Why I think the proposed folk style rules changes will backfire.

[aalion]

Obviously the intent is to promote more action - specifically takedowns. So the proposal is to make them worth 3 instead of 2. But…

Let’s take the example of a typical “boring” match. Often a 1 takedown difference, plus an escape after that takedown. So 2-1 or 3-2 in 2nd/3rd periods.

What stops the leading wrestler from playing all defense in current rules?

1) stalling calls. Get dinged twice and it’s tied.

2) giving up riding time. A first period takedown and 2 escapes makes it tied 2-2. But if you don’t get out quickly enough on bottom, you give up the riding time point and it’s tied.

3) Being forced to take neutral because you don’t want to risk getting ridden out.


The new rules give 3 points for takedown and also effectively eliminate riding time in a close match (most matches that involve turns aren’t close anyway). So in the new rules a typical 1 takedown match will put the leader up 2 points, not just 1.

So the leader:

1) can absorb 2 stall calls and still win.
2) doesn’t have to worry about a simple riding time point tying the match
3) can choose neutral and still be winning

There is far less incentive for the wrestler who got the first takedown to keep wrestling aggressively.

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

... a typical “boring” match. Often a 1 takedown difference, plus an escape after that takedown. So 2-1 or 3-2 in 2nd/3rd periods. ...

I can see it playing out the way described when two primarily defensive (aka "boring" wrestlers) meet head-to-head. It seems such a match is destined to be boring regardless of the new rules.

The example match is premised on a boring primarily defensive wrestlers scoring first (i.e., successfully executing their strategy).

What do we presently see now from one defensive wrestler with modest riding skills? I see blocking/defense mode until short-time where fans are lucky to see even one shot is taken at the end of a period. In the short-term, this kind of boring won't change with the new scoring.

There is far less incentive for the wrestler who got the first takedown to keep wrestling aggressively.

Presently, neither dual or tournament team scoring has been proposed to be modified. Therefore, where offensive wrestling is concerned, there appears to be some incentive for continued offense in the interest of more team points via majors and technical falls. So overall, I don't really agree with you on this point.

I would say that this incentive is more (in contrast to "far less") "for the wrestler who got the first takedown to keep wrestling aggressively," because I believe a more takedown-oriented offensive wrestler will most often get the first takedown. This wrestler and their coaches will see it more likely to obtain bonus, and so further action will be continued.

In general, I don't see the new rules as having a short-term vision. I don't see them as targeting presently defensive wrestlers to make them create more action. I see it as targeting future generations of offensive wrestlers to make the sport more entertaining in an attempt to grow it.

NCAA coaches will value these wrestlers more. Youth wrestlers and their parents will see what is being valued. And so in out years we will see the desired effect. I don't expect to see much difference next year with the current crop of wrestlers.

 

[ClarkstonMark]

The incentive to wrestle aggressively is to get the 2nd takedown which widens the gap considerably.

 

[GantryZ]

I think the 3 point takedown has very little chance to be passed given the intense discussion on it from both sides. It could be tweaked and tested, then passed later on but as it stands I can't see it going through given all the uproar from coaches and fans alike.

 

[donboy6499]

NCAA coaches will value these wrestlers more. Youth wrestlers and their parents will see what is being valued. And so in out years we will see the desired effect. I don't expect to see much difference next year with the current crop of wrestlers.

I want to agree with this, but how does this look in practice?

One of the points that Askren makes on FRL often is that defense has gotten REALLY good. To the point that go-behinds are essentially conceded if you take a bad shot nowadays, where that was not always the case. Are you saying that youth/high school coaches will value "shooters" more? They will coach it more/better? Will those counters just not be as effective with more shots attempted?

I feel like there's this idea that offense will be magically created now out of a style that values being on the feet a little bit more. But it's not like the guys today haven't been working on scoring on their feet for generations. Is there room to work more/better and, if so, why haven't coaches just turned to that in order to score a lot more under current rules?

 

[mjmirv]

Just call stalling early and often. Why do they have to make this so difficult?

