Dual Team Scorimg Discussion

[Caveira]

Iowa State 39 Cornell 42 

125 - Corey Cabanban (Iowa State) dec Brett Ungar (Cornell) 3-1 (3-0 Iowa State)
133 - Vito Arujau (Cornell) dec Ramazan Attasauov (Iowa State) 3-1 (3-3 Tie)
141 - Vince Cornella (Cornell) dec Zach Redding (Iowa State) 6-1 (6-3 Cornell)
149 - Yianni Diakomihalis (Cornell) dec Paniro Johnson (Iowa State) 3-1SV (9-3 Cornell)
157 - Jason Krassier (Iowa State) dec Colton Yapoujian (Cornell) 6-4SV (9-6 Cornell)
165 - David Carr (Iowa State) dec Julian Ramirez (Cornell) 10-5 (9-9 Tie)
174 - Chris Foca (Cornell) maj Julien Broderson (Iowa State) 17-4 (13-9 Cornell)
184 - Joel Devine (Iowa State) dec Evan Canoyer (Cornell) 5-1 (13-12 Cornell)
197 - Marcus Coleman (Iowa State) dec Jacob Cardenas (Cornell) 4-1 (15-13 Iowa State)
285 - Yonger Bastida (Iowa State) dec Lewis Fernandes (Cornell) 4-2 (18-13 Iowa State)

Iowa state wins 6 matches to 4.   But loses because of the major at 174 even though they had a major at 165.  Would have been 18-13 Iowa state. 

[Caveira]

Northern Iowa 61 Ohio State 63

125 - Malik Heinselman (Ohio State) dec Kyle Golhoffer (Northern Iowa) 12-5 (3-0 Ohio State)
133 - Nic Bouzakis (Ohio State) dec Kyle Biscoglia (Northern Iowa) 9-6 (6-0 Ohio State)
141 - Cael Happel (Northern Iowa) dec Dylan D'Emilio (Ohio State) 7-5SV (6-3 Ohio State)
149 - Colin Realbuto (Northern Iowa) dec Sammy Sasso (Ohio State) 9-7 (6-6 Tie)
157 - Derek Holschlag (Northern Iowa) dec Isaac Wilcox (Ohio State) 6-2 (9-6 Northern Iowa)
165 - Austin Yant (Northern Iowa) maj Gavin Brown (Ohio State) 11-1 (13-6 Northern Iowa)
174 - Ethan Smith (Ohio State) dec Lance Runyon (Northern Iowa) 6-4 (13-9 Northern Iowa)
184 - Parker Keckeisen (Northern Iowa) dec Kaleb Romero (Ohio State) 3-1 (16-9 Northern Iowa)
197 - Gavin Hoffman (Ohio State) maj Noah Glaser (Northern Iowa) 18-7 (16-13 Northern Iowa)
285 - Tyrell Gordon (Northern Iowa) dec Tate Orndorff (Ohio State) 3-2 (19-13 Northern Iowa)
 

6 bouts to 4 in uni favor.   

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Jason Bryant said:

Then leave high school alone. We have different rules for various levels of wrestling, as many sports do. HS postseasons aren’t the same as the college postseason.

But if you’re watching a college match you probably already understand the scoring system.  This just seems like trying to fix a problem that doesn’t really need fixing.  Much bigger fish to fry if we’re making changes IMO

[Jason Bryant]

Dual meets need to mean something first. Then we'll see the manipulation of that oddly random scoring metric after it gets gamed or we get one bad call leading to a 16-15 win on criteria before people go back go clamoring "you want a title decided like that?"

I also see zero issues with a team winning 4 matches and winning a dual - we have that possibility right now. Only time people complain is when it happens against their team. 

The harder part is finding a split where a team wins 3 bouts but wins the dual. That's what can't happen now. I'd love to see how many instances this has actually happened. 

 

Also, you can't really retroactively apply 'would have won' scenarios because people would completely wrestle differently if they were trying to win the dual knowing they were behind. Applying point systems to what-if scenarios really aren't logical, because it assumes everything would stay the same, when it wouldn't. Keep wrestling til the very end instead of shutting it down when you know you can't get the MD or TF. 

Is there a problem? Depends on who you ask. Should it be fixed. Depends on who you ask. 

I think the bigger problem with scoring in wrestling is how few people can actually score our national tournament by hand. Oh, you can score your team by hand, but the type of scoring in tournaments changes based on how big the bracket is, how many you place, etc. A team from the Pac-12 wrestles a completely different scoring format than they do at the NCAA championships because places and rounds are drastically different in size. 

