davenowa

guess I don't understand attacking the messenger when the message has such merit. while everyone wants to see more pins, there is still something inherently wrong with a pin being worth 4 x a decision, especially when most fans are at least used to scoring double (6 vs 3) in a dual format. both suggestions noted above could be implemented, whereby consi advancement matches HS and is worth 1 pt (half of topside) AND consi bonus points are worth half the topside as well. The current format also overly rewards forfeits on the consi side. For what it's worth, I would still prefer to revamp tourney scoring so that the average fan can easily follow, with it matching dual scoring. No advancement points, tweak place points and make consis just half of champ side. combined, of course, with margin of victory scoring.

thanks...we do always count injury defaults as losses, regardless of who was winning at the time. as we have transitioned to a fully non-subjective point methodology for seeding purposes, I prefer to also have an objective and non-disputable "yes or no" for all scenarios. since medical forfeits are sometimes legit and other times clearly ducks, it is best to offer consistency for each case, and it looks we will go with counting as a head to head win for purposes of seed swapping (unless I see a sudden contrary consensus from other states before Tues, which, based on the limited replies to date, seems unlikely). thanks again.

While NFHS does not recognize any forfeit (including med fft) as a LOSS on a wrestler's record, but does count as a win for the victor, the question about head to head came up in an earlier post, but was never specifically answered. I ask because in our state seedings, we allow wrestler B seeded 2nd to overtake wrestler A who is seeded first if he has beaten him head to head, and there has been some debate about how this applies to a medical forfeit (for instance, in the finals of a regular season tournament, where A knows he is sitting on the top seed for post-season and elects to not risk said seed in finals). Also hoping that next year NFHS follows NCAA lead regarding 1st loss counting, to minimize some of those scenarios.

while the "challenge" part of the statement was correct, it is that tricky "and beat" component that makes the sentence, in whole, therefore false, as seeds 1-6 placed 1-6 (albeit slightly out of order).

if this is going to become a weight class discussion, it may deserve a less misleading thread title. however, as much as I would prefer 13 consistent NFHS weight classes across all states, those listed here with their corresponding kilogramatic values are not reflective of the bell curve of high school wrestlers. even adding those bottom 3 weights, there are too many upper weights, too many lower weights and not enough in the middle (with too large increments). 75% of the kids would fall into less than 50% of the weights. that is the difficulty in trying to have HS classes, where kids are starting lighter and growing faster, mirror college or "grown up" weights.

which set of HS weights should they use? NFHS 12-13-14? or NY12 plus 101? or PA13? sooo many options... (12) 108 lbs., 116 lbs., 124 lbs., 131 lbs., 138 lbs., 145 lbs., 152 lbs., 160 lbs., 170 lbs., 190 lbs., 215 lbs., 285 lbs. (13) 107 lbs., 114 lbs., 121 lbs., 127 lbs., 133 lbs., 139 lbs., 145 lbs., 152 lbs., 160 lbs., 172 lbs., 189 lbs., 215 lbs., 285 lbs. (14) 106 lbs., 113 lbs., 120 lbs., 126 lbs., 132 lbs. 138 lbs., 144 lbs., 150 lbs., 157 lbs., 165 lbs., 175 lbs., 190 lbs., 215 lbs., 285 lbs.

Not sure how often the coin toss is the deciding factor, as obviously inconsequential in a rout. However, I will compare it to the NFL situation, in which they have modified their overtime rules to minimize the impact of the coin toss, especially as is now in place for playoffs. Therefore, even if the toss only impacts a small percentage of close outcome matches, that is no reason to not seek improvement. Not to invoke too many other sports for comparative purposes, but tennis would be mayhem if wrestling coaches were in charge. Rather than putting their top player at #1 singles, and 2nd at #2 etc, Mr. Wrestling would send out a JV scrub at #1 singles against Rival HS, rationalizing that although we would be behind 4-0 after singles, since each of Rival schools' corresponding kids were slightly better than ours, by bumping our 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 and 3 to 4, we come out ahead 3-1 instead of down 4-0. Sounds genius to our wrestling coach, but in most tennis conferences, this would be an illegal substitution, unless the coach could provide written documentation showing the recent date and time that our JV Scrub beat our #1 singles player. Additionally, locked line-ups would also minimize the current prevalence of some coaches ducking good wrestlers when the outcome of the dual is not even remotely in question. Currently, the parents and family of the state champ expecting to see a decent match against the all-conference kid at that weight know that against some teams, the odds of the match taking place are 50/50. Lacking a significant change, I would offer an addendum that any bump/duck resulting in a forfeit must be accompanied by the coach who presents the forfeit immediately being required to walk (crawl?) to the opposing fan section with a cash refund for the admission fee handed back to those parents.

