The Open Mat Forum

Wrestling => Fantasy Wrestling => Topic started by: AKIN on August 27, 2011, 10:51:57 PM

Title: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on August 27, 2011, 10:51:57 PM
Please post any modifications you would like to see in the rules. This can be on any rule, scoring, drafting, trades, etc. This is not where we wull vote on any changes, just trying to get ideas on what you guys want.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Gage on August 28, 2011, 03:15:27 PM
im in the league
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Cicero on August 29, 2011, 09:12:02 AM
For reference:

ALL WEEKLY LINEUPS ARE DUE MIDNIGHT CENTRAL TIME THURSDAY.

The Basics
1. 15 wrestlers per team. You'll start 11 wrestlers per week, one guy at each weight from 125-285 and then a "flex" guy from any weight you choose who will be eligible to score points at whatever weight he wrestles.

2. There isn't going to be head to head during the regular season. The standings will go strictly by total points scored.

The regular season will run up through Conferences. After Conferences the 4 highest scoring teams will advance to the finals during NCAA's, and we're also going to take two wild cards this year.

These wild cards will be the two highest scoring teams during Conference week that wouldn't already be going to the next round anyway. Come NCAA's I'll wipe the scores clean and it'll be a 6 way scramble for the championship.

3. 3 points for a win by decision, 4 for a major, 5 for a tech with back's and 6 for a pin. Same as we've done the last two years.

4. All dual meets count for points. Other events that will count for points will be the All Star Match, Hokie Open, Kauffman Brand Open, Las Vegas, Reno, Midlands, Scuffle, Penn State Open, Michigan State Open, NC State Open, Body Bar Invitational, Navy Classic, Brockport tournament, the EMU Open, the Binghamton Open, PSACS, NY Interscholastics and the Missouri open.


5. Wrestlers who win the Vegas, Reno, Midlands and Scuffle tournaments will get a ten point bonus added to their scores. Wrestlers who finish second in those tournaments will get five bonus points.

6. Wrestlers who win the Big 10 and Big 12 tournaments will get 16 bonus points added to their scores, those finishing second in these two tournaments will get 12 bonus points. The guys who win OW at those tournaments will also get 5 bonus points. All other conferences will have bonuses of 12 points for a championship and 8 points for a second.

7. Trades are permitted, free agency is not. We'll have a trading deadline this year of 2/17.

8. Supplemental will be back during the holiday weekend in its 3 round format.

New Rules/Changes
1. Keeper Rule: You keep a guy from last season, he counts as your first round draft choice.

2. We're eliminating the rule where you don't get points if your wrestler bumps up a weight in a dual. If your wrestler wrestles in a dual and wins you get his points.

However if your wrestler bumps up and loses but his back up wins you don't get the back ups points.

The rule from last year where if your wrestler doesn't wrestle and his back up wins will stay the same. You will get those points just as long as someone else doesn't have the back up.

3. Back Ups will be eligible for tournaments this year. The difference between tournaments and duals however will be that in tournaments to get points from a back up you will have to specifically declare that back up in your line up for the week.

4. If your wrestler beats a guy in the TOM Top 20 at a tournament that we don't score you'll get points for that.

5. If you trade a guy away, but then for some reason want him back you'll have to wait three weeks before you're able to trade back for him.

6. NCAA's will deviate from normal scoring. We will use official tournament scoring there, not the scoring used during the regular season. All other tournaments will continue to be scored in the 3/4/5/6 format.

