Author Topic: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO  (Read 844 times)

Offline BroncoSaurus

  • DII
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« on: March 07, 2022, 05:42:03 PM »
Yesterday in the PAC 12 tournament Arizona State won SIX of the ten weight classes yet BARELY won the team title (by a mere 1/2 point) over Oregon State and Oregon State had only ONE weight class champ.

Arizona State - 6 champions - 0 second place winners - 1 third place winner - 2 fourth place winners - 0 fifth place winners - 1 sixth place winner

Oregon State - 1 champion - 5 second place winners - 3 third place winners - 0 fourth place winners - 1 fifth place winner - 0 sixth place winners

When one team goes 6-0 in the finals and the other team goes 1-5 in the finals there is no way that tournament team scoring should be that close IMO.
Never argue with a fool.  They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.  -Anonymous

Offline RYou

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 18017
  • 3 out of 4 voices in my head want to sleep
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2022, 08:09:07 PM »
It seems PAC 12 has a very low point total for a champion,10 points maybe.  If so the spread between 1 and 2 is only 1 or 2 points

B1G uses 16 for a champion 12 for 2nd and 10 for 3rd plus advancement and bonus points.  That 4-point spread between 1st and 2nd would have made a huge difference for ASU.

Offline BroncoSaurus

  • DII
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2022, 07:08:40 AM »
It seems PAC 12 has a very low point total for a champion,10 points maybe.  If so the spread between 1 and 2 is only 1 or 2 points

B1G uses 16 for a champion 12 for 2nd and 10 for 3rd plus advancement and bonus points.  That 4-point spread between 1st and 2nd would have made a huge difference for ASU.

You are correct.  The PAC 12 scoring is 12 points for first, 10 for second, etc.  Having only two points difference for 1st and 2nd is idiotic IMO.   But it is the PAC 12 - so it's not particularly surprising (to me at least).   I'd prefer to see 20 pts for 1st, 15 for 2nd, 12 for 3rd, 9 for 4th, 6 for 5th and 3 for 6th.
Never argue with a fool.  They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.  -Anonymous

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 27574
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2022, 11:57:04 AM »
So how did OSU look in this tournament?  5 2nds is pretty good compared to where they were.  I'd say Pendleton is doing good there.  I was happy they got rid of Zalesky and brought in Pendleton.  He's bringing the team along very good.  Perhaps they will take 1st in the next few years. 

mspart

Offline BroncoSaurus

  • DII
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2022, 01:27:04 PM »
So how did OSU look in this tournament?  5 2nds is pretty good compared to where they were.  I'd say Pendleton is doing good there.  I was happy they got rid of Zalesky and brought in Pendleton.  He's bringing the team along very good.  Perhaps they will take 1st in the next few years. 

mspart

I'm not much of an Oregon State fan myself.  But having said that I expected Oregon State to not get any champions this year.  The one PAC 12 championship that they did win nobody could have predicted.  That being former Arizona State wrestler Trey Munoz pinning the # 1 seed (Bernie Truax) in just over 1 minute.

I think Pendleton is doing a great job tho at Oregon State.  However there are - as far as I can tell - going to be only 5 or 6 PAC 12 starters (total) who won't be returning for 2023 and THREE of those are starters for Oregon State.  Namely Cory Crooks (former ASU wrestler) at 149 lbs, Devan Turner at 133 lbs and Gary Traub at 285.   ASU loses only Anthony Valencia (165 lbs).  CS Bakersfield loses only Jacob Sieder (285 lbs) and Cal Poly MAY lose Evan Wick (165 lbs).  Wick, as I see it, has the option of returning for 2023 IF he wants to do so (thanks to the 2020 virus year season).  IF Wick does choose to return it will be his 7th year of NCAA wrestling.
Never argue with a fool.  They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.  -Anonymous

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 27574
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2022, 02:35:19 PM »
Looks like Chris has a recruiting opportunity!

mspart

Offline BroncoSaurus

  • DII
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2022, 04:58:22 PM »
Well, there's also the fact that the two Willits brothers took part in Oregon State's Senior day this year.  See this Feb. article on the Oregon State wrestling website:

https://osubeavers.com/news/2022/2/4/wrestling-downs-cal-poly-on-senior-night.aspx

So they may be replacing half of their starting lineup for 2023.

As to recruiting this is who they did recruit for next season:

Gabe Whisenhunt – 2023 True Freshman - 125 lbs

Damion Elliott – 2023 True Freshman - 133 lbs

Nash Singleton – 2023 True Freshman - 133 or 141 lbs

Chase DeBlaere – 2023 True Freshman - 141lbs

Noah Tolentino – 2023 True Freshman - 149 lbs

Cade White – 2023 True Freshman - 149 lbs

Chris Hamblin – 2023 True Freshman - 157 lbs

Austin Scott – 2023 True Freshman - 157 or 165 lbs

C. H. Hamblin -  2023 True Freshman - 174 lbs

Isaiah Anderson – 2023 True Freshman - 197 lbs

What's missing in this list of their new recruits for 2023 is someone to replace Traub at heavyweight.





