Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

Goodale is spot on Re: tournament scoring


Recommended Posts

Yup. I’ve been saying this for years. I like incentivizing bonus, but it’s definitely not proportional. A pin being double a decision, like it is in a dual meet, is still a great incentive and is a good balance IMO. Being worth 4x is just crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would decreasing scoring opportunities in the consolation side not just create further disparity between the elite programs and one like Rutgers? Is this quote based off the Kasak run?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a discussion about this on the old Wrestling Report forum years ago when they first doubled the bonus points.  A 5th-place finisher could score more points than a champion (I think we were talking about EIWAs specifically, when a champ earned just 12 placement points).  Most agreed that there was too much emphasis on bonus points.

Examples this year -- at EIWAs Ryan Crookham won and earned 20.5 points; had 1.5 bonus points.  Kelvin Griffin finished 3rd and also earned 20.5 points; he had bonus points in all five of his wins, 8.0 points total.

An NCAA champ earns a minimum of 20 points -- 16 placement, 4 advancement.  Vito Arujau won and earned 24.0 points (4 MDs).  Meyer Shapiro finished 3rd and earned 21.0 points (10 placement, 3.5 advancement, 7.5 bonus), so he earned a champion's points in finishing 3rd.

There's no right or wrong here; it all depends on what you want to reward.  If bonus points are reduced, we'll see less aggressive wrestling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JuanMogen said:

Bartlett gets a couple pins, and suddenly, scoring is a problem. 

If he were in consolation this would be true. 

Sponsored by INTERMAT ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think bonus points are the smallest issue with tournament scoring. 

1st place gets 20 points w/o bonus.   Rd 12 gets 2 points w/o bonus.    No question first should be rewarded the most but I don't think it is 10 times better than the 9th place guy in the country.

8th earns 5.5 w/o bonus 7th = 6.5 so both are about 3.5 times less than 1st.  To me, getting an AA should be better.  The current scoring system really only rewards having top 4 finishers.

I don't have a better system and I don't think a change will happen so it is what it is.  Rutgers had 2 AAs and finished 20th, but they were 9 points behind 17th place W. Virginia.    A few backside pins isn't making up that difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

Honestly, I think bonus points are the smallest issue with tournament scoring. 

1st place gets 20 points w/o bonus.   Rd 12 gets 2 points w/o bonus.    No question first should be rewarded the most but I don't think it is 10 times better than the 9th place guy in the country.

8th earns 5.5 w/o bonus 7th = 6.5 so both are about 3.5 times less than 1st.  To me, getting an AA should be better.  The current scoring system really only rewards having top 4 finishers.

I don't have a better system and I don't think a change will happen so it is what it is.  Rutgers had 2 AAs and finished 20th, but they were 9 points behind 17th place W. Virginia.    A few backside pins isn't making up that difference. 

I think first place should be worth 10 times as much as anywhere between 9th and 12th place. If it is not you also have to compress the difference between first and second, first and third, etc. That kind of scoring compression has already happened multiple times over the years and I think we are in a good place there.

For me the issue is as Goodale points out that bonus points in the consolation bracket are too high relative to advancement points.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all bc atleast half the fan base wants Goodale gone bc the program is stagnant and finished 20th at ncaas and for not capitalizing on having 2 ncaa champs and a top 10 finish at ncaas a few years back, Two AAs used to have Rutgers fans dancing in the street but now finishing behind schools like WVU they want to see progress …..  Goodale also wants to get rid of team scoring all together at ncaas and just have national duals ..Which is funny bc rutgers hasn’t won a dual they weren’t supposed too since 2015 … can’t succeed in the current system ? Well then let’s just change it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Antitroll2828 said:

This is all bc atleast half the fan base wants Goodale gone bc the program is stagnant and finished 20th at ncaas and for not capitalizing on having 2 ncaa champs and a top 10 finish at ncaas a few years back, Two AAs used to have Rutgers fans dancing in the street but now finishing behind schools like WVU they want to see progress …..  Goodale also wants to get rid of team scoring all together at ncaas and just have national duals ..Which is funny bc rutgers hasn’t won a dual they weren’t supposed too since 2015 … can’t succeed in the current system ? Well then let’s just change it 

Can’t he just want the scoring to more accurately reflect the difficulty, and it not be about how it may have effected his team?

