October 16, 2024 • 40 mins
MatStats takes on the new rule change for Takedowns in collegiate wrestling. We do our normal statistical analysis of how the new rule has affected our sport. The gang shoots deep into the Men’s NCAA D1 & D2 Championships to see what results we can find. It is such an important topic that we are doing a three-part series.
Slideshow for this Episode: https://www.mattalkonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/slideshowEp37.pdf
Sticker Mule wants to make sure your team, program, company or project is set to go with quality graphics and promotional materials. With custom sizes and styles, let Sticker Mule take care of your brand today. Check out this wrestling-friendly business today at https://www.stickermule.com/custom-stickers
About Mat Stats
Welcome to the NWCA’s latest venture to help our favorite sport. Glenn Gormley, Jason Bryant and Kevin Hazard outline their effort to bring statistical analysis to wrestling. Mat Stats is the NWCA’s attempt to bring wrestling up to speed with so many other sports by incorporating stats. It is the same sport, the wrestlers are just older and better.
Mat Stats by the NWCA is a monthly podcast by the National Wrestling Coaches Association
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | iHeartRadio | Podcast Addict | Castbox | RSS
Slideshow for this Episode: https://www.mattalkonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/slideshowEp37.pdf
Sticker Mule wants to make sure your team, program, company or project is set to go with quality graphics and promotional materials. With custom sizes and styles, let Sticker Mule take care of your brand today. Check out this wrestling-friendly business today at https://www.stickermule.com/custom-stickers
About Mat Stats
Welcome to the NWCA’s latest venture to help our favorite sport. Glenn Gormley, Jason Bryant and Kevin Hazard outline their effort to bring statistical analysis to wrestling. Mat Stats is the NWCA’s attempt to bring wrestling up to speed with so many other sports by incorporating stats. It is the same sport, the wrestlers are just older and better.
Mat Stats by the NWCA is a monthly podcast by the National Wrestling Coaches Association
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | iHeartRadio | Podcast Addict | Castbox | RSS
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Statistics. They can mean many things. It can be a
batting average, a win percentage, correlations, and standard deviation. But
numbers aren't just for nerds. In life, decisions need data.
In wrestling decisions, projections and hypotheticals also need data. Here
(00:24):
on Matt Stats, we take historical data, theories, and statistics
and apply it to the world's oldest and greatest sport.
Now to your trio of numerical nerd balls, Glenn Gormley,
Kevin Hazard, and Jason Bryant, and.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Welcome back again to the Matt SAT Show, Episode thirty seven.
Along with Kevin Hazard and Glenn Gormley, I'm Jason Bryant,
and we're going to take a look into things in
and around the sport of wrestling as it pertains statistics
easy for you to.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Say, I'm the host.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
I can't even say the words statistics and statistician right anyway.
With Glenn, our residents, statf Stition, the Sultan of stat
and the Grand Pooba. It's Kevin Hazard again, Jason Bright
here with you, finishing up part three of this three
part series. The more things change, the more things stay
the same. We've looked at the stats across the last
NCAA championships in Division one and Division two.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
We're going to spend a.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Little bit of time on that, summarizing it and of
course talk about the points per minute and margin of
victory here in this episode. But before we get to that,
we are in mid October. The leaves are starting to
fall here in Minnesota. We finally got some of that
that that f word on the ground, it's called frost.
Ah didn't want to see any of that. While the
only thing frosty on on Kevin's camera is his face.
(01:38):
Where did that grow in?
Speaker 4 (01:41):
I just I was watching Mobe Dick and I like
the beard, so I decided to I want to I'm
going to get a captain A have hat and I
don't know, I just liked it. My wife doesn't like
it very much, but I do. And you have a beard,
and I just that I want to be like Jason
(02:01):
when they grow up.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
You know, you could do a lot worse.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
You could do significantly better, but you can definitely do
a lot worse Glenn. Glenn's excuse pre show was he
actually has hair on his head, so he doesn't need
any more on his face. So Glenn's rubbing it in
and again this is by choice. Granted hereditarily, I may
not have a choice eventually, but yeah, this is this
is by choice. And like I said, I'd rather look
(02:25):
like a biker than a banker. So that's that's the
way I went with it. So no offense to bankers
out there or bikers. I may have offended with that statement.
Who think you think I look like you? But yeah,
that's what we got.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
Welcome to episode thirty seven. We'll get onto wrestling here
and not talk about what these three ugly guys look
like anymore. Okay, what this show is is we've done
two parts of Righty on a three part series on
the new takedown rule being a three point rule, and
we're going to go dive into it more deeply on this.
One thing I did want to do, as you can
(02:59):
see on the next slow is in today's world of
nil and different things going on, and all I thought,
I just, you know, take you walk down memory lane.
One of the big ways William and Mary wrestling up.
I paid the bills all the time was LD Davis
glues in adhesive. I always like to say it was
(03:19):
the glue that he'll tried wrestling together. Mister and Missus
Davis were very generous for trips four years at William
and Mary. He was also a Penn Charter guy who
was a high school team it is too and they
were very generous there. And actually, one hot summer in
seventy nine, I actually worked at that clue factory. And
let me tell you something, it's a lot easier doing
wrestling stats than it is working in a glue company.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
I'm I'm gonna try to refrain from making any any
thoroughbred joke I can right now.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
I'm gonna do that. I'm just gonna stop right now too.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
Okay, so I just wanted to give a shout out
and thank them. Okay, now, guys on this show. Here
we have on the next slide slide three in this
episode where it's more like a library function where you
can see if you drip just turning through and wanting
to advance to some different parts of the show. It
(04:17):
tells you what we do there.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Then once again, if you are listening along, we will
have the slide show at NWCA online and matttokonline dot
com to follow along. If you're doing anything but driving
or operating heavy machinery or mowing your lawn. So again,
the slide show, as with other shows, is part of
the show notes on this so scroll up, hit the
show notes and follow along if you are not watching
(04:40):
on the video.