nothing against gamesmanship, which I would see as expecting you to submit your traditional line-up that you have used all season (and which was unchanged since your Kemp days...Jack, not Lee) and I surprise you and the still-standing crowd by moving my 126 to 132 when the locked line-up is announced after the anthem is played. otherwise, I call it for what it is...a coin toss determining the outcome of a dual when ALL OTHER RESULTS are exactly the same and the opposite outcome in terms of which team wins the match occurs when the other team wins the toss. Not sure of any other sport that would tolerate a coin toss determining which team wins (and I say that based on the evidence presented where the outcome only changes based on the result of said coin toss). still looking for someone to suggest a better method that is perhaps completely different than anything that has been used or proposed. enjoyed the recent collegiate line-up shift, but have not analyzed whether it was made possible by the coin toss or not, but I am sure someone could shed some light on that situation.

thanks SHP, and since I know you have given this topic some thought in the past, I was going to contact you directly, but figured maybe there was someone out there who could come up with a novel approach. I guess the college format could be an improvement, except for a couple of issues. First, in any multi-dual (ie quad of dual tourney), it would require a delay of up to 30 minutes to execute the new choice with each match, as opposed to the current NFHS rule that starts each subsequent round at the next higher weight class to eliminate the possibility of having to wait because you want to bump up the kid who wrestled last in the first round and would then be first in the next. Secondly, to achieve your desired outcome, NFHS could institute the NCAA style assigned weight classes as odd and even, as opposed to the first match in NFHS being odd and the second being even, although I don't think that change alters the scenarios presented below (just the nomenclature of what is odd and even). with those things in place, I guess that the NCAA plan would be better, because at least in that manner, every time I win the coin toss I would lose the dual in every scenario. However, if I LOSE the toss, I win the dual! I will try to explain, but might have missed something in translation. I will use the same weight classes noted in my prior example, as well as the same "status" of each team's entrant at 113 and 120. Situation 1: I win the coin toss and choose to start at 113. As that would be an "even" class under the NCAA format, the coach of team B would choose "odd" and force me to send first at 113. I send my stud, he forfeits and bumps up to 120 and wins by pin, so 6-6. Situation 2: I win the coin toss and choose odd, forcing him to send first at 113. He then opts to start at 120, where I must then send first. I send my original decent 120, he bumps up his better kid from 113 to 120, pins my kid and gets 6, while my stud at 113 ends of taking a forfeit to end the match, so still 6-6 net from those 2 bouts. Situation 3: I win the toss and choose even, so will need to send first at 113. Coach B chooses to start at 113, so same net result of 6-6. Situation 4: I win the toss and choose to start at 120. Coach B then selects even, forcing me to send first at 120. If I bump up my stud, he counters with his weaker kid. I get 6, but he gets 6 at 113 from his good guy pinning my JV 113. Net 6-6. Situation 5: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B opts to start at 113, so I choose odd. He must send first, so if he sends his good kid, I send my stud and get 3. I then also beat his JV kid at 120, so I am up 9-0. Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B opts to start at 120, so I choose even. He must send first, so if he bumps up his 113, I bump up my 113, take 3 points, and then it comes down to a pair of JV kids meeting at 113. I guess I should have clarified in my original post the status of our JV 113 kids (if we have any), but had implied I had a JV 113 and Coach B did not, so would be up 9-0 from those 2 bouts. Situation 6: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B opts to choose odd or even, and selects odd. Since I must send first at 113, I elect to start at 120, where he must send first. Same result as situation 6. Situation 7: I LOSE the coin toss. Coach B selects even. I then opt to start at 113, where he must send first. Same result as situation 5. So...since 3.8.1 (NCAA version) does not allow me to defer choice if I win the coin toss, the only way I can win the match is by losing the coin toss. At least with this format, I would have a strategy, but can see some confusion on the faces of all others gathered at the coin toss as we celebrate losing! And if all involved are as aware of the possible outcomes, the end result still comes down to a coin toss. I guess I can only hope that Coach B does not know I have a dizzying intellect.

Looking to those who may be able to think outside the box in seeking an alternative to having the pre-match coin toss hold so much value. In the past, I had advocated for locked line-ups (presented to scoretable just prior to the national anthem), with the inability to alter your submitted entrant at each weight (much like in an individual tournament, or in other sports). This would prevent ducking (perhaps accompanied by a change making a forfeit being worth 7 points in any weight class for which you submitted a wrestler and then withdrew), as well as preventing the coin toss from holding so much value. This proposal met some resistance from traditionalists, so I am seeking any viable options. I am not sure the college format would solve the issue for high school. Here is the scenario I am seeking to avoid: If I have a state champ at 113 and a decent kid at 120, and you have a really good kid at 113 (but not beating my state champ on your best day) and a JV-level kid at 120, the coin toss can be a 9 point swing or more. If I win the toss, and force you to send first at 113, I am winning 2 matches, with at least a decision and a very likely pin against your JV-level, putting me ahead 9-0 (and if you bump your kid to 120, I would send out my JV 113 to take the forfeit and still have our 113's meet at 120, still leading 9-0 after 2 matches). If you win the toss, and I must send first at 113, and you bump up your kid at 113 to 120, giving me a forfeit against my state champ, and then earning a pin at 120 against my decent kid, we have traded sixes and the score is 6-6. In scenario A, my team goes on to win 37-32. In scenario B, with all 12 other matches being exactly the same, your team wins 38-34. So if we meet in a regular season dual, and I win the coin toss, I win 37-32. We meet again a month later for the state title, and you win the toss, and the results of the other 12 matches are exactly the same, and you win 38-34. Nothing at all changed except the outcome of the coin toss. In my opinion, that places too much value on a pre-match toss of the coin. Other sports (ie football) have made changes to minimize the impact of the coin toss. Yes, I know that some senators will insist that I improve my decent 120's ability to not get pinned, or you will tell Team B to get better at 120, or a stronger back-up at 113...but my point here is that the outcome of the match was ENTIRELY DETERMINED BY A COIN TOSS with all other results being equal. This noted scenario has been an impediment in attempting to create a dual meet state championship, as opposed to being determined by individually bracketed tournament. I don't have a perfect solution, but would welcome any thoughts that minimize the value of the pre-match coin toss...without, apparently, detracting from a Wile E Coyote genius-level coach having the ability to out-strategize their opposition (which, in reality, is simply trying to win the toss next time). Or could perhaps this could be done when submitting a locked line-up, based on what you know of the opposing coach. Is he the kind of coach who would put the poison in his own goblet or his enemy's?