Edited by 1032004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Antitroll2828 said:

This is all bc atleast half the fan base wants Goodale gone bc the program is stagnant and finished 20th at ncaas and for not capitalizing on having 2 ncaa champs and a top 10 finish at ncaas a few years back, Two AAs used to have Rutgers fans dancing in the street but now finishing behind schools like WVU they want to see progress …..  Goodale also wants to get rid of team scoring all together at ncaas and just have national duals ..Which is funny bc rutgers hasn’t won a dual they weren’t supposed too since 2015 … can’t succeed in the current system ? Well then let’s just change it 

I'm kinda done with the "no team points at tournament" crap. Especially when it's much more realistic for smaller hs and college programs to be able to get a top 25, top 15 top 10 etc finish and highlight that to promote their program to admin/boosters. And build support
 

Im very well aware of the arguments both ways of doing championships. for it so hearing them told to me isn't interesting. But its very hard to take people seriously if they talk about growing the sport/helping not big programs then promote not keeping team points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 25 years ago the NCAA rules committee discussed rules changes for tournament scoring. I felt a simple solution to the situation where a few placers outweighed a balanced team. My solution was simply to use HS advancement points rather than college version. Keep the 16-12-9-7-5-3-2-1 but give 2 for championship advancement and 1 for consolations instead of the current 16-12-10-9-7-6-4-3 and 1 and .5.  They bought into the compressed place point scheme. It did produce Minnesota winning with 10 placers and no finalists which is what they wanted but also produced what @jdalu75 said above.

  • Brain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BobDole said:

What would be a good solution?

I’d like to see winners bracket advancement 2 points, consis 1 pt. All pins or techs 1 pt. And all majors .5 pt. Majors should be 10 points now and techs 20 due to point inflation with takedowns and near falls. I think that will still incentivize bonus but give a better balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

About 25 years ago the NCAA rules committee discussed rules changes for tournament scoring. I felt a simple solution to the situation where a few placers outweighed a balanced team. My solution was simply to use HS advancement points rather than college version. Keep the 16-12-9-7-5-3-2-1 but give 2 for championship advancement and 1 for consolations instead of the current 16-12-10-9-7-6-4-3 and 1 and .5.  They bought into the compressed place point scheme. It did produce Minnesota winning with 10 placers and no finalists which is what they wanted but also produced what @jdalu75 said above.

You posted while I was typing, but I like your breakdown of the placement points better too. I would still advocate for 1pt pins/techs and .5 major

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MLB9 said:

Would decreasing scoring opportunities in the consolation side not just create further disparity between the elite programs and one like Rutgers? Is this quote based off the Kasak run?

No it’s because of the amount of points his team scored with 3 guys making the R12…and yes it would in my opinion make the gap bigger 

 

probably more to do with Ty Watters, he scored as many points in the tournament as a guy who wins the whole thing with no bonus , for reference Rutgers won  21 matches at ncaas , WVU won 11 , both had 2 placers (Rutgers 7th,7th plus one R12, WVU had 4th, 7th and only one other guy win a match. both had one guy make the 1/4s then lose and in the end West Virginia finished with 10 more points then Rutgers bc Watters and Hall are bonus point guys , this is the kind of stuff I think Goodale wants changed …overall you would look at Rutgers who had 6 different guys win matches and out 3 in bloodround and think they had a better tournament then WVU yet finished way behind them mostly bc Hall and Watters alone beat Rutgers bc they went bonus crazy on the backside 

Edited by Antitroll2828
  • Brain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Can’t he just want the scoring to more accurately reflect the difficulty, and it not be about how it may have effected his team?

No bc he’s a head coach at a major big 10 school whose been catching more and more heat , it’s a little naive to think he’s doing this for the greater good of the sport when half the fan base is at his ass

 

and for the record scoring bonus in college is really really difficult, so guys should be rewarded more for a pin then a 1-1 OT Lewan style win 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area


  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...