Wrestling Blogs - Matt Valenti

Conference tournaments are over and it's time for the At-Large bids to be determined. Hours before the final wrestlers are announced, the flaws in the system are starting to show. Listed below are some of the problems regarding our current NCAA Qualifer system:

1. The "Fluff" Factor

How do we account for soft schedules -- wrestling tournaments and teams that are essentially "sure wins?" Winning percentage is 2/3 of the RPI calculation, so it weighs heavily in earning a good RPI. Winning percentage is also 1/3 of the overall criteria in determining a Gold, Silver or Bronze standard qualifying spot. So without a doubt, winning percentage is the most important factor in determining automatic qualifiers. Why should I set-up a tough schedule for my team when I can find a way to make sure that they all get 30 wins and therefore a qualifying spot? I can have a record of 33-7, have a great winning percentage, beat nobody of note, and still earn a qualifying spot. If you ask me, that isn't conducive to producing the best wrestlers at the NCAA tournament.

2. The Henning Affect

Here comes the problems with "At Large" bids. Part of the justification behind the change in qualifying systems was to ensure a top-ranked wrestler a berth at the NCAA tournament, even if he has a bad qualifying tournament -- a la Henning last year. Essentially, it protects wrestlers who are Gold or Silver standard, but don't finish in the automatic qualifiers of their conference tournament. So a #1 seed that goes 0-2 -- well he still gets to go to the NCAA tournament with an "At Large" bid. What the system does now is reward a wrestler who has a good season up to the conference tournament. It doesn't matter if he falls apart at his conference tournament and wrestles terribly. He's still going to the tournament because he did well during the year. If I went 0-2 at the EIWA tournament my senior year, I would be the first to tell you that I wouldn't deserve to be at the NCAA tournament. We want wrestlers that EARN the right to wrestle at the Big Show by performing in a conference tournament, not wrestlers that are GIVEN a second chance. If you get pinned in the third period because you got tired and careless, do you deserve to win just because you looked good in the first and second periods?! It's a bit of a simplified example, but it's right in line with the current thinking. Do we really want to reward an 0-2 wrestler? If you can't perform when it matters, you don't deserve to wrestle with the big boys.

3. The Buyout

This is the one where wrestlers throw matches on purpose for the betterment of the conference. Now this hasn't happen to my knowledge as of yet, but to be honest I'm considering making a pitch to the EIWA coaches for this to happen, just to prove a point. Automatic qualifiers are determined prior to the conference tournament. We know beforehand that if a Gold Standard wrestlers doesn't place, he's still going as an At Large bid. Are you going to tell me that if Brent Metcalf had the flu the weekend of Big 10's, decided to weigh-in and then not wrestle, that he wouldn't get a wildcard slot? (Remember this is hypothetical...I know that he would never do that, and that his coaches would never let a guy do that. Plus Brent would probably mentally break most strains of flu anyway). So next year I'm going to have my automatic qualifiers throw a match to place just outside of our assigned allotment, so that we get one extra qualifier for the EIWA. Now, this is an unrealistic scenario, but it's to prove a point and sort-of piggybacks on the Henning Affect. Why not throw a match if the kid isn't feeling 100%? All my kid has to do is forfeit -- it doesn't affect his record or seed and he still goes to the NCAA tournament. How are we going to stop this? The new qualifying system can't do it.

4. Injuries -- Before the Conference Tournament

So the automatic qualifiers are allocated. The Big 12 gets 5 qualifiers at 125 lbs -- if you make weight at the conference tournament you go to the NCAA tournament. Missouri's 125lber gets hurt in practice 3 days before the tournament starts, and the only wrestler they have left to put in the Big 12 tournament is their backup wrestler who has a 1-23 record on the year. Does he really still get to go to the NCAA tournament? He doesn't have to win a match to punch a ticket to St. Louis. All he has to do is show up and make weight. Or do we go back and re-allocate qualifiers at 125lbs? As far as I can tell, this didn't happen this year. But it is only a matter of time before we see it in action.