Just a few idea, to facilitate debate/discussion.., 1. Increase all NFHS weight classes by 2 pounds to allow for shoes, headgear etc. 2. Procedures will vary slightly based on dual meet (or multi dual) and for individually bracketed tournaments 3. Dual Meet Procedure A. Consider locked line ups (but that's a whole different argument for another day and thread...) B. Weigh in when reporting to table ready to wrestle (scale available prior, including during warm-ups, to check weight) C. For a dual-meet team tourney or multi dual (ie quad meet), a wrestler can’t compete in more than 2 different weight classes for the event. Wrestler may compete in class for which qualifies OR may wrestle up 1 (one weight class) above which initial weigh in of the event allows. Ex: Wrestler A makes 132 for first dual. This allows him to wrestle 132 or 138 during event, provided he makes weight for subsequent rounds. If he does not make 132, he may still wrestle 138, but MAY NOT wrestle 145. Also, a wrestler may not “go down a weight class” during the course of the dual meet tourney (for instance, if over by a half pound for initial dual weigh-in, can’t proceed to lose weight for subsequent rounds). D. Weigh ins will be held prior to each round of the dual tourney/multi meet. Scratch weight for round one, with one additional pound for round #2 and a second additional pound for round #3, up to a 3rd pound for the 4th, 5th and 6th round (maximum number of matches in 1 day per NFHS). In a bracketed team dual, weigh ins on all championship side matches, with 1 extra pound per round (up to a max of 3 pounds), with consi side weigh-ins for rounds that correspond with the quarters/semis/finals, with comparable allowances. E. If wrestler who is listed on lineup for that dual does not make weight when called matside, it is a forfeit and that wrestler may not wrestle at a higher weight class in that same dual. That wrestler may not be replaced by a teammate--it is a forfeit. If a team lists a wrestler on their match line-up and proceeds to forfeit that weight class (either by failure to make weight or by electing to not wrestle), that forfeit will be worth 7 points (forfeits at weight classes where no wrestler was listed remain 6 points) 4. Individually Bracketed Tournament Procedure A. Initial matside weigh in prior to each first round match, conducted by the ref. This includes all wrestlers receiving first round byes, who are handled by a tournament official at 1-2 mats, conducted while the first few matches on those mats are taking place. B. One pound allowance for each subsequent round on the championship side (and the corresponding consolation rounds) such that a 16-man bracket would have 1 extra pound in quarters, another extra pound in semis and 1 more for finals (total of 3), while consi weigh-ins would be required in alternating rounds, with an extra pound, until consi semis and consi finals, each of which requires a weigh in with 1 extra pound (such that 3rd and 5th would be at the same allowance as the finalists). These incremental increases remove the necessity of adding a pound for the 2nd day of a tournament (such that the round of 64 and round of 32 would provide an extra pound or 2). No more than 3 additional pounds in any 1 day event, nor more than 5 for any 2-day tournament. C. Weigh in to take place matside. Scales at each mat if possible, or between 2 adjacent mats if not enough scales available, as matches rarely end at the same moment in time. Wrestler failing to make weight on designated scale may make 1 attempt at each other available scale. D. Any wrestler failing to make weight for first round is considered a scratched forfeit, and is not permitted to continue in the tournament. E. Any wrestler failing to make weight for a subsequent championship round match (ie semifinals) or corresponding consi round is considered a forfeit. Team does not lose all placement points earned for that wrestler (unlike current rules regarding 2nd day weigh in), and wrestler may continue in the tournament if the same “missed weight” is made for next round. Ex: Wrestler B fails to make weight for the semifinals. He drops down to the consi semis, and must make the same weight he was required to make for the championship semis in order to compete in the consi semi round.

yes, CT (as does NY this year) currently allows a minimum weight certification to permit a weight class after the Dec 25 growth allowance (ie descent allows athlete to reach 115 but not 113...they may go 115 after Dec 25). however, CT still requires 1/3 of weigh-ins at min wt class attempting to compete in post-season (such that it prevents a descent plan from allowing a kid to reach 115 for the last dual of the season...and then entering that weight for state series).

regarding state HS weigh in procedures varying almost as much as the new 12/13/14 weight classes, 2023-24 is the first year that NY is not permitting morning "honor" weigh ins (see https://nysphsaa.org/documents/2023/10/16//HandbookAndAutoQualifierChanges_2023_24.pdf?id=3284. ) While MA has moved away from those as well, they do continue to afford an extra 2 pounds for school-day matches. MA also does not require dehydration/body fat analysis (body fat test encouraged, but not required, as physician can circle any minimum weight class after checking for a pulse). see https://miaa.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023-24-MIAA-Minimum-Weight-Control-Certificate.pdf I am guessing other states have some of their own quirky variances that circumvent the intent of the certification process and descent rules (ie average weekly weight loss vs monitored weekly descent). I also believe that the current "growth allowance" rule often works against the descent rule, and would encourage standardization of states allowing a minimum weight class to be based on scratch weights prior to the 2-lb growth (and would also therefore suggest that growth allowance be such that 2 pounds is added after Christmas, another pound around Jan 15 and yet another at start of post-season.

