|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Fred Feeney added to this discussion on January 16, 2008
|
This is from the NCAA survey. Not that these will be changes...but the NCAA is asking for input on these.
1. Would you favor allowing the offensive wrestler, returning from an out-of-bounds situation, the option of selecting the neutral position with the opponent receiving one point for an escape? Same as NFHS rules.
2. Would you favor a rule that allows the offensive wrestler (the wrestler in control) :30 seconds to turn the opponent or have both wrestlers returned to the neutral position? An escape in this situation would not be awarded.
3. Would you favor changing this rule to read, "A wrestler shall remain in bounds as long as any body part remains within the wrestling area."? This change would eliminate the term "supporting point(s)".
4. Would you favor a rule that awards one point to the opponent of a wrestler who steps out of bounds?
5. Would you favor changing the degree angle needed to meet near-fall criteria from the present 45 degrees or less to 90 degrees or less?
6. When the offensive wrestler has the opponent in a controlled pinning situation, would you favor allowing a near fall to be counted or a fall called when the defensive wrestler's pinning area is completely out of bounds?
7. Would you be in favor of eliminating time advantage?
8. Would you favor reorganizing the present 10 weight classes to accommodate a 215- or 220-pound weight class?
9. Would you favor adding a 215- or 220-pound weight class to the present 10 weight classes?
10. Would you favor adding to this rule a requirement that all contestants weighing-in shall do so in shorts?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on January 17, 2008
|
Fred: A lot of great ideas there.
My greatest support would be for an elimination of riding time--institutionalized stalling--and an additional weight class around 220.
In addition, I love the idea of returning the bottom man to neutral after a set amount of time if neither top nor bottom can improve.
I don't like the point for stepping out of bounds. Iowa would score a ton.
I don't think we need to change back points from 45 to 90 but I would love to see a one point near fall added for any back exposure. When you run a bar, if the guy flips through, you get a point. Same thing with the quick tilt. Two counts would no longer be necessary to score and aggressive wrestling would be rewarded.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on January 17, 2008
|
1. No. They can kick the other wrestler out if they want to let him up.
2. No. Mat wrestling is fine; getting an escape point might take over thirty seconds as well.
3. Yes. I don't see why not. It will promote action.
4. No. We're not sumo wrestlers.
5. No. 45 degrees is the best.
6. Yes. It will promote action.
7. No. Make it 1 point for every minute.
8. Yes.
9. Yes.
10. No. Why?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Michael Rodriguez added to this discussion on January 17, 2008
|
1. No, I don't like it much at the high school level.
2. Maybe, I think this would be beneficial to Ohio wrestlers
3. Yes.
4. No, it's not sumo.
5. No.
6. Yes.
7. If you do #2, then yes. If not, no.
8. No.
9. Yes.
10. No.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Scott Shaw added to this discussion on January 17, 2008
|
1. Yes, although this just encourages more takedowns and makes us worse mat wrestlers than we already are, it does help an offensive wrestler strategically late in a match.
2. Yes, more like international wrestling but it also will make for more clock watching and stalling on bottom. I think that officials should make it clear that the bottom man has to continue to attempt to score or the top man will continue to ride.
3. Yes.
4. No, dumbest rule in international wrestling.
5. No.
6. Nearfall yes, a pin, I just don't know, getting out of bounds is sometimes just smart wrestling.
7. Yes.
8. No, making a 220 will just increase the jumps between weights and make for more stacked weight classes and more excellent wrestlers never making it to AA status. I don't think that we should make it easier for them to accomplish that, just not make it harder.
9. Yes, 11 weights instead of 10 is always the way to go.
10. I don't think that it matters all that much with compression gear and what not. In the big scheme of things, the wrestlers will adjust to this rule rather quickly and make sure that they lose that extra 2 oz. to accommodate for the shorts.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Leo Zimmer added to this discussion on January 17, 2008
|
1. Yes. Only makes sense if riding time is eliminated.
2. Probably not... could change my mind on this one.
3. Yes.
4.NO... pushed out or stepped out... to much of a judgment call
5.No
6.Yes
7. Yes!!!!
8.No.
9. Yes
10.Who cares?
I will say this... any rule that effectively creates more offense is Ok in my book, with the exception of #2... that is a fundamental change that is too drastic in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Pat Costilow added to this discussion on January 17, 2008
|
It seems to me that some of these proposals would, if put in place, begin to bridge the gap between folkstyle and freestyle; something of which I do not favor. However,
1- Sure, it should be the offensive wrestler's choice, IMO.
2- No. This would eliminate any incentive for wrestlers to learn riding skills. I like the fundamental rules and strategies of folkstyle.
3- I have no problem with this, but would not be in favor of changing the rules because I have to imagine this interpretation of the rule would create officiating nightmares.
4- No, as Dan said, this isn't sumo wrestling. I hate the push out rule in freestyle, it has caused some offensive strategies to devolve into pushing.
5- I think this is fine the way it is. On one hand, the rule alteration would cause more backpoints awarded, and, in turn, the increasing opportunies for backpoints would potentially cause more wrestlers to go for backs, which could make the matches more exciting. Or, it could discourage takedown shootouts, which seem to be appealing to borderline fans, and which I feel are good for the sport (It is easier for a borderline fan or otherwise to understand excitement from neutral than in a ride situation). I guess I would oppose the rule change, but not very strongly.