 

[aalion]

Agree w some of the point counterpoint … thanks.

I hope none of the changes go through frankly. I am probably just too old to change but I like tough top wresting and enjoy the advantage that those guys have - either potential for riding time and/or the strategery of the opponent having to consider going neutral.

 

[aalion]

The incentive to wrestle aggressively is to get the 2nd takedown which widens the gap considerably.

Not if you put yourself at risk in the process. If the rules changes go through, a 1 takedown lead is a lot safer than it used to be.

 

[matter7172]

I'd be happy with keeping the 2 point takedown and allowing top wrestlers to take neutral at any whistle without conceding a point for an "escape". I do like the no riding time without backpoints proposal. I thought at one point in time you couldn't get a 5 point tech fall without getting backpoints, but that could have been what I wished to be the case rather than what was.

 

[NoVa Lion]

I'd be happy with keeping the 2 point takedown and allowing top wrestlers to take neutral at any whistle without conceding a point for an "escape". I do like the no riding time without backpoints proposal. I thought at one point in time you couldn't get a 5 point tech fall without getting backpoints, but that could have been what I wished to be the case rather than what was.

That was changed fairly recently. Of course, in college it is tough to get a TF without back points in any case so the 4 point TF rarely happened.

 

[Conewago]

Agree w some of the point counterpoint … thanks.

I hope none of the changes go through frankly. I am probably just too old to change but I like tough top wresting and enjoy the advantage that those guys have - either potential for riding time and/or the strategery of the opponent having to consider going neutral.

I don't think it's age.

I'm not old and I think the proposed changes are stupid.

The people proposing them are also probably over 50 for the most part if the NCAA rules committee is anything like the NFHS (almost everyone on the rules committee NFHS is over 45 or 50).

 

[DuckBlunder]

Just call stalling early and often. Why do they have to make this so difficult?

Totally agree. If you're the dude that constantly ends up near the edge of the mat to do most of your wrestling, high tails it out of bounds when you are about to get scored on, sits on an ankle or gets multiple breakdowns without a turn; that all goes away when you start giving up points. I do think a hard ride in the third period to maintain a 1 point win is pretty badass and certainly shows dominance but it still sucks to watch. How much more fun would watching wrestling be if the aforementioned were eliminated? Just non-stop action. Although I deplore the seemingly arbitrary passivity calls in freestyle that at times unfairly affect the outcome of a match, I'd prefer it over edge wrestling and ankle riding all day everyday. I guess the one thing I could get on board with is top guy letting up bottom guy without giving up a point. Guys can put on a takedown clinic and the dominance is not reflected accordingly in the score.

 

[donboy6499]

I don't think it's age.

I'm not old and I think the proposed changes are stupid.

The people proposing them are also probably over 50 for the most part if the NCAA rules committee is anything like the NFHS (almost everyone on the rules committee NFHS is over 45 or 50).

I assume the people proposing them panicked at the viewership numbers and are following a "Don't just stand there, do something" mindset.

 

[wrestlinPSU]

Obviously the intent is to promote more action - specifically takedowns. So the proposal is to make them worth 3 instead of 2. But…

Let’s take the example of a typical “boring” match. Often a 1 takedown difference, plus an escape after that takedown. So 2-1 or 3-2 in 2nd/3rd periods.

What stops the leading wrestler from playing all defense in current rules?

1) stalling calls. Get dinged twice and it’s tied.

2) giving up riding time. A first period takedown and 2 escapes makes it tied 2-2. But if you don’t get out quickly enough on bottom, you give up the riding time point and it’s tied.

3) Being forced to take neutral because you don’t want to risk getting ridden out.


The new rules give 3 points for takedown and also effectively eliminate riding time in a close match (most matches that involve turns aren’t close anyway). So in the new rules a typical 1 takedown match will put the leader up 2 points, not just 1.

So the leader:

1) can absorb 2 stall calls and still win.
2) doesn’t have to worry about a simple riding time point tying the match
3) can choose neutral and still be winning

There is far less incentive for the wrestler who got the first takedown to keep wrestling aggressively.

Why is getting the first and possibly only take-down such an awful thing? Why should any athlete be rewarded for doing something second (freestyle nonsense)? When the match commences, you should certainly go get the takedown. If your plan is to stall it out thereafter, I hate the plan. If you succeed here, you will be lucky. You should've remained active. In this particular case, you still got the first and only take-down. So go get the first take down and get yourself in the drivers seat. It's important.

 

[District four]

One thing I love about freestyle is the clock. If you are on the clock get a takedown and eliminate the point for the other guy. The bad part is the other guy just gets defensive so he can get the point. In any event more clocks is always better lmfao.

 

[SheldonJoe2215]

I like to mix things up. I would have kept the TD at two points and give no points for an escape.

 

[PAHURDLER]

Takedowns stay 2 points
Escapes are now 3 points

Number of takedowns (and thus excitement) increase as wrestlers defend less in hopes of getting a coveted 3 point escape

Problem solved, you’re welcome!

 

[JOESTROSSER]

I'd like them to enforce the rules on the books first. Stalling just isn't even called enough.

 

[PSUcup1]

I'd like them to enforce the rules on the books first. Stalling just isn't even called enough.

Correct. It’s the only “change” that needs to be made

 

[nerfstate]

Correct. It’s the only “change” that needs to be made

To make this change, I think we should start calling stalling on refs for not calling stalling. First one is a warning, second one, you get to be backup for Angel your next bout, 2nd one, you get assigned to Carver for the remainder of the season. 3rd, and you get demoted to Jr High..... And we end up w/ no refs left in D1....

 

[aalion]

Why is getting the first and possibly only take-down such an awful thing? Why should any athlete be rewarded for doing something second (freestyle nonsense)? When the match commences, you should certainly go get the takedown. If your plan is to stall it out thereafter, I hate the plan. If you succeed here, you will be lucky. You should've remained active. In this particular case, you still got the first and only take-down. So go get the first take down and get yourself in the drivers seat. It's important.

It’s not a horrible thing. It’s a good thing, The question is how big of an advantage should it be? If it puts you up by 2 or 3, with no threat of a riding time point, I fear too many wrestlers will get very defensive sooner than they would have otherwise. So defensive guys will shut down immediately, and some offensive guys will got conservative far earlier than they might have otherwise.

Hopefully (in my opinion) it doesn’t happen and we will never know. Sounds like far from a done deal.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

Someone on this board can do the research. The question being, how many takedowns per season has each top 10 programs had over the past decade.

PSU is for the first time fielding a full 10 hammer lineup, so or numbers should get even richer.

In terms of unintended consequences, I tend to think, this makes PSU even stronger vs the rest of the field.

 

[aalion]

Someone on this board can do the research. The question being, how many takedowns per season has each top 10 programs had over the past decade.

PSU is for the first time fielding a full 10 hammer lineup, so or numbers should get even richer.

In terms of unintended consequences, I tend to think, this makes PSU even stronger vs the rest of the field.

I think it might make lopsided matches more lopsided - more techs and MDs. So will help the stronger teams build bigger team point totals in duals and tourneys.

Afraid it will make close matches less exciting though as there are fewer avenues to catch up.

 

[NoVa Lion]

To make this change, I think we should start calling stalling on refs for not calling stalling. First one is a warning, second one, you get to be backup for Angel your next bout, 2nd one, you get assigned to Carver for the remainder of the season. 3rd, and you get demoted to Jr High..... And we end up w/ no refs left in D1....

Amen to that. If we could get folkstyle refs to call stalling as aggressively as they call passivity in freestyle none of these rule changes would be needed. Unfortunately, I don;'t see that happening any time soon.

 

[NittanyLion84]

What these Refs fail to realize is that an in-action, is still an action. They claim they do not want to effect the outcome of the match, but by not calling stalling, per the rule book, they are effecting the outcome of the match.