My thoughts - Unless Reno is tougher this year, it shouldn't include bonus for winning or getting second.  OW at CKLV, Midlands and Scuffle should come with bonus like conference tournaments. 
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on August 29, 2011, 10:53:55 AM
I'm not the largest fan of counting every match wrestled.  Here's the issue I have...let's say that McBono's backup is westling at the Spartan Open unattached on some weekend McBono has off.  Now I know ahead of time that this will be the case SO I name the backup my starter and get to count his points for  trouncing redshirts at a no-name tournament.  there are tournaments that include fields of one or maybe two competitive weights (seemingly mostly on the the East Coast) and not everyone is gonna know who or the what to pick for them.  I'm not brightest to search each and every team out there to see who I should draft because they're going to the bumf@ck tournament and will be one of only 3 DI teams there.  just the humble opinion of a less than stellar player who does his best to keep up with the whole thing.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: crablegs on August 29, 2011, 04:56:07 PM
I'm with Bryce we should keep the scoring tournaments to the tougher ones.  Just need to do a little research prior to the draft. 
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on August 29, 2011, 05:28:55 PM
in the NAIA to have a tournament count as a "qualifier" for a spot at Nationals (or at least for it to use to count) you had to finish in the top percent of the attached wrestlers there given a certain number of teams.  so I'm fine with counting a guys win a tournament IF there are a certain number of schools there with attached wrestlers from DI or a certain number of guys ranked in the top 20??? or so in his bracket.  all wins over DI opponets should count regardless of where/when they happen
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Drooke on September 01, 2011, 10:39:25 PM
The" wresling for a change" duals looks like a great weekend.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: TehGratest on September 02, 2011, 07:10:07 AM
in the NAIA to have a tournament count as a "qualifier" for a spot at Nationals (or at least for it to use to count) you had to finish in the top percent of the attached wrestlers there given a certain number of teams.  so I'm fine with counting a guys win a tournament IF there are a certain number of schools there with attached wrestlers from DI or a certain number of guys ranked in the top 20??? or so in his bracket.  all wins over DI opponets should count regardless of where/when they happen

What constitutes D1?  Anybody on a D1 roster?  Normally the 3rd or 4th stringers get sent to the crappy opens.  I don't think getting wins over Cleveland State's 3rd string guys is really in the spirit of competition.

Just playing devils advocate.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 09, 2011, 03:41:07 PM
Here are the preliminary rules going into next season. As you can see, I did not change to scoring all tournaments. We have some that want it and some that don't, so this season we will go with the way it has been. Also, I dropped the point value for the champ and runner up at the Big 12 tournament. I did this because it is a 4 team tournament, and I can not give the same bonus to someone who wins two matches to win a tournament compared to the guys that have to grind through the Big 10 tournament. If you have an issue with this, let me know. It won't change anything, but you can speak your peace.

If there aren't any major arguments about the rules as they are written, this is what we will go with. I am going to get a new child board set up for the league. Be looking for the info on the draft there soon. I am looking forward to a good league with everyone staying on top of their line-ups the whole way through the season. If you have any questions or concerns, let me know.


ALL WEEKLY LINEUPS ARE DUE MIDNIGHT CENTRAL TIME THURSDAY.

The Basics
1. 15 wrestlers per team. You'll start 11 wrestlers per week, one guy at each weight from 125-285 and then a "flex" guy from any weight you choose who will be eligible to score points at whatever weight he wrestles.

2. There isn't going to be head to head during the regular season. The standings will go strictly by total points scored.

The regular season will run up through Conferences. After Conferences the 4 highest scoring teams will advance to the finals during NCAA's, along with two wild cards teams.

These wild cards will be the two highest scoring teams during Conference week that wouldn't already be going to the next round anyway. Come NCAA's I'll wipe the scores clean and it'll be a 6 way scramble for the championship.

3. 3 points for a win by decision, 4 for a major, 5 for a tech with back's and 6 for a pin.

4. All dual meets count for points. Other events that will count for points will be the All Star Match, Hokie Open, Kauffman Brand Open, Las Vegas, Reno, Midlands, Scuffle, Penn State Open, Michigan State Open, NC State Open, Body Bar Invitational, Navy Classic, Brockport tournament, the EMU Open, the Binghamton Open, PSACS, NY Interscholastics, the Keystone Classic, and the Missouri open.

5. Wrestlers who win the Vegas, Reno, Midlands and Scuffle tournaments will get a ten point bonus added to their scores. Wrestlers who finish second in those tournaments will get five bonus points. OW for these tournaments will get 5 bonus points.

