one wrestler has put himself in a position to win, a coach runs over and gets the action stopped. Of course there was no overturned call, but Henson got his wrestler off his belly and a minute to rest for one last push to escape, which he did. Henson works the system and his wrestler wins. Good for him. Bad for Nye. Are there any rules about when you can challenge? Break in the action? End of the period? They could have reviewed locked hands at the end of the period and put time back on the clock if that was the case.
-- Dustin K.
Foley: The Nye-Smith match is an excellent example of a referee being outmatched by a witty coach. I don't blame Henson for stopping the action. However, the referee is supposed to let the action play out and review locked hands after a stalemate, out of bounds or other natural stop in action. If there had been locked hands the referees can go back and set the time to the moment of the infraction. As you mentioned there was no infraction and the match restart cost Nye the win. In the future, I'm sure that Pat McCormick (national coordinator of officials) will make this point very clear.
Q: With the ridiculous failure by the NCAA to properly keep score at their own national tournament, my question is this: Did all of the coaches know before the tournament began that it was one-hundred percent their responsibility to challenge scoring errors? Not challenge a referee's call for points (or failure to do so) but actually challenge the people at the table keeping score?
In the future, will this be the norm: That all coaches are to be kept accountable for keeping track of the score during the match in case of an error and any inconsistencies must be argued BEFORE the referee raises the 'winner's' hand?
-- Brad H.
Foley: The coaches I spoke with were split on whether they KNEW it was their responsibility. Most thought that a table challenge would be enough to clarify any mistakes. The NCAA certainly had no problem blaming the coaching staff, but when you're used to pimping out players for profit you can see that they may lack the moral clarity to overturn a decision that might cause some controversy.
MULTIMEDIA HALFTIME
Death to the NCAA
Q: A lot of comments and questions about boring matches and points not being scored this year, yet the NCAA finals matches pumped out over 113 total points scored. I think there was 63 points scored in the 10 finals matches last year. Do you think that has more to do with the new rules (flash takedowns, five count below the waist, etc.) or the wrestlers in this year's finals? Maybe a new mindset of score as many points as you can and don't sit on a lead?
-- Mike F.
Foley: There are a number of reasons, but flash takedowns, mismatches and well-paired opponents lent itself to more scoring this year. The lightweights were especially aggressive in the finals.
No. Gabe Dean definitely sat on his lead, as did Matt Brown and Gwiz. Stalling and sitting on a lead are NOT going way unless there is a solid out-of-bounds that prevents the eventual backup and using the edge as safety zone. The only way to keep wrestlers wrestling is to incentivize scoring and limit the opportunity for wrestlers in the lead to skip out on action.
What's more difficult and exciting -- an escape point, or taking a grown man and driving him out of bounds? The latter. Definitely the latter.
Q: I don't know if this has been discussed before, but the group of guys I go watch nationals with every year were talking when we were in St. Louis. We, along with many fans, are very upset and concerned with the lack of takedowns and action, particularly in the first period. We were wondering if perhaps a good solution would be incentivizing takedowns in a decision the same as nearfall points are for a tech. For example, if a guy wins with a takedown he gets 1.5 points on the front side whereas a decision with no takedown only earns the 1 point. Backside could work the same but awarding 1 point and .5 points. Initially we thought about making the front side .5 for a decision with no takedown, but weren't fond of what that could mean for the backside. This idea is obviously also applicable to dual meet competitions. It seems some of your ideas for improving the action and making the sport more watcher-friendly are, I suppose, more radical, but do you think something as simple as changing the scoring of team points could help?
-- Matt W.
Foley: I could see team points incentivizing the top teams, but that might be a limited edge. Many coaches equate aggression to risk and while they'd like the extra half point, I don't think that it would carry into the wrestler's action.
However, I think that a change of the rules to aggregate scoring of dual meets could result in more scoring. For example if you win 8-3, then you pick up eight points for your team and your opponent earns three. There are some major obstacles to overcome, but in all that type of scoring system might incentivize an increase in action.
I like where these ideas are headed.
Q: A lot of people say Iowa underachieves at the NCAAs. I believe that they work harder during the regular season and peak then, while others are peaking come tournament time. What is your philosophy on Iowa? Do they underachieve at NCAAs, or do they overachieve during regular season?
-- Jordan B.
Foley: Parity. Iowa is one of the best teams in the nation and while they no longer win the NCAA title every year, they are almost always in the top three. That's not easy to achieve in an NCAA tournament that allows for teams like Edinboro to sprint out to a third-place finish.
There are more good wrestlers, an abundance of talented coaches and more support in more places. The days of Iowa collecting multiple championships is in the past. Too many Isaiah Martinez-like wrestlers and too many Cael Sanderson-like coaches.
RANT OF THE WEEK
By Ryan R.
I'm sure that your mailbox is full of stalling complaints, but here's one more. The lack of action is killing the fan experience. I watched dozens of matches where a wrestler with a one-point lead backed up, blocked, and circled for the entire third period. It's not the wrestler's fault, though. Why take a risk if you don't have to? There is no need for a rule change either. It simply needs to be called as written. Here are a few excerpts from the rule book that aren't really enforced:
5.9.2 Neutral Position Stalling. Each wrestler must attempt to work toward the center of the mat and continue wrestling in an attempt to secure a takedown, regardless of the time or score of the match.
5.9.2.3 A wrestler shall be called for stalling if kicking out from a lower leg hold when this action results in the defending wrestler going out of the wrestling area.
5.9.2.4 Fleeing or attempting to flee the wrestling area as a means of avoiding being scored upon. (See Rule 5.13.)
5.9.3.2 Either wrestler pushing or pulling the opponent out of bounds to prevent scoring.
I understand that we don't want referees "deciding the match" with stalling calls, but they are currently deciding the match by not calling it. I have done a little refereeing myself and understand how difficult it is to make these calls in a high school gym. It would even harder when you know 5,000 fans from the represented school will reign boos down on you in a national televised event, but for the good of wrestling, somebody needs to call stalling.
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now