We have too many nuance rules in wrestling and it makes the acceptability outside of our own people that much more difficult. It's not the casual fan, it's the freaking advertising companies who COULD be convinced to put the sport on the air with more sponsorship. Why do we see cornhole on TV? It's easy to explain. Throw the bag in the hole. It's a bar/outdoor game. 

Having simple rules for non-wrestling people to understand is pretty easy to understand. Took my kids to a hockey game today. Goal. 1. Simple. Yes, team sports are different, but we adapt or we die. If we try to adapt after we're already in the casket, it's too late. 

[1032004]

3 hours ago, Jason Bryant said:

Dual meets need to mean something first. Then we'll see the manipulation of that oddly random scoring metric after it gets gamed or we get one bad call leading to a 16-15 win on criteria before people go back go clamoring "you want a title decided like that?"

I also see zero issues with a team winning 4 matches and winning a dual - we have that possibility right now. Only time people complain is when it happens against their team. 

The harder part is finding a split where a team wins 3 bouts but wins the dual. That's what can't happen now. I'd love to see how many instances this has actually happened. 

 

Also, you can't really retroactively apply 'would have won' scenarios because people would completely wrestle differently if they were trying to win the dual knowing they were behind. Applying point systems to what-if scenarios really aren't logical, because it assumes everything would stay the same, when it wouldn't. Keep wrestling til the very end instead of shutting it down when you know you can't get the MD or TF. 

Is there a problem? Depends on who you ask. Should it be fixed. Depends on who you ask. 

I think the bigger problem with scoring in wrestling is how few people can actually score our national tournament by hand. Oh, you can score your team by hand, but the type of scoring in tournaments changes based on how big the bracket is, how many you place, etc. A team from the Pac-12 wrestles a completely different scoring format than they do at the NCAA championships because places and rounds are drastically different in size. 

We have too many nuance rules in wrestling and it makes the acceptability outside of our own people that much more difficult. It's not the casual fan, it's the freaking advertising companies who COULD be convinced to put the sport on the air with more sponsorship. Why do we see cornhole on TV? It's easy to explain. Throw the bag in the hole. It's a bar/outdoor game. 

Having simple rules for non-wrestling people to understand is pretty easy to understand. Took my kids to a hockey game today. Goal. 1. Simple. Yes, team sports are different, but we adapt or we die. If we try to adapt after we're already in the casket, it's too late. 

Yeah I don’t have much issue with 4 wins beating 6 in a dual.  3 over 7 I would.  I totally get the “they would have wrestled differently” argument, but I feel like for the most part that doesn’t usually come into play until the last few matches at most.  Or is the argument that this scoring system would make the matches more exciting because guys would want to win by more?  I’d understand that argument more than “the current scoring is confusing and arbitrary”

Cornhole has “arbitrary” scoring too.

And if we’re talking about confusion, I agree the scoring at NCAA’s would be a much bigger issue.

But if the question is what can we do to get wrestling on TV more, I just think changing the dual meet scoring format would be pretty far down my priority list.   Not to derail the thread but off the top of my head IMO all of the below would be more beneficial:

1. Get rid of singlets

2. Cauliflower ear (make guys wear headgear in practice)

3. 3-point takedown and/or pushout rule

4. Get rid of riding time - it encourages stalling and is also confusing to casual fans (IMO moreso than the scoring system)

5. Consistent stalling calls/make it actually a rule that top guy needs to work for a fall

Edited December 31, 2022 by 1032004

[Jason Bryant]

I'm with you on a lot of that. The sport needs renovation. It doesn't need wholesale changes from what makes it great, but the old mentality of being tough is one thing, being stubborn lost us a lot more - programs, kids, fans, opportunities. 

[ionel]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

1. Get rid of singlets

2. Cauliflower ear (make guys wear headgear in practice)

 

Wait a minute ... wrestlers running around wearing nothing but headgear ... is that gonna grow the sport ... think of the children ... good grief think of the heavy weights.  

[Fadzaev2]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:05 AM, Formally140 said:

Mods can I edit the title please

[Fadzaev2]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:14 AM, Formally140 said:

That’s for former presidential candidate Bob Dole to decide. I of course will abide by his decision as.. I don’t really care that much. 

And I do this forum when not busy with work or other things. Hence why I missed the error in the title. An occasional typo is going to happen. 
 