6. Conference scoring will be as such:

Big 10  16-1st/ 12-2nd

Big 12  12-1st/ 8-2nd

All others 10-1st/ 6-2nd
The guys who win OW at those tournaments will also get 5 bonus points.

7. Trades are permitted, free agency is not. We'll have a trading deadline this year of 2/16.

8. Supplemental draft will be back during the holiday weekend in its 3 round format. NEW MODIFICATION: The first pick in the supplemental draft will not cost you a current roster spot. The 2nd and 3rd pick, if you take it, will cost you a wrestler off of your current roster.
9.  If your wrestler wrestles in a dual at a different weight and wins you get his points.

However if your wrestler bumps up and loses but his back up wins you don't get the back ups points.

The rule from last year where if your wrestler doesn't wrestle and his back up wins will stay the same. You will get those points just as long as someone else doesn't have the back up.

10. Back Up rule: The difference between tournaments and duals  will be that in tournaments to get points from a back up you will have to specifically declare that back up in your line up for the week.

11. If your wrestler beats a guy in the TOM Top 20 at a tournament that we don't score you'll get points for that.

12. If you trade a guy away, but then for some reason want him back you'll have to wait three weeks before you're able to trade back for him.

6. NCAA's will deviate from normal scoring. We will use official tournament scoring there, not the scoring used during the regular season. All other tournaments will continue to be scored in the 3/4/5/6 format.

 
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: TehGratest on September 11, 2011, 09:26:44 PM
One thing to consider about the Big 12:  Yes, it is a 4 team conference and doesn't match the rigor of the Big 10 or EIWA.  However, the points that will be awarded will be so minuscule and make drafting Big 12 guys an even larger liability.  Big 12 teams typically have limited schedules as it is.  Only wrestling 2 matches at Conference is a distinct disadvantage given the typical quality of opponent.  SoCon or East Regional scrubs get more matches against inferior competition, yet are awarded more handsomely?  This doesn't seem logical to me.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Drooke on September 11, 2011, 11:04:43 PM
I would like to open up the discussion on the supplemental draft. I would like to have an extra add with no drop. Basically adding one number to our existing roster for the rest of the season. What say all of you?

Also I think the bonus should stay the same for Big 12 champions...they are missing out on the opportunity to pick up regular points that the big ten champs will due to the number of matches they actually wrestle.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on September 12, 2011, 01:16:22 PM
I stand with Akin on the Big 12.  they're basically wrestling a freaking triangular.  no way they deserve the same bonus as someone who comes out of the Big 10.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 12, 2011, 01:28:16 PM
I would like to open up the discussion on the supplemental draft. I would like to have an extra add with no drop. Basically adding one number to our existing roster for the rest of the season. What say all of you?

Also I think the bonus should stay the same for Big 12 champions...they are missing out on the opportunity to pick up regular points that the big ten champs will due to the number of matches they actually wrestle.

I had forgotten the Supp. draft thing. I actually like the idea of not having to drop someone to pick another one up. I would say that you could pick up one extra without having to drop, but anymore than that, you would have to drop one.

The fact that they don't have thay many matches is the exact reason I think they should not have the same bonus. Why should a guy that wrestles two matches to win conference get the same bonus as someone who wrestles a grinder like the Big 10? The bonus to me is because you won a tough tournament, not too make up for lack of matches in the tournament. If that was the logic for the bonus, than the Big 10 would have less bonus than the other conference tournaments.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: TehGratest on September 12, 2011, 09:18:28 PM
I would like to open up the discussion on the supplemental draft. I would like to have an extra add with no drop. Basically adding one number to our existing roster for the rest of the season. What say all of you?

Also I think the bonus should stay the same for Big 12 champions...they are missing out on the opportunity to pick up regular points that the big ten champs will due to the number of matches they actually wrestle.
.