6- I think if the offensive wrestler is in bounds, the move and incurred points should count, so yes.
7- I am all for eliminating riding time advantages in college. It discourages offensive wrestling, and I doubt there is much disputing that.
8- Yes. Contrary to what the poster above said, I think increasingly difficult weights (especially in the middle weights) would be good. Watching dominant wrestlers decimate mediocre weight classes is less entertaining to watch that is a weight like 149 this year or 157 a few years ago.
9- I certainly would, but I don't see it happening. More weights means more opportunities for wrestlers.
10- Nah. I am against extreme weight cutting, but if they are 165, they are 165. I don't like handicapping it by making them cut to a pound below scratch in order to make up for the shorts.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
George Nussbaum added to this discussion on January 18, 2008
|
A little off topic, but did you see that the NCAA decided not to recognize the Cliff Keen duals?? They said that proper skin checks weren't done, so it's not recognized. All records from that event have been wiped out. That's ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on January 18, 2008
|
|
Quote from George Nussbaum's post:
|
|
"A little off topic, but did you see that the NCAA decided not to recognize the Cliff Keen duals?? They said that proper skin checks weren't done, so it's not recognized. All records from that event have been wiped out. That's ridiculous."
|
Wow. And I'm sure that's in the best interest of the student-athletes, right? Hahaha. Just when you think you've seen it all...
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Joe Boardwine added to this discussion on January 18, 2008
|
Good of NCAA to try to gather feedback.
My humble opinion:
1. No - there is no need for it and it is confusing for the layperson. Need to keep the scoring as simple as possible for average people to be able to follow it. They can kick them out - which is easier to understand for a fan.
2. No - unless you want to eliminate mat wrestling. However, this is sort of how our Ohio officials tend to call matches on top already, except they call stalling rather than whistling and putting the guys back in a neutral position. That's one reason OH wrestlers struggle on the mat early in college
3. Yes - rewards agressivness, perhaps make wrestling more exciting
4. At the college level - perhaps. It would award agressiveness and might be very nice and simple for average people to follow ... promoting fan involvement. At HS level...no
5. I agree with Hank Kornblut above
6. Yes - why not? there is plenty of room and everybody is counting backs in the stands anyway. Rewards agressiveness
7. No - 1 pt. is not too much to give for dominating someone on top. Not when a lot of silly penalites are also 1 pt.
8. No
9. Yes - would be great to get more big guys into the sport, 215 lbs. is really not that big for today's college athlete anymore. Would fill a nice need.
10. No - good example of overthinking the rules
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Todd Vennis added to this discussion on January 18, 2008
|
my opinions also reflect for HS wrestling too.
1. Yes- I was against it at the beginning of the season but I actually have come to like this rule while coaching.
2. No- If we are going to go to FS in college just go to it. Fans like PINS.
3. Yes - Yes - Yes! I am surprised referees on all levels are not calling for this.
4. No- One caveat. I would be open to awarding choice of position to agressive wrestler if other wrestler is taken completely out of bounds not just stepping on the line. (I also like choice of position for all stalling calls)
5. No- but I agree with the 1 pt. for 1 second exposure. But only when you have established control. One of the things i dislike about FS is you can get a takedown and actually be losing 2-1 because of a cheap turn of shoulders.
6. Yes- Fans like pins.
7. No- but I would consider exploring other applications, because I agree with Hank that is institutionalized stalling but do consider top wrestling an important part of the sport.-- Such as maybe upping the required time to get the point. Or only award the point if you also earned a NF exposure. Or only use it at the tie breaker in OT instead of the last SV.
8. No -- but add the 220 and make 11. This would actually benefit NCAA Div. III level the most.
9. If it is in the locker room- who cares. If they would put the wt. in where it should be - right before the athletes step on the mat.- then they should be in full uniform.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Christopher Henderson added to this discussion on January 18, 2008
|
I would love to see an eleventh weight class added. In 1966 and 1967 there were 11 weight classes.
115,123,130,137,145,152,160,167,177,191,UNL
I don't see why the NCAA couldn't do that again like this:
124,131,138,145,152,160,168,177,190,210,285
Imagine the 210 weight class, It would have great matchups with Bergman, Koz, and Davis, and it would correspond with the Olympic weight of 211.
The Olypics should go back to 10 weight classes too, or at least eight or nine. It sucks to see so many great wrestlers who can't wrestle their natural weights and can't make the World Team because they are just the wrong size.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Proposed changes for NCAA wrestling
Mark Palumbo added to this discussion on January 18, 2008
|
1) No
2) No unless you get rid of stalling and riding time
3) yes, but make the out of bounds mat bigger
4) No, you have the right to defend your self. in the case of obvious fleeing and point is given anyway. inforce the rule that we have.
5) Yes this would make tilts and legs more effective
6) yes
7)No
8) No
9) Yes and increase the number of scolarships by the same amount
10) No, This is dumb. Why mess with this rule. next your going to say there will be a 1/4 pound short allowance. No need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