Never argue with a fool.  They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.  -Anonymous

Offline RYou

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 18017
  • 3 out of 4 voices in my head want to sleep
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2022, 07:53:56 PM »
It seems PAC 12 has a very low point total for a champion,10 points maybe.  If so the spread between 1 and 2 is only 1 or 2 points

B1G uses 16 for a champion 12 for 2nd and 10 for 3rd plus advancement and bonus points.  That 4-point spread between 1st and 2nd would have made a huge difference for ASU.

You are correct.  The PAC 12 scoring is 12 points for first, 10 for second, etc.  Having only two points difference for 1st and 2nd is idiotic IMO.   But it is the PAC 12 - so it's not particularly surprising (to me at least).   I'd prefer to see 20 pts for 1st, 15 for 2nd, 12 for 3rd, 9 for 4th, 6 for 5th and 3 for 6th.

As we saw last weekend, there are no assurances with the B1G scoring compared to PAC 12.  Michigan had 2 chams while Penn State had 4 and Michigan scooted by PSU.

Offline BroncoSaurus

  • DII
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2022, 09:06:20 AM »


As we saw last weekend, there are no assurances with the B1G scoring compared to PAC 12.  Michigan had 2 chams while Penn State had 4 and Michigan scooted by PSU.
[/quote]

Exactly...................hence the title of this thread.  The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed.
Never argue with a fool.  They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.  -Anonymous

Offline red viking

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 17247
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2022, 09:38:23 AM »
Whatever it is, it should come as close as possible to reflecting dual meet scores. So, whoever would win a dual tournament would be most likely to win an individual tournament.
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." Thomas Paine

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 27574
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2022, 11:58:10 AM »
The more you place, the higher your score.  In 2001, MN won the championship without anyone in the finals AND they placed all 10 wrestlers. 

mspart

Offline RYou

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 18017
  • 3 out of 4 voices in my head want to sleep
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2022, 07:20:58 PM »
Whatever it is, it should come as close as possible to reflecting dual meet scores. So, whoever would win a dual tournament would be most likely to win an individual tournament.

How do you score a tournament to reflect a 14 team dual meet no less one with 60 schools participating?  Or one with 10 different schools gaining a champion? 

The emphasis should be on overall placement of the individuals, not solely on champions

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 27574
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2022, 12:26:23 PM »
Do like MN.  Have a dual tourney and an individual tourney.   That way you get a true champion in both.

mspart

Offline RYou

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 18017
  • 3 out of 4 voices in my head want to sleep
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2022, 07:57:15 AM »
NJ does it that way too.  The NCAA coaches tried to a few years back and it fell flat.  An NCAA team tournament won't succeed until the NCAA removes the team title from the individual tournament.


I bumped into the NCAA guide on dual and tournament scoring.  https://cosida.com/media/documents/2011/12/ncaawrestlingscoringrules.pdf

It differs based on the number pf places awarded, 8, 6 or 4.  PAC12 must be awarding up to 6 places.  Make note of the differences in points awarded between placing 1st and 2nd for each.

8 placers (B!G 10)  - 16 for 1st and 12 for 2nd - a 4 point spread.
4 placers  - 10 for 1st and 7 for 2nd - a 3 point spread

Now look at 6 place tournaments (PAC12) - 12 for 1st but 10 for 2nd - only a 2 point spread.

You would think that the point spread would a straight line decrease with the number of places awarded, 4-3-2, but it in't, it's - 4-2-3.

Given that, I'd agree with you that the NCAA needs to amend the points awarded for tournaments recognizing 6 places.  OSU should have scored at least 5 fewer points. Not only do they need to amend the points scored for 2nd, but also 3rd and probably 6th.

The current spread is : 12 - 10 - 9 - 7 - 6 - 4....
A fairer spread would be: 12 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5


Offline BroncoSaurus

  • DII
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
Re: The tournament scoring formula needs to be changed IMO
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2022, 09:41:07 AM »
Well yes, the PAC 12 has only six teams, so they have only six places at their annual tournament.

I agree with most of what you wrote here but I'd alter the scoring for a six team tournament to the following I think:

1st place 12 points

2nd place 9 points

3rd place 7 points

4th place 5 points

5th place 3 points

6th place 1 point

Taking 1st place IMO absolutely should be worth more than any other placing.  So make the difference between 1st and 2nd three points and make every other place a difference of two points.  Just my thoughts on that.
Never argue with a fool.  They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.  -Anonymous