Goodale Tweet
- Thread starter pawrestlersintn
- Start date
When you're elite, 8th place is your goal.
And the differential just gets bigger.
I'd have to check the math, but offhand think it's set up that way so that your max points for your placement is the same regardless of when you lost.
I.e., Kasak's max points for 3rd place would be the same if he had lost in the semis.
Again, would have to check the math, but I think that's how it works out.
Yet another asterisk
This is literally only a possible issue if you come all the way back from a first round loss. Just something for Goodale to blather about.
Never heard anyone complain about it.
Next year, if somehow Goodale had a top two seed he’d complain they should get 3pts for the bye or the points earned in the next round. He’d be a true sage. 🙃
Never heard anyone complain about it.
Next year, if somehow Goodale had a top two seed he’d complain they should get 3pts for the bye or the points earned in the next round. He’d be a true sage. 🙃
Should a pin in OT count for less because it took more than regulation time to achieve it? Why is a major in consis against a #3 seed any less impressive than if you had done it in the semis? Why not reduce Saturday MFFs to half in consis and topside? Point is, there are a dozen things that could be changed but it all looks okay as-is to me.
The advancement points are equalized, but the potential bonus points are still doubled.
Let's lock in this change for next year so that the points record is forever unassailable. LOL.
Don’t do anything stupid like making bonus point wins less important. Sheesh.
Reducing bonus points on the back side would probably impact the product. Going for bonus because of the value adds excitement imo.
At the Princeton Open?
On the backside you could still give 2 points for a fall and reduce a tech to 1 and major to .5. This way you are still encouranging wrestlers to look for falls.
To be honest, reducing the points on the backside would help PSU more than anybody else, after all, PSU does not have many wrestlers on the backside.
Btw, if my math is right, 97 Iowa would have scored 172 points this year, meaning Penn State still would have held the record.
Plus Iowa lost a dual meet that year (to Oklahoma State, although Lincoln McIlravy was out) and only had 2 Big Ten champs so there's no question this Penn State team was the best ever.
Plus Iowa lost a dual meet that year (to Oklahoma State, although Lincoln McIlravy was out) and only had 2 Big Ten champs so there's no question this Penn State team was the best ever.
Would Iowa have still won with that scoring system, maybe not, I am too lazy to go back and check but when you have 4 national champs and take second something is wrong with the scoring system?
So now we want to decentivize pins, which is the sole purpose of wrestling, while simultaneously incentivizing pushing people out of bounds, which is the exact opposite of the meaning of wrestling.
wElL sIgN mE uP¡!¡
wElL sIgN mE uP¡!¡
If you've ever seen Rutgers wrestle, you'd know their primary goal is to "keep things close". In fact, at the Rutgers/VT dual I attended this year, a lot of Rutgers fans were upset with the new 3 point takedown because (wait for it)
it would make it too easy for wrestlers to get a big lead and bonus points. (Not kidding, it was actually a conversation between a group of Rutgers fans who were all in agreement. And I'm pretty sure they were talking about Rutgers' opponents taking advantage of the new rule.)
it would make it too easy for wrestlers to get a big lead and bonus points. (Not kidding, it was actually a conversation between a group of Rutgers fans who were all in agreement. And I'm pretty sure they were talking about Rutgers' opponents taking advantage of the new rule.)
Oh, and btw, I've been thinking they should can this clown for about 6 years now. This doesn't change my mind.
Doubt anyone’s primary goal is to “keep things close” unless your Lewan.. maybe if you know the other guy is much better then “keeping it close” could be a strategy but doubtful a primary goal? Lol?
Surprise you would ever attend a RU dual meet but a one match sample size around a group (wait for it) doesn’t mean the collective as a whole thinks like that… I think the new 3 pt rule is great.. most ppl are just afraid of change.. some legit hated this change bc they were worried saying “threeeee” would feel weird over saying “twoooo” after a takedown… lol
So, are any of the highly successful D1 coaches calling for systemic change, or is it just the underachievers?
My God, yes. Imagine getting halved this tournament. That would have been even uglier.
Cael is not only the best technical and tactical coach, but he has a sense for how to win regardless of the conditions or constraints.
He was the first to recognize several champion caliber studs trumps having 10 scoring wrestlers. Several fans haven't figured that one out yet.
I said last year the 3 point TD will make PSU stronger, and it did.
A push out rule will make PSU stronger.
Changes to stalling will make PSU stronger
Changes to near Fall points makes PSU stronger
NIL and the Portal make PSU stronger.
Cael doesn't want kids who are in it for the money and in reality those that focus on the money to make their choice will likely suffer by the distraction. With the money in hand motivation may wane just a bit.
Honestly there is no rule change that can bring PSU back to the pack because they are simply better in all three positions.
Until Cael decides to hang them up, the sport is going to have to live with PSU being the team to beat. The only tangible potential for creating more parity IMO is Cael's every increasing coaching tree candidate pool. Even here, there is only one Cael Sanderson.
He was the first to recognize several champion caliber studs trumps having 10 scoring wrestlers. Several fans haven't figured that one out yet.
I said last year the 3 point TD will make PSU stronger, and it did.
A push out rule will make PSU stronger.
Changes to stalling will make PSU stronger
Changes to near Fall points makes PSU stronger
NIL and the Portal make PSU stronger.
Cael doesn't want kids who are in it for the money and in reality those that focus on the money to make their choice will likely suffer by the distraction. With the money in hand motivation may wane just a bit.
Honestly there is no rule change that can bring PSU back to the pack because they are simply better in all three positions.
Until Cael decides to hang them up, the sport is going to have to live with PSU being the team to beat. The only tangible potential for creating more parity IMO is Cael's every increasing coaching tree candidate pool. Even here, there is only one Cael Sanderson.
A well-organized NIL program makes the 9.9 scholarship limit obsolete.
Wrestlers are then free to comcentrate on self-improvement, and not worry about competing for some sliver of the pie.
Major advantage to the program that is all about opportunity and gratitude.
I’ll have to check my math but a winner on the front side has 5 matches.
Full backside is 7 matches.
You have to compare 3rd place by wrestling to the semis then falling onto the backside vs losing first round and crushing the backside all the way to third. The advancement points should be equalized for the same final placing regardless of path.
How about these two scenarios, both involving a guy ending up 3rd:
1. Loses in the first round
2. Loses in semis
Does that result in the same number of matches?
Ah, bringing James Franklin into the conversation…🤣
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you meant but Kasak got 3 advancement points. If he had lost in the 2nd round through semis and still got 3rd, he would've had 3.5 advancement points.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Football Adisa Isaac finds perfect landing spot in Baltimore- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley