J Robinson talks about future of College Wrestling

[whatever]

A team championship should not be decided by  40% of the starting line up.  

I beg to differ.  (Believe me, I don't care to be on the same side of the fence as MNBadger....)

If you look at football, you could make the argument that the team with the fewest weak spots will win the most titles....but others might argue (especially in the NFL) that the championships will be won by those 40% i.e. quarterbacks, receivers, maybe a wrecking-ball-of-a- linebacker, etc....

Michael Jordan won 6 NBA titles because he could carry the donkeys on his team all by himself.....

[whatever]

yes you hope to be one of those teams, but when you never in the mix you lose interest in who takes the first 3 spots. I never cared if my team was 20th or 15th or 10th... I would care if they where 1st, 2nd or 3rd but if not in the running I don't care who wins since my horse is no longer in the race. Teams consistently outside the top 4 places focus on their individuals not on if their team goes from 15th pace to 13th place. Point is what percentage of the fans in the building care about the team race? Generally just the 2 or 3 teams fighting it out.

Part of what I am hearing there Jag is that nothing matters except winning. Now, I agree that that is indeed the mentality of much of the fan base, but I  think that is part of the problem. Being the "winner" has been elevated to such elite status in our culture that it undermines the values that we claim to prize, e.g., determination, tenacity, etc. Words are cheap. Instead, as a culture, we repeatedly reinforce that the only thing that matters is winning.

I think that is the bigger problem here. We tend to be fans of winners, not losers. We tend to care less about those who have tried and failed. We are a society of hypocrites; giving lip service to values and instead, really only valuing outcomes.

BTW, I think a dual championship series and individual championship would be just fine.

....isn't that what is also known as "the American Way", Nat?

[npope]

yes you hope to be one of those teams, but when you never in the mix you lose interest in who takes the first 3 spots. I never cared if my team was 20th or 15th or 10th... I would care if they where 1st, 2nd or 3rd but if not in the running I don't care who wins since my horse is no longer in the race. Teams consistently outside the top 4 places focus on their individuals not on if their team goes from 15th pace to 13th place. Point is what percentage of the fans in the building care about the team race? Generally just the 2 or 3 teams fighting it out.

Part of what I am hearing there Jag is that nothing matters except winning. Now, I agree that that is indeed the mentality of much of the fan base, but I  think that is part of the problem. Being the "winner" has been elevated to such elite status in our culture that it undermines the values that we claim to prize, e.g., determination, tenacity, etc. Words are cheap. Instead, as a culture, we repeatedly reinforce that the only thing that matters is winning.

I think that is the bigger problem here. We tend to be fans of winners, not losers. We tend to care less about those who have tried and failed. We are a society of hypocrites; giving lip service to values and instead, really only valuing outcomes.

BTW, I think a dual championship series and individual championship would be just fine.

....isn't that what is also known as "the American Way", Nat?

I was born in Japan. What do you want from me?

But seriously, you are right. So let's stop giving lip service to the virtues previously mentioned, e.g., persistence, determination, etc. Let's just admit that nothing matters except winning. I'd feel a lot less smarmy if we could just admit it.

[MNbadger]

Dman..."Didn't you say attendance at the individual tournament would go down because of a dual national championship??"

No, I never said that.  I would be happy with two tournaments and having a national dual team champ and a national team champ.  In fact, I would prefer it.
I said and still say attendance at the duals will never compare to that of the individual tournament.

Jag.. I disagree I always cared what place we took in a tournament.  Depending on your squad, 20th might be a pretty darned good showing.  Additionally, if we finished 12th last year and this year we are 9th, I see that as progress and of value.

1iota.... Tournaments are decided by all the team members.  Do you remember the Gophers having 10 AA's?
If fewer members qualify, so be it.  At least then it isn't the weakest members deciding the outcome which is really what happens in a dual.

I realize I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.  I would be thrilled with having two champions (dual and team).
The dual fans don't want both because they know the majority of people want the team championship, not the dual championship.  

[Huckfinn]

At least then it isn't the weakest members deciding the outcome which is really what happens in a dual.

Baloney.  The good teams typically don't have any fish anywhere in their lineups.   Bonus points decide close duals, and the winner is usually the team with the studs.  
Your theory occasionally holds water with matches between lower half teams, but who cares.

The dual fans don't want both because they know the majority of people want the team championship, not the dual championship.  

The dual championship is a team championship.

You are resisting any change, you want to keep the duals as an insignificant warmup for the real championship.    Why not take a tiny risk and see if a change enhances the season?

[billymurphy]

The coaches do not agree on what to do, and evidently it turns out the fans don't either.

[MNbadger]

"You are resisting any change, you want to keep the duals as an insignificant warmup for the real championship.    Why not take a tiny risk and see if a change enhances the season?"

Change just for the sake of change makes no sense.

IF the dual format is better/more popular, it will prove itself by attendance.

I stated before, I would like love to have both and have a dual champion and a team champion.  Let's make this change and see what happens! 

[MNbadger]

"Baloney.  The good teams typically don't have any fish anywhere in their lineups."

I never said fish.  I said the weakest members. Typically when you have two highly ranked opponents it results in a decision.  The dual is often decided on the weakest members trying to salvage a decision and not give up bonus points.  This does not mean they are fish as you say.

[Huckfinn]

"You are resisting any change, you want to keep the duals as an insignificant warmup for the real championship.    Why not take a tiny risk and see if a change enhances the season?"

Change just for the sake of change makes no sense.

It is not change for sake of change.  It is an attempt to add more interest to the sport.

IF the dual format is better/more popular, it will prove itself by attendance.

You keep throwing out this straw man.
Nobody, but nobody, has suggested that the dual tournament will ever be more popular than the individual tournament.
Just because the individual tournament is more exciting does not mean it must be used to determine the team national championship.
On the contrary, the fact that the individual tournament is so compelling suggests it can afford to share some of the juice with the duals tournament.   The sum of two juicy events may be greater.

I stated before, I would like love to have both and have a dual champion and a team champion.  Let's make this change and see what happens!  

That is not a change, that is exactly the status quo.   You are set in your ways and unwilling to experiment with a new approach.
We already have a dual championship.    We already use the individual tournament to determine a national team champion.

[Huckfinn]

The dual is often decided on the weakest members trying to salvage a decision and not give up bonus points. 

And the stronger wrestlers are being tested to see if they can get those bonus points.  Thus duels test the strength of the good wrestlers.

You are making a silly argument.  As I said before, there is a bit of truth to your theory in duals between weak teams, where you'll get matchups between weak wrestlers that count for a lot but really don't mean much.

[MNbadger]

A team tourney tests and rewards the most acomplished wrestlers more than a dual tourney.

It seems the dual proponents are pushing something on the majority of us who don't want it.

The dual proponents scream about how exciting duals are (and I agree) but if duals are so darned exciting, why won't anyone show up to th Badger matches? 

I don't know about WI but the individual tournemnt in MN has much, much more attendance than the dual portion (and this is a dual crazy state).  Your argument about sharing the "juice" is fine I guess.  This is fine if you want to force something down the throats of the fans who have repeatedly shown they are opposed.

As far as the idea of "trying it out", you know once changed it will be a long, long time before the NCAA would agree to go back if it turns out to be unsatisfactory.

The trial balloon (National Duals) already has shown the future of this scenario.

[jaguarwrestler]

yes you hope to be one of those teams, but when you never in the mix you lose interest in who takes the first 3 spots. I never cared if my team was 20th or 15th or 10th... I would care if they where 1st, 2nd or 3rd but if not in the running I don't care who wins since my horse is no longer in the race. Teams consistently outside the top 4 places focus on their individuals not on if their team goes from 15th pace to 13th place. Point is what percentage of the fans in the building care about the team race? Generally just the 2 or 3 teams fighting it out.