there are still states that don't require hydration testing and body fat analysis to determine minimum weight classes (a physician can sign off on any weight class they want). there are still states that allow additional weight allowances for mid-week matches (after school days), which is an improvement (I guess) from morning "honor" weigh-ins. since the rule in HS sets a maximum time prior to competition, and not a minimum, nothing in the rules currently prevents a HS coach from stating that their weigh in will be immediately prior to the match starting (after warm ups, even after the anthem is played). not quite matside, but close. with some 2-day tournaments not doing 2nd day weigh ins (or granting greater allowances) and most top seeds getting byes or easy early matches (and often not for 3-4 hours after weighing in), there remains significant incentive to cut as much weight as possible, within the existing guidelines of your state. until you get finalists to agree to just step on a scale for curiosity sake, it will remain anecdotal evidence of one kid weighing 12-15 pounds more than his opponent. matside weigh in would self govern excessive weight loss. it would not increase overall time of a dual (would actually save a school money, since the bus need not arrive 75 minutes before start time). we already weigh in wearing singlets, so simply add 1-2 pounds for shoes to all weight classes...and allow the needed 10-15 seconds to put on a headgear after getting off the scale and heading onto the mat. as noted, a plan for tournaments could include alternate round weigh-ins with additional weight granted, such that a finalist could gain 2-4 pounds...but not 8-12. I know I am in the minority here, but would also prefer, in conjunction with matside, locked line-ups for duals and greater value awarded for forfeits. as with most proposals, if you allow ONLY coaches to provide the guidance, nothing will ever change.

Just wondering if there are any states that determine team state champs with some type of hybrid, combining results from a dual meet tourney with ordinal placement in an individually bracketed tournament? I know that many conferences within various states utilize something similar to determine conference champs, but I am unaware of any states that utilize a hybrid model for state title purposes. While some states may offer state team champ designations for both a dual tourney AND the team scores from an individually bracketed event, some states can't, as they do not permit crowning multiple team "state champions" in the same sport. I was considering using "low score wins", with ordinal placement of the individually bracketed tourney being combined with the ordinal place from dual championship (counting places 1-4 as 1-2-3-4 and assigning all others a "5" such that a team could still contend for a state team championship even if they did not place top 4 in dual scenario...although would be tough). Not sure how to handle ties, especially in the 1-2-3, 3-2-1 scenario where team A wins duals and places 3rd at trny, team B wins trny but was 3rd at duals and team C is 2nd at both. My goal is to hopefully increase the importance of dual meets, for the multitude of reasons that have been discussed in the past. Thanks.

agreed that for tournaments, mirror dual scoring, but simply make consi side 1/2 values (maintain placement points, which in my scenario, would need to be increased significantly to maintain proportionality ie x 10). no advancement points needed.

since we can't have 1 win overcome 9 losses (or even 2 beating 8), and since decimalphobia runs amazingly high, may we consider an option that values every point scored but prevents the 1 beats 9 scenario: the hybrid of Margin of Victory coupled with a base win value? A win by decision is 30 points. Add to that your MOV (if you win 2-1, you get 1 MOV point, so 31 team points...if you win 14-0, you get 14 MOV points, so 44). This makes every point scored matter, such that action would be increased during the latter stage of a match (whereas now, unless on the brink of earning or allowing a major, some settling of contents may occur). So decisions range from 31 to 44. Tech falls would be 50, pins would be 60. Would still prefer forfeits to be 70, but that may be a different fight. option two is to REALLY encourage scoring by making the win worth 20 (instead of 30), and adding not only the MOV, but also the number of points scored BY THE WINNER. In this case, a 2-1 win is 20 plus 1 (MOV) plus 2 (Action Points) for a total of 23, while a 9-8 win would be 20 plus 1 (MOV) plus 9 (Action) for a total of 30. This method attempts to truly increase scoring, as had happened in virtually every other sport on the planet, in an effort to improve the experience of the fans, most of whom would prefer to see a 9-8 match. The action points are limited to 15, such that a 19-5 win would be 20 plus 14 (MOV) plus 15 (Action), a total of 49, preventing a high-scoring "major" from exceeding team points for a tech fall. here is a small sample of the scoring shown in a table, with a link to the full range of outcomes provided below Winner Score Loser Score Margin of Victory MOV Pts Max Pts Scored Action Pts Team Pts (MOV +30) Team Pts (MOVA +20) 1 0 1 1 1 1 31 22 2 0 2 2 2 2 32 24 3 0 3 3 3 3 33 26 4 0 4 4 4 4 34 28 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1u648y9JRoRgD_CljgRiqp5AgRlaSXS7jndKxvNjcoP8/edit?usp=sharing