The fact that they don't have thay many matches is the exact reason I think they should not have the same bonus. Why should a guy that wrestles two matches to win conference get the same bonus as someone who wrestles a grinder like the Big 10? The bonus to me is because you won a tough tournament, not too make up for lack of matches in the tournament. If that was the logic for the bonus, than the Big 10 would have less bonus than the other conference tournaments.
By the same token why should someone who wins the East Regional or So Con get the same as Big 12?  They very rarely have guys even ranked, much less competition between ranked wrestlers.

Big 12 is competitive at all weights every season.  It's still a very hard conference to win(Probably the 3rd toughest)

Last year they only had 5, so what's really different?  There were lots of conference champs who only wrestled 2 matches, so for most scenarios it's the exact same amount of matches. 
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Cicero on September 14, 2011, 09:40:46 AM
At the Big 10s last year 13 of the 20 finalists had 3 matches.  Other than the extra weigh in, I'm not sure the grind is all of that increased.

As TehGreatest said, the lack of a grind was equally true last year at the Big 12 but no one seemed to have that much trouble with it.  Only 1 finalist, Klingsheim came from the pigtail and wrestled 3 matches there.  The rest wrestled two, the exact same number they will wrestle this year.  If these one or two matches make that much of a difference, then why not allow the EIWA champs to have that extra bonus? Their finalists generally have the same matches as the B10.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 14, 2011, 09:46:40 AM
Ok, so how about we drop the bonus for the other conference tournaments to 10 for 1st and 6 for 2nd. I still don't think at this point the Big 12 should receive the same bonus as the Big 10. So if people think the Big 12 should have more than the other conferences, then we just drop their value.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: crablegs on September 14, 2011, 09:51:17 AM
I don't the big 12 should be worth as much as the big 10. 
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 14, 2011, 11:42:31 AM
So would it be better to have 3 tiers of bonus for the conference tournaments?

Big 10  16-1st/ 12-2nd

Big 12  12-1st/ 8-2nd

All others 10-1st/ 6-2nd

All of this will most likely not be an issue in a season or two, as the Big 12 is on life support and has one foot in the grave.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on September 14, 2011, 11:55:18 AM
the Big Ten Tournament has tougher competition fighting it out in the Semifinals and Finals.  there I said it.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 14, 2011, 11:57:35 AM
That's a given, for the most part.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: TehGratest on September 14, 2011, 12:46:44 PM
I don't the big 12 should be worth as much as the big 10.

Good, because it wouldn't be.  Big 10 wrestlers will wrestle more matches to earn the bonus.  Thus the point totals will be greater in the big 10.

Another thing to consider:

Think about Big 12 125 this year
Alan Waters
Jon Morrison
Ryak Finch
Jarrod Patterson

That's your bracket, don't know about the order but a VERY good wrestler will go 0-2 in their conference.  That simply wouldn't happen in any other conference.  I don't think 125 is the only example in the big 12 where this will happen.

This fact alone makes drafting Big 12 wrestlers an EXTREME risk.  You're very good wrestler could go 0-2 while some sub-par kid in the East Regional who was pinned by the 4th place big 12er gets 3 pins en route to a title over nobodies.

Drafting or not drafting wrestlers shouldn't come down to choosing who has the easier conference, rather the better wrestlers.  I would had to see someone qualify and waste a playoff spot by drafting mediocre wrestlers from horrible conferences. 

I think those of you against the bonus for big 12 aren't thinking of it with the quite perspective.

The equal bonus doesn't suggest that one conference is equal to the other.  Certainly the Big 10 will have more AA's and probably NC's this year.  The equal bonus makes up for the lack of matches that a wrestler has and makes drafting a big 12 wrestler not an extreme liability.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: crablegs on September 14, 2011, 12:57:30 PM
TG, I respect your opinion but I disagree.  The Big12 is simply not as deep and tough, and therefore the bonus should not be worth as much. 

You use 125, as an example which is fine.  That is a pretty tough weight in the big 12, but look at 141 for example and you only have 2 ranked wrestlers.  None of them higher than 10th. 

