I feel I have to apologize. Up until now, I was absolutely convinced that coaches would see the benefits of A Point Earned, Is A Point Scored and adopt the change, maybe not whole-heartedly, but at least begrudgingly.
I just thought the Rules Committee, and then the coaches would realize it would be the most important thing to happen in the sport since Isidor Niflot won America’s first Olympic Gold Medal in 1904.
It made too much sense because it would incentivize coaches to ditch their current philosophy of focusing on leg attacks, getting off the bottom, and burning time off the clock.
If I may, I’d like to borrow a thought from Rich Lorenzo, an All-American wrestler when he competed, and the Head Coach at Penn State for over a decade in the 80’s. He’s a special person, and one of the sport’s most admired personalities.
I know that because he’ll tell you that’s not the case. And, with white hair and somewhat of a slumped over gait, you’ll know I’m right because he’s seen it all.
Rich said, “In this environment, (meaning the NIL, RTC’s, and minimal revenue being produced by wrestling programs) I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of the marginal programs in the Big 10 didn’t drop wrestling in the future.”
Really, in the Big 10! I guess the next question would be; what does that mean for the second, third and fourth level D-I programs?
Yet, here we are, or, here I am, writing and making as many enemies as friends, spouting my mouth off about the Rules Committee sitting on their hands as Nero Fiddles.
I really don’t care at this point if they adopt a bunch of new rules as far away from anything I have suggested. As long as what they do is centered on marketing, branding, and promotional advancement.
Not how many seconds a wrestler can hang onto an ankle before being called for stalling.
Since the second half of the 20th century, I would argue that the Rules Committee’s focus has been on things somewhere between La-La Land and Oz.
Forget the athletes and coaches for a minute, we need to start focusing on the fans we don’t have. Without them, the sport can’t continue to exist. There’s too much pressure on the Athletic Directors to fund their star athletes in the major sports.
We can complain all we want about the collegiate footballers and basketball players each earning up to a million dollars a year, but that doesn’t help us.
Where do you think that money is going to come from? Deficit spending works for the government, but not at universities, and certainly not at colleges.
But, whatever you do, the rules we don’t have, must incentivize the coaches to force their wrestlers to increase the action that we also don’t have. The sport needs 10 matches per dual meet that are wrestled by athletes who produce more excitement than Ben Askren and Gene Mills ever did. We need screaming rabid fans in the stands who buy tickets each week. I’m talking about the millions of fans we could have if the sport was exciting, which it’s not!
All the rules have done for the last several decades is appease the coaches. It’s all about penalizing the athletes for mundane nothings, and telling the coaches how they should think, act, and what to teach, based on the rules they pass.
How about incentivization? Start with the coaches and why they aren’t lighting a fire under their athletes butts.
And please, don’t tell me the wrestlers are so evenly matched these days that they’re working overtime to score as many points as they can.
That’s hogwash with a capital H.
If you’d tell the wrestlers they were going to receive $500.00 for every point they scored in each bout, what might you expect to see? Raise your hand if you think the matches would remain in the 3-1 and 7-4 category?
Bad things are coming and when they do, the Rules Committee is going to feign surprise. “This isn’t our fault, we did everything we could.”
No, you didn’t!
They have always believed that marketing was going to more than one place to buy groceries. That promotions is something one does to advance his career. And branding was something cattlemen do each spring.
Please . . . someone help. Our leadership is clueless.
I forgot to add another set of scoring rules which I’m surprised the Rules Committee hasn’t thought of.
You get points for a near-fall. I forget how many and what the criteria is.
You SHOULD get points for escaping a near-fall.
You already get points for an escape.
The points you get for escaping a near-fall should cancel the points your opponent got for getting the near-fall.
Consider these points for escaping a near-fall the punishment your opponent deserves for not pinning you.
Good thoughts . . . these are the type of things we should be discussing. Not continuing down the same path and expecting a different outcome. Thank you kind sir.
You won’t like it, but I will tell you why a point earned won’t work. The reason is so simple as to be laughable.
Points are scored for ANY activity, not just activity that progresses toward a goal.
Let me explain from the business world.
In the business world, your performance review is based on your progress toward a goal
Mindless activity that doesn’t progress toward the goal is a waste of time and money and resources.
You must define the goal of wrestling that fans want and expect, and then you must work towards that goal.
The rules and scoring should encourage working toward that goal and punish actions that don’t.
Assuming the goal is to get a pin, how would I change the rules and scoring system to encourage this goal?
1) make the take down and the escape be worth the same number of points. That’s right.
I’m not here to reward mindless activity no matter how active it is. I’m here to reward progress toward a pin.
If an escape is worth one point, have a take down be worth one point.
Have a reversal be two points since it is equivalent to an escape and a take down.
2) rather than dividing the match into periods, have one, long, continuous match with no interruptions.
This is another strange modification to the rules.
3) You love stalling calls. I do not, but I will use your love of stalling calls to my advantage.
If a wrestler is not making progress toward a pin, it’s a caution the first time,
and a point for the opponent for the second stalling call.
With these strange, minor, very minor, rule and scoring modifications, how would a match progress?
You get a take down. You don’t want your opponent to escape because that erases your one point lead.
You don’t want to just lay on your opponent because you get called for stalling.
You have little choice but to try to turn and pin your opponent.
By not dividing the match into periods, you can’t “bank” your take down point and coast to victory the rest of the match.
I can hear the cries now. People will complain a take down is harder than an escape and should be worth more.
Bull. It’s not about the difficulty of a move. It’s whether the move is making progress toward the goal.
Remember, in the business world, mindless activity is a waste of time and money and resources.
The reason a point earned won’t work is because it rewards both mindless activity and activity toward a goal.