NCAA D1 Wrestling Committee Recommendations

[NoVa Lion]

See link. Compliments of a SetohHallPirate post on the Dumpster Fire message board. Not sure I like the idea (from the wrestler's point of view as opposed to the fans) the idea of increasing the number of potential competition dates.

https://wrestlingbypirate.wordpress...division-i-wrestling-committee-annual-report/

 

[El-Jefe]

2. Seeding all 33 wrestlers in each weight class, with wrestlers seeded 29-33 being randomly drawn into brackets, and only wrestlers seeded in that bottom five can be assigned to pigtails.


About damn time.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

Like the idea of seeding the entire bracket but would like to see them get rid of the 33rd wrestler and eliminate pigtails all together.

 

[Lyons212]

3. Weigh-ins will now be two hours prior to competition for each day of the NCAA Championships.

I think it would be awesome if this was changed to "Weigh-ins will now be two hours prior to competition for your first session of the day of the NCAA Championships." i.e. Weighs-in for the NCAA Championships on Saturday night would be around 6 PM.

 

[nitlion6]

Like the idea of seeding the entire bracket but would like to see them get rid of the 33rd wrestler and eliminate pigtails all together.

That eliminates 10 kids from experiencing the NCAAs. I am OK with continuing with the asymmetry of the bracket.

 

[dunkej01]

That eliminates 10 kids from experiencing the NCAAs. I am OK with continuing with the asymmetry of the bracket.

I think I see FTs point, but if your that guy/coach/school/AD/booster you appreciate the other slot to represent.

 

[SWPA]

They can't get the top 16 seeds correct and people want them to seed 33? I can't wait!!!

 

[nitlion6]

They can't get the top 16 seeds correct and people want them to seed 33? I can't wait!!!

This will give them the opportunity to seed Jason Nolf 31 and still claim objectivity.

 

[NoVa Lion]

They can't get the top 16 seeds correct and people want them to seed 33? I can't wait!!!

People are going to complain about seeding no matter what, just like they always complain about rankings.

 

[El-Jefe]

They can't get the top 16 seeds correct and people want them to seed 33? I can't wait!!!

Counterpoint is that "unseeded random draws" are de facto seeds.

Anyone think Garett Hammond was the 32 seed last year? He got Hidlay in Round 1, so he was the 32.

So was Ryan Solomon, R12 last year. Got a concussion at ACCs and drew Captain America in Round 1. (That helped us marginally as Solomon held Snyder to a major.)

 

[SetonHallPirate]

See link. Compliments of a SetohHallPirate post on the Dumpster Fire message board. Not sure I like the idea (from the wrestler's point of view as opposed to the fans) the idea of increasing the number of potential competition dates.

https://wrestlingbypirate.wordpress...division-i-wrestling-committee-annual-report/

Dumpster Fire? I don't recall posting this on the Hawkeye Report board!

 

[NoVa Lion]

Dumpster Fire? I don't recall posting this on the Hawkeye Report board!

That would be themat.com.

 

[SetonHallPirate]

That would be themat.com.

Oh, you mean the cesspool, not the dumpster fire!

 

[NoVa Lion]

Oh, you mean the cesspool, not the dumpster fire!

That works too, but whenever dunk or el jefe and maybe others link to themat.com here they always include a picture of a dumpster fire.

In spite of that I still check it out because sometimes there is good info like your post(s).

 

[SetonHallPirate]

That works too, but whenever dunk or el jefe and maybe others link to themat.com here they always include a picture of a dumpster fire.

In spite of that I still check it out because sometimes there is good info like your post(s).

Thank you for the compliment...greatly appreciated!

That said, I didn't come up with the nickname of "the cesspool" for TheMat's forum. Conquistadors did, oh, about ten years ago.

 

[jack66]

That eliminates 10 kids from experiencing the NCAAs. I am OK with continuing with the asymmetry of the bracket.

Well then, why not go to 34 so we can include another 10? Or even 35?

 

[NoVa Lion]

Well then, why not go to 34 so we can include another 10? Or even 35?