admittedly, it is all over the place in terms of state season limits regarding total number of matches, or limits on multis and total dates. without parameters, more and more emphasis is placed on individually bracketed tournaments, and less on dual meets. quads used to be considered long days, but now they are like a 1/2 day compared to a 13 hour tourney. would like to see some suggested guidance from NFHS and their medical pros, such as total number of matches, or at least limits on a reasonable number of individually bracketed events. while some states limit those to 5 or 6, others have no boundaries. additionally, some states have no restrictions on more than 2 competitions per week. I would think a reasonable plan that does not scare away families who don't want to spend every single Saturday in a gym for 13 hours might be based on a typical regular season length of 10 weeks, such that you could have 10 mid-week duals (or even a tri-meet), and 9 weekend events, of which no more than 7-8 could be individually bracketed events with greater than 8 teams, allowing for an extra dual on a Friday or Sat, or perhaps even one Saturday off during the season (much like some states require in football or lax). With the new 6 per day limit, it seems excessive to see kids heading into the post-season with 55 regular season matches. however, much like 2 day weigh-ins and weight descent plans, these limitations will need to be implemented by admins and ADs, as there will always be resistance from many coaches to place any limits on any component, regardless of whether it is in the best interest of the individual athletes or the health of the sport overall.

16-man brax now easier with no worry about 5 match rule for 3rd/5th, and happy to see 45 min rule reduced to 30. not sure about the addition of medical forfeit, as prior NFHS rule actually stated no forfeits count as losses on record (many states had own variants). https://nfhs.org/articles/changes-in-high-school-wrestling-rules-include-allowance-of-six-matches-in-one-day-of-competition/

seems like a reasonable compromise to appease the decimalphobes. only concern is modifying those bulb scoreboards on the walls of so many gyms that can only handle a "1" in the hundreds place (guess they never counted on hoopsters hitting 200), so the HS dual that ends up 210 to 205 could be tough to display.

I prefer a compromise, where every point matters, utilizing a Margin of Victory formula, such that winning by 3 is worth a little more than winning by 1, and winning by 10 is worth a little more than a current major. Hoping it increases action, especially late in the match. Still 6 for a pin, 5 for a tech...but everything else is between 3.0 and 4.4, depending on your MOV (margin of victory). OT win only 3, while a win by 14 is 4.4 (and a win by 8 is 3.8 etc). We already use 1/2 points in tourney scoring, and with everything computerized, unsure why the fear of a decimal is so prevalent. Gymnastics, diving and others use decimals. One of the best benefits is essentially eliminating the dreaded dual meet tie-breaker. Other proposed option to increase scoring is making the base win only 2 points, adding the margin of victory (0.1 to 1.4) and also adding the points scored by the winner (0.1 up to a max of 1.5 for scoring 15 or more---keeping the range from 2.2 to 4.9). In this case, a 10-7 win is worth 3.3, while a 3-1 win is only 2.5. Rewards action. And would also prefer a forfeit being 7 or 8, but that is another debate.