149 in the Big 12 you have Jamal Parks (4) and Matt Lester (18).  Should Parks really get the same bonus as Molinaro (1) who to win the tournament would have to beat or place above Lopouchanski (8), Grajales (9), Ness (10), Terrazas (12), Iowa Guy (13), and Schmitt (16). 

No way, no how should Big 12 bonus be as much as the big 10.  At many weights the EIWA will be much harder to win than the Big 12. 
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Cicero on September 14, 2011, 01:46:16 PM
I think if you lower the points scoreable at conference for the Big XII you have to lower the others too with the possible exception of the EIWA.  Otherwise the distortion of a big weak conference over the Big XII is too much. If not the max a Big XII wrestler can score at a conference tournament will barely be more than the minimum a champ from another conference can score.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on September 14, 2011, 02:05:34 PM
what about waiting until conference to decide the basis of the bonus based on how difficult each weight class per tourney works out
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: TehGratest on September 14, 2011, 09:17:30 PM
TG, I respect your opinion but I disagree.  The Big12 is simply not as deep and tough, and therefore the bonus should not be worth as much. 

You use 125, as an example which is fine.  That is a pretty tough weight in the big 12, but look at 141 for example and you only have 2 ranked wrestlers.  None of them higher than 10th. 

149 in the Big 12 you have Jamal Parks (4) and Matt Lester (18).  Should Parks really get the same bonus as Molinaro (1) who to win the tournament would have to beat or place above Lopouchanski (8), Grajales (9), Ness (10), Terrazas (12), Iowa Guy (13), and Schmitt (16). 

No way, no how should Big 12 bonus be as much as the big 10.  At many weights the EIWA will be much harder to win than the Big 12.

You're missing the point, which is probably why you disagree.

On that note, I digress.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 14, 2011, 09:21:14 PM
So do you have a good option?
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: TehGratest on September 15, 2011, 07:21:15 AM
So do you have a good option?

Leave it as is.  Same bonus for Big 10 and Big 12.  There was nothing wrong with the rule last year, and as was previously pointed out, not much has changed as far as how many matches will be wrestled at Big 12's. 

Big 10 champs will have a nice advantage over Big 12 by the extra match(es) they will get to wrestle. 

Again: This doesn't mean the Big 12 is as tough or "equal" to the Big 10.  Just like the EIWA isn't t the equal of the So Con.  But they do have equal point values in their conference tournament.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 15, 2011, 10:28:22 AM
Ok, I would like a consensus from everyone on this. What is the most fair option on bonus for the conference tournaments. I want this league to be as enjoyable that it can be for everyone involved, so I would like as much input as to how it should run as I can get. I think everyone is pretty much on board with everything other than the bonus issue.

I want input on the supplemental draft issue. How does the option of not dropping a wrestler from your roster for the first extra wrestler drafted sound? You would have to drop if you wanted to add more than that, but the first one would be an addition to your roster. Does that sound kosher?
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: crablegs on September 15, 2011, 10:44:23 AM
Really, it doesn't matter to me how you do it Akin.  So I hope I'm not making things confusing.  Personally I think the Big12 is a far weaker conference than the Big 10.  So because of that I see no reason it should have the same reward for winning the tournament.  TG thinks that because it is a far weaker tournament that the bonus should be the same in order to prop up the scores of Big 12 wrestlers.  Either way, not really going to effect who I pick.  Only 1 guy can win a class anyway. 
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Cicero on September 15, 2011, 11:39:02 AM
It isn't to prop it up because it is far weaker, but because there are fewer matches. If the Big XII absorbed the SoCon it would still be far weaker than the Big 10, but the need to account for the lack of matches wouldn't be there.  Being on par with the EIWA would be right.

I say leave the bonus the same.

I like the idea of being able to pick up a guy without dropping one.

Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on September 15, 2011, 12:07:31 PM
I still think we should weight it based on how difficult the weight is at that conference tourney.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 15, 2011, 02:23:26 PM
So basically you want to wait until the conference tournaments before deciding what the bonus will be? We would need to have some sort of system to determine how the bonus would be determined. Sounds like a cluster to me, unless you already have something in mind.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on September 15, 2011, 02:30:26 PM
example:

turns out 125 is toughest in the Big 10
2nd tougest in Big 12
3rd Eiwa.

so the guy that wins the Big 10 gets 5 bonus, Big 12, 4, Eiwa 3.
2nd in the Big 10 gets 4, Big 12, 3, Eiwa 2.

and so on through all the weights.

use the final TOM preconference rankings to weight the weights per conference so every one knows ahead of time.  I know it sucks for people drafting at the beginning, but it might work.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: crablegs on September 15, 2011, 03:02:00 PM
I kind of like the idea, but how do you determine toughest.  # of guys ranked in TOM top 20?  What if the Big 12 had 3 in the top 10 while the Big 10 had 4 in the top 20 but 3 of the 4 are 11-20?  You would need a system for this as well. 
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 15, 2011, 03:05:15 PM
If someone wants to come up with a complete plan for the bonus, I have no problem implementing it.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on September 15, 2011, 03:23:16 PM
that's an excellent point Crab and something I was thinking about.  could we weight it and give a points system per ranking spot.  that way you could see it a little better.  say the number one guy gets 50???  #2 48, #3 45, #4 41, #5 37, #6 33, #7 32, #8 31, #9 30, #10 28, #11 21, #12 20, #13 19, #14 13, #15 12, #16 10, #17 9, #18 8, #19 7, #20 6.

I mean every five spots there's a drop in points awarded for ranking spot.  and there's more points giving to having 2 guys in the top 10 than having 4 guys all ranked from 10 to 20. 

I don't know I'm not good with math it was just an idea.  we can always just stay the same even though the Big 12 is a triangular this season.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Cicero on September 15, 2011, 03:45:45 PM
Average the rankings? It would seem like that would work out well. 

Test case was 165 from last year.  Big 12 had all 5 guys in the top 12 (1,2,5,10,11).  Big 10 had 3 guys in the top 8 (6,7,8 Howe not ranked).  Big 12 average 5.8, Big 10 average 7. 

If it isn't a whole number difference I would suggest giving them both the same points.

 
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 15, 2011, 04:22:49 PM
That could be do-able, I guess. There is a two week window, basically, between the last competition and the conference tournaments. So I should have enough time to get the averages figured out and post the bonuses per conference. This will be for all qualifying tournaments, correct? I could see the bonus points being the same:

Top avg rank: 16-12
2nd best: 12-8
3rd: 10-6
others: 8-4
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on September 15, 2011, 04:53:16 PM
that's why instead of just averaging the rankings you weight them so the top 10 counts more than the 11-20 range.  and the top 5 counts more than the 6-10 range.  just my thought.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Drooke on September 15, 2011, 09:11:10 PM
We totally need to score the keystone classic this season.... check out the thread...  http://forum.theopenmat.com/index.php/topic,15886.0.html
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: TehGratest on September 16, 2011, 07:06:25 AM
I still think we should weight it based on how difficult the weight is at that conference tourney.

So your suggestion is to rank every weight of every conference?

That won't get confusing and/or subjective.

I don't think much needs to be changed from last year personally.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: ViseGrip on September 16, 2011, 12:49:39 PM
So would it be better to have 3 tiers of bonus for the conference tournaments?

Big 10  16-1st/ 12-2nd

Big 12  12-1st/ 8-2nd

All others 10-1st/ 6-2nd

All of this will most likely not be an issue in a season or two, as the Big 12 is on life support and has one foot in the grave.