5. Injuries -- During the Conference Tournament

No. 1 seed Joe Smith-Gable-Sanderson is wrestling his first match at the MAC tournament and breaks his leg. He can't wrestle and has to forfeit out of the tournament. All of a sudden this Gold Standard wrestler doesn't place at the tournament. Despite going 0-2 and being injured, he's going to earn an At Large bid to the NCAA tournament. He's obviously not going to wrestle in the tournament, but he still gets a bid? Where is the remedy for this?

6 . Conference Results That Don't Exist...

The Big 10 is the wrestling powerhouse. What happens when the Big 10 (11) has 9 AQs (Automatic Qualifiers) at one weight? All of a sudden there's a need to wrestle out to 9th place? This is a bit more prevalent in bigger conferences like the Big 10 or EIWA that has more than 8 teams. How do you wrestle to a 9th place spot? What happens if only 7 of the wrestlers that earned AQ status place in the top 9? Do we really need to wrestle to a 9th, 10th, and 11th place? Is that even possible? Again, this is hypothetical, but with the strength of the Big 10, far from impossible.

7. True Wildcards

If we are going to look at true At Large bids, why not redo the RPI, winning percentage, and coaches' poll after the conference tournaments? Some wrestlers have great tournaments and may move up the in the ranking. Some may bump their winning percentage enough to earn a bid. RPI will most likely improve for those who perform at their respective tournament. As it stands, your conference tournament essentially counts for nothing unless you make the AQ numbers. This could help clarify some of the At Large situations, but at the very least it allows the ENTIRE season to matter. Correct me if I'm wrong...but shouldn't the Big 10 Tournament count for something?! If we're not going to look at conference results when we're looking at wildcards, we shouldn't look at it when we do NCAA seeding either. Because according to the new system, it doesn't really matter that much anyway.

8.  The Ivy League

Now this is a little more specific but I think it's also worth mentioning.  The NCAA permits wrestling teams to compete on 16 separate dates, not including the conference and NCAA tournaments.  A "date" is defined as competition on a specific day, such as a tournament or a dual (or multiple-duals on a day).  The Ivy League only allows 13 dates for the Ivy teams.  With winning percentage being such an important part of the system, we here are getting short changed.  On 3 dates, a team could have as many as 15 matches (3 tournaments) or as few as 3 matches (3 duals).  Either way the Ivy's are short-changed with the system.  I won't come out and claim that it would have a drastic affect, but I think it's fair to say the Ivy League teams have established themselves as legitimate NCAA tournament competitors.  Why should we suffer under the new qualifier system, because of our league's rules? 

9. The At Large Selection Committee

This process is supposed to be entirely objective when deciding on the last however many qualifying spots. How can this be objective when there are college coaches on the selection committee?! Lobbying for your wrestlers is frowned upon and is supposed to be eliminated. Yet when there are coaches on the committee, what wrestlers do you think they know best? Do they know who is injured and can't compete at the NCAA tournament? Who have they seen wrestle? Their own conference wrestlers. Objective opinions are difficult to come by in this regard. I would rather see a committee of coaches from each conference than a random mix of coaches, ADs and who-knows-what else mixed in. It's an unfair and biased panel if only because the coaches know the wrestlers better than the rest of the panel.

Now before everyone gets all up in arms about this and that, remember that some of these situations are hypothetical. I'm not saying that our old system wasn't flawed. It had it's problems for sure. But as it stands right now, we are changing the sport of wrestling, and not in a positive way. In case anyone didn't notice, the new system didn't really help the smaller conferences. In fact it hurt everyone except for the ACC and the MAC Championships. We are already fighting enough battles with wrestling on the West Coast just to keep wrestling alive...now all of sudden we strip the PAC 10 of 18 qualifiers. EIGHTEEN! I'm not really sure how that helps the sport of wrestling. I guess if we just let teams continue to die away because they have trouble competing, it leaves more spots for less teams right?? (Note: Sarcasm).

I don't have a solution but I do believe that we need to meet somewhere in the middle between the new and old systems. The historical data of the past took too long to change. The current mess encourages weak schedules and is kind to losing when winning matters most. Neither is right.

We'll see what today's At Large committee brings to the table...but my guess is that it won't be pretty.