Perhaps this has been proposed before (I failed in my search of this board), but perhaps a hybrid of a dual meet championship and the individually bracketed tournament could work? Maintain current format for the individually bracketed event, and assign simple ordinal value for placement of teams (1=first, 2=2nd etc). Implement a dual meet championship with top 12 ranked teams (some conference representation), byes to top 4 seeds, 2-day event (mid-size venue, maybe even mid-week to focus on TV/stream market and not battle hoops etc) Traditional bracket to determine champ, but add additional matches to determine places 3-12, with losers in R16 getting 2 more matches to place 9-12, losers of quarters getting 2 more to determine 5-8 and semi losers meeting for 3rd. Each team then has an ordinal placement 1-12. Overall NCAA champion determined by lowest combined ordinal score of the 2 events. Would need to decide which event is the tie-breaker (if Team A wins duals and is 2nd in brax, while Team B is 2nd in duals and wins indiv brax...or even the 1-2-3/3-2-1 "3-way tie with 4 points"). Only other request would be to invoke margin of victory scoring for duals to eliminate the dreaded dual meet tiebreaker.

some great attempts to improve the sport. would still love to see action incentivized by incorporating some form of "margin of victory" scoring, and coupled with prioritizing duals, maybe we can keep the current fans (and perhaps even pick up a few newbies like the baseball changes have done).

Both had huge impacts, and both were unrelated to live wrestling, but rather end of match procedures. In MI dual tourney, winner of final bout clinches 1 point win and underhand tosses headgear to team bench area. Despite specifics of the rule book and case book NOT penalizing this action, it was 1 pt, resulting in victory for other team. In CT class championship, pin in finals at 195 (2 bouts remained, not impacting top teams) clinches win by 1/2 point, but in the celebration, teammate comes onto mat inside ropes with straps down. Official clearly approaches table and deducts 1 pt, giving the other team a win by 1/2 point. On-site appeal can't overturn, since rule as written was followed. Obviously disheartening losses in both cases, but while first case seems to not survive an appeal if done in a timely manner (and ruled on by a 3rd party with knowledge of situation), the 2nd one is harder to overturn, but most seem to think that it would not have been called in that situation by the majority of officials. Links to each story https://www.record-eagle.com/sports/james-cook-kingsley-wrestling-gets-raw-deal-at-regionals/article_5f50b17c-ae4d-11ed-b9ad-ab24f832fd90.html and https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/gametimect/wrestling/article/rham-ciac-penalty-17796431.php

