That’s too bad. I liked having the Dakota schools in the conference. Does the Big 12 try to grab a couple more affiliates?
Other notable results and news
- Thread starter glorycowboy
- Start date
That’s too bad. I liked having the Dakota schools in the conference. Does the Big 12 try to grab a couple more affiliates?
Interesting. Hate to see Big 12 wrestling get smaller, but geographically makes sense for those schools. Also means they may have better odds at getting NCAA qualifiers and winning conference titles?
I'd be happy with one less school. I still can't believe we allowed the traitorous, cheating Gommers back in the Big 12. They left for the money so why are we giving them money by wrestling them.
Honestly, make it two. The same goes for Asscreams school. They also left for the money as well and Pendleton was always better.
Honestly, make it two. The same goes for Asscreams school. They also left for the money as well and Pendleton was always better.
This is unfortunate, but makes sense. We need UALR and they need us. As for OU, they are a good thing for the BigXII, but are becoming more and more irrelevant and that is sad.
I’m sure the schools leaving will be full members of the PAC12 in all sports. I’m kind of surprised Wyoming didn’t go as well. I guess neither them or Utah Valley got a PAC invite. I think Little Rock should definitely be added to the Big 12 as an affiliate member. So what do we have now? 9 teams in the Big 12? For Wrestling we should just merge the ACC and Big 12.
Sadly there’s no reason for ACC to merge. You need 6 teams to earn auto-bids which they have. Big12s next year will have one pigtail prior to quarters which will be fine. I don’t see any other significant moves happening for a while. In my dream world KSU, Colorado, and BYU add wrestling. But that will never happen lol.
edit: add UCF to that.
edit: add UCF to that.
I think UCF and TCU are the best bets for full members to add wrestling in the next 10 years. Wrestling is growing like wildfire in texas and Florida. In the short term, I’d like to grab ULAR, it’d be good for the BIG12 and them.
I really think Kish is a good coach, he just (probably much to his surprise) has less support at ou than he did at NDSU. I hope one of their whales decides to throw some spare change to the wrestling program down there…
I said UCF and KSU mainly because they have legit active clubs. If anyone in Texas added I think it would be UT. Historical and have active club.
Is 3rd Better Than 1st At The NCAA Wrestling Championships? - FloWrestling
Team scoring at the NCAA Championships might need an overhaul, and there's a simple solution.
Flo talking about a bug in the scoring system. This makes sense. 3rd place wrestlers maximum should not be higher than 2nd place finishers maximum.
That has never been true in the history of NCAA wrestling going back to 1928, and it would still not be true if you halved bonus points in the consolation bracket.Is 3rd Better Than 1st At The NCAA Wrestling Championships? - FloWrestling
Team scoring at the NCAA Championships might need an overhaul, and there's a simple solution.www.flowrestling.org
Flo talking about a bug in the scoring system. This makes sense. 3rd place wrestlers maximum should not be higher than 2nd place finishers maximum.
It is a good thing I did not make that argument. What I said is that it has always been possible - since 1928 - for the third place wrestler to outscore the second, or even first, place wrestler. And it has happened - many times. As long as bonus points exist, it will always be possible. So, the implication of what you are saying is that you want bonus points eliminated (whether you realize this or not).
More to come, but....
In the current scoring system (2001 - 2026) there have been 309 instances of a top 7 wrestler getting outscored by a lower finishing wrestler in the 2-8 slots (17.7% of 1,750 possible).
If you cut consolation bonus in half it would have eliminated 111 of those instances, but also created 20 new instances, for a new net total of 218 (12.5%).
Obviously, cutting consolation bonus in half does not eliminate the situation - hell it doesn't even cut it in half.
I am not saying consolation bonus should not be cut in half, but if you are looking to eliminate a lower finishing wrestler from ever outscoring a higher finishing wrestler, the only way to do that is to eliminate bonus points altogether, or significantly increase the spread in placement points to absurd levels
In the current scoring system (2001 - 2026) there have been 309 instances of a top 7 wrestler getting outscored by a lower finishing wrestler in the 2-8 slots (17.7% of 1,750 possible).
If you cut consolation bonus in half it would have eliminated 111 of those instances, but also created 20 new instances, for a new net total of 218 (12.5%).
Obviously, cutting consolation bonus in half does not eliminate the situation - hell it doesn't even cut it in half.
I am not saying consolation bonus should not be cut in half, but if you are looking to eliminate a lower finishing wrestler from ever outscoring a higher finishing wrestler, the only way to do that is to eliminate bonus points altogether, or significantly increase the spread in placement points to absurd levels
Last edited:
I think one valid question to ask is should bonus points really be worth more than a win? A win is only worth .5 or 1 points, but bonus is worth 1, 1.5 or 2 points. I think making bonus worth less on the back side is valid as well.
I am not saying I agree with their solution. I am saying that I agree that a loophole problem exist that needs fixing. I agree that we need to look into all options, including increasing to spread in placement points if needed. Or cap the bonus points so it doesnt exceed 2nd place maximum.
I was thinking about that as well. No way a bonus point should be worth more than a win. A win should get 2 points, bonus point should be 0.5, 1 and 1.5 accordingly.
The unintended consequence is likely to be more matches tied 1-1 and heading to OT.
Neither of these things are true.
1. You could widen the point difference between each place such that you can't overtake someone who outplaces you.
2. Doing so wouldn't make bonus points meaningless, as they would still make a difference in the team race.
Fwiw I haven't thought about it enough to have formed a strong opinion on whether it's good/bad/neutral that lower placers can outscore higher placers, but it does seem like a pretty obvious flaw that it's easier to get bonus points on the backside than the front side because
1. weaker competition,
2. extra matches, and
3. the prevalence of medical forfeits.
So some sort of rebalancing seems reasonable.
Last edited:
Well, sure its true in that you needed to change something else to make it false. Besides I addressed that in a previous comment.
Stay tuned I am almost done writing something on it.
What is wrong with 3rd scoring more than 2nd in very rare situations? We don't have a true 2nd. Let say 3rd loses to 1st in TB but techs or pins everyone else to score say a point more than 2nd, what would be wrong with that?
I'm with you here. There should be some reward for dominance and pins and whatnot. Just like I'm fine with Minnesota winning the title in the 2000s with 10 AAs and no champs. It sounds like there could be some scoring adjustments though. The data guys are on it.