Incentivize Better Matchups

[nerfstate]

"Unintended consequences." You, Sir, are a man after my own heart. Consider me a fan. You might enjoy Great Moments of Unintended Consequences from Reason magazine. "What could possibly go wrong?"

As for the format of Journeyman, there was no issue with truth in advertising. It was easily discernable beforehand that it was to be selected matchups from various pool.

My concern, as mentioned in the Twitter feed that you kindly provided, was a lost opportunity to grow the sport. It has been a Quixotic mission of mine to increase the fan base one newbie at a tine. That could have been a riveting event but was probably only enjoyed by the existing hardcore fanbase that doesn't mind whipping around ten mats.

lol on that video. It's tough trying to manipulate "markets," isn't it? The tide rises, and swirls around and hits you on the backside of the head, if it doesn't just sweep you off your feet and out to sea.

I think you may be correct that removing coaches from the equation may be necessary to create change on this topic. That said, I sure as heck don't want some NCAA committee with little understanding of the sport making a schedule either. Is the solution privatization? Could Dana White make a better NCAA wrestling product? I don't know. With the way things are going with conference realignment, NIL, and the portal, we might find out.

I, for one, do revel in helping onboard new fans to our favored sport--and it's pretty flippin easy these days here in State College. All the same, I pessimistically feel it will never be mainstream enough for the Danas of the world to really take much interest. And frankly, I'm OK w/ that. One of my most favored aspects of wrestling is its "purity." (Almost) no one is really seeking riches here, they just like to kick some A.

As far as your criticism of board groupthink goes re "In Cael We Trust:" It's a fair criticism, and you aren't the only one to make it. That said, one of the things I love about the message board format is that each has its own mores, inside jokes, and third rails. It can be hostile to newcomers, or the occaisional such as yourself, absolutely. But it also makes it feel like a real community, which is great, IMO.

 

[Sean Harp]

If you dropped by more than once a year, you would know the answer.

You wouldn't want that. Who would want me harshing their mellow bitching and moaning about how little earnest wrestling discussion there actually is on this board? Nobody. Further, I don't want to be that guy. Look, I get it. This site is first and foremost for entertainment, not enlightenment... and that's fine. People want escapism and this site gives the people what they want. I simply desire something different and will resume seeking it elsewhere rather than be Debbie Downer and piss in everybody's Cheerios. I don't belong here and I think you and I can end this little pissing contest in agreement over that fact. Regardless, cheers to ya, Mate.

 

[Sean Harp]

lol on that video. It's tough trying to manipulate "markets," isn't it? The tide rises, and swirls around and hits you on the backside of the head, if it doesn't just sweep you off your feet and out to sea.

I think you may be correct that removing coaches from the equation may be necessary to create change on this topic. That said, I sure as heck don't want some NCAA committee with little understanding of the sport making a schedule either. Is the solution privatization? Could Dana White make a better NCAA wrestling product? I don't know. With the way things are going with conference realignment, NIL, and the portal, we might find out.

I, for one, do revel in helping onboard new fans to our favored sport--and it's pretty flippin easy these days here in State College. All the same, I pessimistically feel it will never be mainstream enough for the Danas of the world to really take much interest. And frankly, I'm OK w/ that. One of my most favored aspects of wrestling is its "purity." (Almost) no one is really seeking riches here, they just like to kick some A.

As far as your criticism of board groupthink goes re "In Cael We Trust:" It's a fair criticism, and you aren't the only one to make it. That said, one of the things I love about the message board format is that each has its own mores, inside jokes, and third rails. It can be hostile to newcomers, or the occaisional such as yourself, absolutely. But it also makes it feel like a real community, which is great, IMO.

This is pie in the sky but if I had my druthers... conferences would be abolished and their would be a 16 team league based on the top scoring teams at nationals. Fifteen mandatory duals and one dual at the team's discretion for tradition rivals or maybe just a creampuff to open the season. Unlike our professional sports, college athletics have the opportunity to benefit from the Darwinisnm of relegation. A boy can dream.

Stay golden, Ponyboy. It's been a pleasure.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

I see an easy fix. Completely separate the concepts of Ranking and Seeding, and attempt to minimize subjectivity.

(1). Ranking - Adopt an NCAA official ranking based upon input from a variety of reputable sources; coaches poll, Flo, Intermat,... And the proper weighing system to eliminate most objections. Rankings update weekly and are used 'solely' to determine the strength of an oppenent. Pre-season rankings are based upon prior years' performance, and judgement.

(2). Seeding - is too be used solely for the conference and national tournaments. All wrestlers start the year unseeded, and have to 'earn' their seeds through a formula based upon a minimum number of matches, one's record, and the strength of this wins and loses. Hence a loss to a high rank can still boost one's rank depending upon the severity of the loss. Wrestlers who do not meet the minimum matches go unseeded. Wrestlers who for instance go 10-0 against weak competition may end up with a poor seed, versus a guy who goes say 8-2 with the two losses against top ranked guys. Seeding is based upon a mathematical formula to eliminate subjectivity. MMFs without a prior injury default count as a loss to that opponent. Wrestlers who 'duck' a highly ranked wrestler are punished as they lose an opportunity to boost their seed. Seeding at NCAA is limited to only the top 16 wrestlers, so the penalty for being #17 and below could be severe via a bad draw. So yes, a Kyle Snyder might not get the #1 seed due to the match minimum, or a Jason Nolf during his injury year.

In short, reputation means very little, and ducking has consequences.

Done.

 

[LorenzoFan]

What problem are you guys trying to solve?

 

[GogglesPaizano]

What problem are you guys trying to solve?

World hunger

 

[WexfordWarrior]

 

[dicemen99]

What problem are you guys trying to solve?

Agreed.

This sport has been around for millenniums. Anyone that wants to turn it into a fan favorite should be exploring ways to make it no-rules full combat. Otherwise, I don't see anything that's going to make a dent in the general public.

We already have our fans. In order to keep the sport healthy we need to focus on participation. That is done at the youth level.

"Growing the sport" is a nice sentiment, but misguided. At the NCAA level, coaches should be focused on the welfare of their athletes and helping them achieve their goals. If they want to give back they should be encouraging their wrestlers to make an impact on youth, not us.

Kind of like Cael does. He may be pretty smart after all.