Agree with Jason that much of this is moot unless duals start meaning more, at both HS and college levels. Improving fan experience starts with minimizing forfeits and increasing scoring and action, and while I favor simplified scoring, it is secondary to increased action. I think it is fixable for dual scoring, but not sure about tournaments (for which scoring can be made easier, but not sure if will achieve goal of increasing action across the board), as it seems to me that with the exception of the very few upper-echelon teams at an individually bracketed tournament, there is no incentive to win 12-2 or by fall as opposed to 1-0 on a single escape, since for 90% of those teams, the team score means little or nothing--just win and advance as an individual. That is why I seem to enjoy NCAA March matches that involve PSU (no allegiance) and those teams contending for the title in any given year, since they have some incentive to bonus. So for now, let's focus on duals. Since readers love paragraphs, bold fonts and such, here are some goals and possible solutions (mostly focused on HS, but possibly applicable beyond): 1. Reduce the number of forfeits created by limited rosters. Whether this means more small school combo co-ops, or implementing the 13 NFHS weights, or doing a better job of increasing numbers by retaining more youth wrestlers, or convincing "new" 9th graders that they can still become successful without 7 years of youth experience being a pre-requisite, or promising families that you won't have 11 consecutive Saturdays of 14 hour tournaments. Something, because the current situation of 2 teams with 9-man rosters meeting for a dual that produces 5 actual matches is unbearable. 2. Reduce the number of forfeits created by ducking. Locked line-ups would achieve this. While could be in conjunction with matside weigh-ins, I will omit that in this discussion. With too much reliance on a coin toss determining an outcome, and too many coaches ducking tough opponents, why make a dual different than a bracketed tournament? Prior to the anthem, submit your roster to the table. You can still strategize, based on what you expect your opponent to submit...but you don't get to win just because you called heads and the other team had to send their stud at 126 first, so you could duck him, bump up your kid to 132, give a forfeit (pissing off the family of the kid who came to see their wrestler now get a forfeit, as well as equally pissing off your 132's family because now he is out for tonight since your 126 is a little better and has a slightly better chance to beat their 132). While a forfeit at a weight for which you have nobody and submit no one on the roster would still be a 6 point loss, if you listed someone and then remove them, it is 7 points. And you can't bump them up. This concept of avoiding your opponent needs to die a quick death. A tennis team can't put their best player at #3 singles because they know they will lose to the other team's number 1 player. 3. Increase the action for full match duration. Even most dedicated fans get bored by a 1-1 match with offsetting escapes headed to OT. It is also rather arbitrary that getting ahead by 8 points earns you a bonus, so any match where that is unlikely (or getting to TF criteria) can often end with an uneventful final minute or 2. Or 3 or 4. If each point you win by increases your team points (or conversely, each single point the loser can reduce the margin will help his team), the incentive to keep wrestling and scoring is increased. My preference is a "Margin of Victory" hybrid of what has been described as "point earned = point scored" such that it maintains a base point value for any victory, thereby eliminating the possibility of 1 big win offsetting 8 or 9 close decisions, a deal-breaker for most. With a base of 3 points for a win, you can earn from 3 to 4.4 points (for a margin of victory from 1-14). TF still 5 and pins still 6. All you decimal haters can convert it to 30 points up to 44 points, with 50 for a TF and 60 for a pin (now offending all traditionalists with such high scores). However, we currently use 1/2 points in tournaments, and with computerized scoring, it is quite simple. 4. Increase overall match scoring: This one might be a little too radical for most, but like Marty McFly said "I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it." As a modification of the MOV scoring, this awards 2 team points for the win plus the MOV pts (still from 0.1 to 1.4) PLUS the action points, which are an additional 0.1 to 1.5 for the number of points scored by the winning wrestler. This produces wins earning from 2.2 for a 1-0, up to 4.9 for a 17-3 win (action points cap at 15). I would much rather see a 12-9 match than a 3-0 bout, where perhaps some risks have been taken). I have attached a link to a google sheet with all scoring scenarios, and am still a little torn about an 11-2 win equal to a 10-0 score...but ya gotta keep scoring. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1u648y9JRoRgD_CljgRiqp5AgRlaSXS7jndKxvNjcoP8/edit?usp=sharing 5. Eliminate the awful levels of dual meet tie-breakers: This is achieved rather easily for 99% of ties if there are 13 weights in HS (or perhaps, someday, 11 in college), but lacking that, it is also reached by the modified scoring above. No one want to see a dual winner decided by TB i, which team had more first points scored, especially if some genius decides it is advantageous to lose a point for an untied shoe rather than give up the first takedown. 6. Simplify Scoring: Yeah, although stated it was not top priority, but since we are at it...4-3-2-1 scoring, emphasizing takedowns and nearfalls. A. Takedowns worth 3 pts B. Reversals 2 pts C. Escapes 1 pt D. Nearfalls from 2 to 4 pts (2 pts for 2 swipes, 3 pts for 4 seconds and 4 pts for 6 seconds) E. Penalties simply progress from 1-2-3-4-DQ (same for stalling) F. If college to maintain riding point, only applicable if nearfall points have been scored during match. G. Unless the size of circle is reduced (as most HS can't fit multiple big mats), there must be more incentive to wrestle toward the center, so either shrink circle and apply college OOB rules, or consideration some variation of a push-out rule, from neutral, with 1-2-3-4 scoring. I would still try to simplify tournament scoring, such that advancement points are eliminated, placement points are retained, and points for winning on the championship side are just like in a dual (modified as above), with consi side simply cut in half. Also, for those against a reduction in weight classes, I am a strong proponent of allowing teams to enter 2 extra wrestlers in any individually bracketed tourney (double-entries in any 2 wts), increasing opportunities in those events (but not in duals). Starting to think this should have perhaps been posted as a few different topics, but I do think Sen. Dole will now be inclined to edit the original title, as I know he despises locked line-ups as much as typos. Thanks to the original poster for bringing up this topic, and I am sure others have wondered (and may have asked) if Formally 140 has to with wrestling in a tux, or was it a similar original typo meant to be formerly 140? Happy New Year to all, and again echo the sentiment that change in the goal of progress is not always a bad thing.