 

I guess we better proof read more carefully.....I've been there and done that as well.

[Formally140]

2 minutes ago, Fadzaev2 said:

I guess we better proof read more carefully.....I've been there and done that as well.

I know. But it’s like magic. I start posting. Suddenly I have to do other things 

[davenowa]

Agree with Jason that much of this is moot unless duals start meaning more, at both HS and college levels.  Improving fan experience starts with minimizing forfeits and increasing scoring and action, and while I favor simplified scoring, it is secondary to increased action.  I think it is fixable for dual scoring, but not sure about tournaments (for which scoring can be made easier, but not sure if will achieve goal of increasing action across the board), as it seems to me that with the exception of the very few upper-echelon teams at an individually bracketed tournament, there is no incentive to win 12-2 or by fall as opposed to 1-0 on a single escape, since for 90% of those teams, the team score means little or nothing--just win and advance as an individual. That is why I seem to enjoy NCAA March matches that involve PSU (no allegiance) and those teams contending for the title in any given year, since they have some incentive to bonus. So for now, let's focus on duals.  Since readers love paragraphs, bold fonts and such, here are some goals and possible solutions (mostly focused on HS, but possibly applicable beyond):

1.  Reduce the number of forfeits created by limited rosters.  Whether this means more small school combo co-ops, or implementing the 13 NFHS weights, or doing a better job of increasing numbers by retaining more youth wrestlers, or convincing "new" 9th graders that they can still become successful without 7 years of youth experience being a pre-requisite, or promising families that you won't have 11 consecutive Saturdays of 14 hour tournaments.  Something, because the current situation of 2 teams with 9-man rosters meeting for a dual that produces 5 actual matches is unbearable.

2.  Reduce the number of forfeits created by ducking.  Locked line-ups would achieve this.  While could be in conjunction with matside weigh-ins, I will omit that in this discussion.  With too much reliance on a coin toss determining an outcome, and too many coaches ducking tough opponents, why make a dual different than a bracketed tournament?  Prior to the anthem, submit your roster to the table.  You can still strategize, based on what you expect your opponent to submit...but you don't get to win just because you called heads and the other team had to send their stud at 126 first, so you could duck him, bump up your kid to 132, give a forfeit (pissing off the family of the kid who came to see their wrestler now get a forfeit, as well as equally pissing off your 132's family because now he is out for tonight since your 126 is a little better and has a slightly better chance to beat their 132).  While a forfeit at a weight for which you have nobody and submit no one on the roster would still be a 6 point loss, if you listed someone and then remove them, it is 7 points.  And you can't bump them up. This concept of avoiding your opponent needs to die a quick death.  A tennis team can't put their best player at #3 singles because they know they will lose to the other team's number 1 player.

3. Increase the action for full match duration.  Even most dedicated fans get bored by a 1-1 match with offsetting escapes headed to OT.  It is also rather arbitrary that getting ahead by 8 points earns you a bonus, so any match where that is unlikely (or getting to TF criteria) can often end with an uneventful final minute or 2.  Or 3 or 4.  If each point you win by increases your team points (or conversely, each single point the loser can reduce the margin will help his team), the incentive to keep wrestling and scoring is increased.  My preference is a "Margin of Victory" hybrid of what has been described as "point earned = point scored" such that it maintains a base point value  for any victory, thereby eliminating the possibility of 1 big win offsetting 8 or 9 close decisions, a deal-breaker for most.  With a base of 3 points for a win, you can earn from 3 to 4.4 points (for a margin of victory from 1-14).  TF still 5 and pins still 6.  All you decimal haters can convert it to 30 points up to 44 points, with 50 for a TF and 60 for a pin (now offending all traditionalists with such high scores).  However, we currently use 1/2 points in tournaments, and with computerized scoring, it is quite simple.

4.  Increase overall match scoring: This one might be a little too radical for most, but like Marty McFly said "I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet.  But your kids are gonna love it."  As a modification of the MOV scoring, this awards 2 team points for the win plus the MOV pts (still from 0.1 to 1.4) PLUS the action points, which are an additional 0.1 to 1.5 for the number of points scored by the winning wrestler.  This produces wins earning from 2.2 for a 1-0, up to 4.9 for a 17-3 win (action points cap at 15).  I would much rather see a 12-9 match than a 3-0 bout, where perhaps some risks have been taken).  I have attached a link to a google sheet with all scoring scenarios, and am still a little torn about an 11-2 win equal to a 10-0 score...but ya gotta keep scoring.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1u648y9JRoRgD_CljgRiqp5AgRlaSXS7jndKxvNjcoP8/edit?usp=sharing

5.  Eliminate the awful levels of dual meet tie-breakers: This is achieved rather easily for 99% of ties if there are 13 weights in HS (or perhaps, someday, 11 in college), but lacking that, it is also reached by the modified scoring above.  No one want to see a dual winner decided by TB i, which team had more first points scored, especially if some genius decides it is advantageous to lose a point for an untied shoe rather than give up the first takedown.