I think this is fair.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: brycemus on September 16, 2011, 01:03:44 PM
I feel that if there isn't an absolute consensus we should just leave the rules the same.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: herbp on September 16, 2011, 01:07:03 PM
I like ALL events scored with a uniform bonus point allotment . i.e.-Reno champion-+15-2nd +10-Midllands same -SS-same (if held this year )-then

Big 10==1st-+20-2nd +10
Big -12 -same
 ALL other conferences  1st-+10 2nd +5-this way the two top conferences (usually), receive extra points for being tougher .DRAFT Big 12 at your own risk knowing your wrestler might score you only 10 points in the conference tournament..
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 16, 2011, 01:16:45 PM
We totally need to score the keystone classic this season.... check out the thread...  http://forum.theopenmat.com/index.php/topic,15886.0.html

I remember this conversation, and I will add this tournament. We still need a consensus as to whether we score every match wrestled for the whole season, as well.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: ViseGrip on September 16, 2011, 01:20:55 PM
We totally need to score the keystone classic this season.... check out the thread...  http://forum.theopenmat.com/index.php/topic,15886.0.html

I remember this conversation, and I will add this tournament. We still need a consensus as to whether we score every match wrestled for the whole season, as well.

I prefer all matches scored.

But I feel stronger about giving the Big XII champs and runners up SOME bonus... not as much as the BeeOneGee but something.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: OkieSpladle on September 16, 2011, 01:23:48 PM
Bonus Issue: Though it does devalue wrestlers from the Big 12 I think the proposed 3 tiered system is best.  Every year you have to figure out how to make the post-season while also having guys who will score when they get there.  Its part of the challenge.  If we just wanted the best guys to always get the most points we may as well just score the NCAAs and that would be less fun.  I absolutely disagree with waiting until conference tournament time to determine the bonus.  We need to know the point sturcture during the draft to make informed choices.

Supplemental issue:  Pick up another guy without dropping for sure.  This is an easy choice to increase the fun.

Score all matches: I'd rather not, but its fine with me if we do.  Talk about trying to walk a line between having guys who score during the season and guys who will score in the play-offs. This would be all kinds of tough, but I'm not sure it would be fun.  I'll vote against it.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: BryanB on September 16, 2011, 04:21:43 PM
Bonus Issue: I vote no Change

Supplemental issue:  I vote to pick up one without dropping 

Score all matches: I'm torn on this one.  There're pros and cons with each.  I'll keep reading posts and see if someone can sway me to one side or the other.

Akin,

Should we put a sticky with a formal vote option and deadline?
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 16, 2011, 04:56:16 PM
Excellent idea, Bryan. Thank you.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Drooke on September 16, 2011, 09:08:35 PM
We totally need to score the keystone classic this season.... check out the thread...  http://forum.theopenmat.com/index.php/topic,15886.0.html

I remember this conversation, and I will add this tournament. We still need a consensus as to whether we score every match wrestled for the whole season, as well.

Excellent! Nice idea Bryan...nice follow-up Akin.  It is good to see the discussion concerning this up-coming season....I can't wait!
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Drooke on September 28, 2011, 01:10:56 AM
Other events to consider....  The Mat Town invitational....the Buffalo Open and the Harold Nichols Open
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 28, 2011, 07:40:01 PM
Got a list of teams scheduled to compete at those?
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Drooke on September 28, 2011, 08:15:57 PM
Jarold Nichols ... http://intermatwrestle.com/Files/pdf/10-11/haroldnicholsopen.pdf

Mat Town.... you will have to click on the 2010 link on the left ... http://postedresults.escapesports.com/

The Buffalo Open ... http://www.buffalobulls.com/sports/wrest/2010-11/files/2010_UB1_Div____final_brackets.pdf#
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: AKIN on September 28, 2011, 08:20:00 PM
Will need some feedback on these.
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: Drooke on September 28, 2011, 09:56:16 PM
That is what I figured .....but we have a bit of time....just thought I would throw it out there...
Title: Re: Rule changes?
Post by: herbp on September 30, 2011, 09:33:54 PM
 I'd be all in for adding the Buffalo Open .buffalo has several studs and their tournament should be quality .