Part of what I am hearing there Jag is that nothing matters except winning. Now, I agree that that is indeed the mentality of much of the fan base, but I  think that is part of the problem. Being the "winner" has been elevated to such elite status in our culture that it undermines the values that we claim to prize, e.g., determination, tenacity, etc. Words are cheap. Instead, as a culture, we repeatedly reinforce that the only thing that matters is winning.

I think that is the bigger problem here. We tend to be fans of winners, not losers. We tend to care less about those who have tried and failed. We are a society of hypocrites; giving lip service to values and instead, really only valuing outcomes.

BTW, I think a dual championship series and individual championship series would be just fine...for true fans...and maybe fair weather fans, as well.

Let me equate me feeling to the Super Bowl, millions will watch, heck maybe hundreds of millions... but how many actually care about the outcome of the game? How many are just football fans, or want to get together with friends and eat junk food or just like the commercials. Point is unless you have a horse in the race you just tend to not put much weight in the winner. Let's go a bit further... when I said I don't care if we finish 15h or 10th.... it is like if the Packers don't make the playoffs I wont care if they finished 2nd in the conference or 3rd... both places are about the same result at the end of the day. Not to say I wouldn't be completely behind the individuals and cheering for them whether going on the championship side or the consolation side. I would still respect a 2-2 finish even if they didn't place. Yet, if we where in 15th and needed a pin to finish in 13th I wouldn't exactly be on the edge of my seat... because to me one place is about equal to the next. I wouldn't exactly equate this to win at all costs and winning is everything. I mean I wouldn't sellout like Florida State and Miami and bring in criminals to try and win a title, kids that are only great athletes but have no real shot at graduating or likely will be skating on thin ice their entire career.

If we are talking about my feeling on Barry, well I am sure he builds good men, but that doesn't mean Cael and J and John Smith don't... I believe you can have both success and a good mentor it doesn't have to be one or the other.  I don't expect my kids coach to make him a great man, that was my job for the 18 years they lived with me before going to school, that was the influences around him growing up with family, friends, teachers, coaches and community influences. If I need his college coach to make him a man then I am in trouble. I am also not asking to be a national contender every year, but a top 3-4 finish every 5 years would be nice... I think we have had 1 or 2 in the last 20 years.

Barry Davis had 20 years coming into this year his B1G dual record was 53-94 with 2 top 3 finishes and 4 winning B1G seasons.... the 20 years prior to Davis was 125-37 in the B1G with 12 top 3 finishes and 17 winning seasons.... one is the exact opposite of the other... he must just be a great man?? We where once a very good B1G team, one of the top, now we get a glimpse of that once every 4 or 5 years.

[jaguarwrestler]

"You are resisting any change, you want to keep the duals as an insignificant warmup for the real championship.    Why not take a tiny risk and see if a change enhances the season?"

Change just for the sake of change makes no sense.

IF the dual format is better/more popular, it will prove itself by attendance.

I stated before, I would like love to have both and have a dual champion and a team champion.  Let's make this change and see what happens! 

I don't believe the individual attendance would drop if they had a dual tournament, I doubt people attend only to see a team crowned champ. I don't believe a team tournament would draw the same crowd but I think it would still pull well.

[1Iota]

A team championship should not be decided by  40% of the starting line up.  

I beg to differ.  (Believe me, I don't care to be on the same side of the fence as MNBadger....)

If you look at football, you could make the argument that the team with the fewest weak spots will win the most titles....but others might argue (especially in the NFL) that the championships will be won by those 40% i.e. quarterbacks, receivers, maybe a wrecking-ball-of-a- linebacker, etc....

Michael Jordan won 6 NBA titles because he could carry the donkeys on his team all by himself.....

& I disagree with this.  Basketball might be the exception, but as a football & baseball you can't win with only 40% of your roster.  The SD chargers for years had the best offense in football & won nothing.  You absolutely need your stud players at key positions, but if that is all you have you will get exposed.  If you march into battle with the best QB, WR, RB in the game, but your defense & OL are weak, you will not only lose, you will get slaughtered. 

[MNbadger]

Tonight I am going to the Mn/IA dual.  I am excited but winning or losing the dual to me takes a back seat to the individual match ups.