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.