6.  Simplify Scoring: Yeah, although stated it was not top priority, but since we are at it...4-3-2-1 scoring, emphasizing takedowns and nearfalls. 

A.  Takedowns worth 3 pts
B.  Reversals 2 pts
C.  Escapes 1 pt
D.  Nearfalls from 2 to 4 pts (2 pts for 2 swipes, 3 pts for 4 seconds and 4 pts for 6 seconds)
E.  Penalties simply progress from 1-2-3-4-DQ (same for stalling)
F.  If college to maintain riding point, only applicable if nearfall points have been scored during match.
G.  Unless the size of circle is reduced (as most HS can't fit multiple big mats), there must be more incentive to wrestle toward the center, so either shrink circle and apply college OOB rules, or consideration some variation of a push-out rule, from neutral, with 1-2-3-4 scoring.

I would still try to simplify tournament scoring, such that advancement points are eliminated, placement points are retained, and points for winning on the championship side are just like in a dual (modified as above), with consi side simply cut in half.  Also, for those against a reduction in weight classes, I am a strong proponent of allowing teams to enter 2 extra wrestlers in any individually bracketed tourney (double-entries in any 2 wts), increasing opportunities in those events (but not in duals). 

Starting to think this should have perhaps been posted as a few different topics, but I do think Sen. Dole will now be inclined to edit the original title, as I know he despises locked line-ups as much as typos. Thanks to the original poster for bringing up this topic, and I am sure others have wondered (and may have asked) if Formally 140 has to with wrestling in a tux, or was it a similar original typo meant to be formerly 140?  Happy New Year to all, and again echo the sentiment that change in the goal of progress is not always a bad thing.  

[SoonerKing]

my 2 cents...Duals do mean something to HS coaches.  That is why they bump/manipulate their line-ups constantly.  They want the W.  Most of the suggested changes though are easier to implement in college over HS.  I see no harm in doing it.  A forfeit (especially at college level) needs to be worth more than a pin.  If you are at a college and can't fill a team that is *pathetic*.  You should be penalized at college level for submitting a forfeit.  Much more difficult to implement at HS level.  

 

Recommendation for HS is that you need to use the classification system.  Again, big schools should be able to fill full lineups.  Smaller classification schools can have modified weight classes for duals.  6 weight classes in smallest division, then 8 weight classes and then 10 weight classes and then full lineups.  Weight classes can be 100 - 112, 113 - 122, 123 - 134, 135 - 150, 151 - 170, 171 - 195, and 195 - 265.  That's actually 7 weight classes but I'm honestly white boarding this as I go.  Let someone else invest the hours of time.  In this you still have your state weight classes for tournaments.  The purpose is to make the duals exciting and mean something at all levels and finding a way to penalize forfeits.

 

As stated, let's support JB in pushing this at college level first.

[Wrestleknownothing]

It seems like a lot of people trace ducking/seed protection/decline of duals as a meaningful competition to the idea that the only thing that matters is the NCAA tournament.

If that is the case then it seems to me that no tweaking or wholesale changes to how duals is going to do anything to change that dynamic. If this is the case then it seems to me that having a team title decided by a dual format, where qualification is tied to dual results, is the only way to make duals meaningful again.

Now, good luck getting a team title based on a dual format to happen.

[AKHUNTER]

On 12/29/2022 at 2:36 PM, Mr. PeanutButter said:

It's a neat idea, I was for it for a few minutes until I thought of the scenarios that others have pointed out. 

How about: 1 point for a decision, 2 for a major, 3 for tech, 4 for a pin. Really puts a premium on the pins, which I think is a good thing

I like most of this/.......but how about 7 for a pin. Make pins mean a LOT......... like they used to. Pins are so under valued in today's scoring. It's very easy to see why there are so few pins now days. Make their value HIGH and pins will increase. After all, pinning should be what you should be trying for every match...... Pretty sure Schalles would agree.