Because the NCAA won't agree to that. Was that a serious question?

 

[SetonHallPirate]

Dumb question...when the number was lowered from (I believe) 375 to 330 in (again, I believe) 1987, how many Division I programs did we have?

 

[jack66]

Because the NCAA won't agree to that. Was that a serious question?

I was not serious. A poor attempt at sarcasm I guess.

When they lowered the number of participants, 33 seemed like an odd number to settle on when they just as easily could have gone to 32.

I'm in the camp that thinks pigtails don't make a lot of sense.

 

[SetonHallPirate]

I was not serious. A poor attempt at sarcasm I guess.

When they lowered the number of participants, 33 seemed like an odd number to settle on when they just as easily could have gone to 32.

I'm in the camp that thinks pigtails don't make a lot of sense.

That's because, at the time they went to 330, it wasn't a set 33 per weight, so you could have 29 in one weight class (see: 2008 157 lbs.) and 37 in another (see: 2008 149 lbs.).

 

[jack66]

That's because, at the time they went to 330, it wasn't a set 33 per weight, so you could have 29 in one weight class (see: 2008 157 lbs.) and 37 in another (see: 2008 149 lbs.).

.
Okay, so that's the history behind it, but if they are now into making recommendations, what's stopping them from making the obvious next move ... at least in my opinion. Why are they married to 330?

I'm not trying to be a smartass, just looking for a logical reason they need to have pigtails at all.

 

[LorenzoFan]

Wrestling should never volunteer to reduce the number of competitors. I could see a time when the NCAA mandates a reduction across all sports (kinda like they did to scholarship numbers when they dropped 10% across the board for men)

 

[SetonHallPirate]

.
Okay, so that's the history behind it, but if they are now into making recommendations, what's stopping them from making the obvious next move ... at least in my opinion. Why are they married to 330?

I'm not trying to be a smartass, just looking for a logical reason they need to have pigtails at all.

The committee actually proposed, a few years ago, going to 360 (36 per weight), in an effort to help the smaller-conference schools. Obviously, that went nowhere.

Personally, I'm all for dropping to 32, and wouldn't be overly opposed to dropping to 24, in an effort to make the act of qualifying for the Championships that much more of an achievement, but, of course, I don't get a vote. As it stands right now, 44% of entrants into a 2019 national qualifier (presuming every institution enters somebody at every weight, which is not likely, but it's close enough to be able to be used here without changing the numbers that much) will qualify for the NCAA Championships, which is an access ratio that would be the highest, probably by a substantial margin, of the 90 championships the NCAA currently sponsors.

 

[jack66]

The committee actually proposed, a few years ago, going to 360 (36 per weight), in an effort to help the smaller-conference schools. Obviously, that went nowhere.

So then if the committee was thinking of expanding a few years ago, my original question ( even though it was TIC) wasn't so dumb after all.

 

[SetonHallPirate]

So then if the committee was thinking of expanding a few years ago, my original question ( even though it was TIC) wasn't so dumb after all.

The committee proposed it, the now-defunct Championships/Sports Management Cabinet shot it down (same thing with NCAA National Duals a few years later).

 

[nitlion6]

Well then, why not go to 34 so we can include another 10? Or even 35?

Two different subjects. There was no discussion about expansion. The discussion was about contraction.
However, to your point no I do not believe you will see an expansion of competitors.

I guess you thought you made a point.

 

[RoarLions1]

Dumb question...when the number was lowered from (I believe) 375 to 330 in (again, I believe) 1987, how many Division I programs did we have?

124

 

[SetonHallPirate]

124

So just over 60% of the number of schools, but the same number of qualifiers.

 

[jack66]

Two different subjects. There was no discussion about expansion. The discussion was about contraction.
However, to your point no I do not believe you will see an expansion of competitors.

I guess you thought you made a point.

I guess you missed Setonhall's post above: "The committee actually proposed, a few years ago, going to 360 (36 per weight), in an effort to help the smaller-conference schools. Obviously, that went nowhere."

330 to 360 would be an expansion. So, whatever.