Speaker 5 (04:43):
Thank you, Jason. Okay, why do we do this show?
The reason we do this show is Mike Mooreyer of
the NWCA reached out to Matt Stats and he wants
to create a library statistical analysis. So that's the point
of this show. In our own little way, we're trying
to help the If you guys all remember that I
(05:04):
feel like a number that we do every show, we'll
skip through that real quickly. But of course we can't
skip through quickly eight six, seven, five three oh nine
Danny's Glass at Yorktown, Virginia, and that is their phone show. Okay,
we're skipping it this show. The opinions express of this
(05:25):
show do not less soly reflect any opinions of the NWCA,
nor do gorm Lee, Jason and Kevin always agree with
each other. Okay, Matt Stats is a numbers show and
about finding stats and analyzing them. It's not it starts
with facts, not opinions. That makes this difference from many
(05:47):
of the shows here. Okay, it revolves around stats. It's
We're lucky though that we do have some opinions on
this where Jason and Kevin come into this after seeing
the statistics and really helps the show go. Now, what
we like to start the show with every time is
account of how many collegiate four year NCAA and NAIA
(06:13):
teams there are. There are now five hundred and fourteen
of them eyes of ten thirteen twenty four. Now, Kevin,
fill in what you told me about what we said
about this while we were talking on the phone the
other day.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
Well, that's three hundred and ninety two men's teams, and
that's pretty much the most team since, well since basically
your era at William and Mary when you were coaching.
It's it's just a phenomenal and just and it's you know,
the NWCA is just a phenomenal job helping grow it
(06:48):
on the D two and the D three level, and
women's wrestling is a huge component of this. I mean,
it's three ninety two men, but by fourteenth total, that's
a huge, huge number of teams.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Yeah. As a matter of fact, Kevin, as we can
see on slide eleven, as of ten thirteen twenty four,
there were two in eighty seven announced teams that men's
and CAA wrestling teams. That is more than at any
point since nineteen eighty eight. To put this in perspective, guys,
if you're fifty four years or younger, there are more
(07:23):
teams now than at any time you wrestled in college.
How old are you, Jason?
Speaker 3 (07:29):
I am forty five.
Speaker 5 (07:31):
Okay, So in other words, from the time Jason's been
in college. Okay, there are more teams right now than
at any time since Jason's been in college.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I started college in nineteen nineteen ninety seven, so it
took me a good almost decade to get into al
or not. I was told there would be no math
on a show, but stats, this is about me at
least I'm not counting. I'm not using my high school
reunions and counting them backwards in abacus is So yeah, yeah, you, yeah,
thank you you guys. Yeah, of course, thankfully. These two
(08:06):
gentlemen still go, oh, you're young yet, so I'll still
hear that from them.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
So yep, okay. So we're going to talk about the
new takedown rule and last year NCAA that released a
statement and basically it said the members think that it's
going to create more uh more action and reward risk taking.
(08:30):
And so now let's just do a quick recap. And
we've talked about in the first two shows.
Speaker 5 (08:36):
H sure, will Kevin, takedown points per match? We did
this apart more in part two. Takedown points per match.
We're up about fifty percent. No surprise that the takedowns
that wereth three points. But the number of takedowns remained
relatively constant. The percentage of all points from takedowns were
up over twenty percent. They are now more than half.
(08:58):
The scoring and exposures went way down. Texts went way
up in Division one but remained relatively close to Division two.
The number of scoring moves per match remained relatively constant
from twenty three to twenty four in both D one
and D two.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Okay, and we're talking abouta tournament.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
Yes, thank you, thank you, Kevin. We are Okay. What
we're going to talk about on today's show is the
change in margin of victory at the NCAA Men's D
one and T two from twenty three to twenty four.
The points per minute and the scoring moves permitted, all right.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
With margin of victory MV and We've talked about that
over the last couple of years, but I think it's
a good thing to talk about. And what what did
we learn about margin victory with these two tournaments?
Speaker 5 (09:52):
Okay to tom Chester what we did here and you
can see on slides six coming up here, there's a
bunch of data and I try to then do it
with charts. I want to make this clear. In the
NCAA Division one in twenty three and twenty four, Kevin
and I cannot access to twenty rattail matches, So all
(10:15):
this data is for the six hundred and twenty matches
starting in the round of thirty two and the first
full of al de Conzi's just so everybody knows that
what we have on this chart is the percentage of
all matches and then the cumulative frequency. We have that
for the Men's D one. I'm not going to read
you guys all those numbers. You can check it out, Okay.
(10:36):
Then in the next slide, of course, is the margin
to victory for the twenty four Men's D one championship.
Then the next slide we go Division three and twenty
three and twenty four. Okay, now, what Kevin, One thing
I want to do is when we talk about margin
of vispray set this up here a little bit because
(10:57):
a lot of people have been asking me, well, you
just within one takedown of tying it or going ahead. Okay,
the one possession argument that we use in basketball and
football all the time doesn't work as well in wrestling
because in order this to be jermaine, we both have
to be on our feet at the time. Okay, I
could be losing by three and how's it can be
(11:18):
riding the heck out of me and it doesn't really
matter about it takedown because.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
I'm not on my feet.
Speaker 5 (11:22):
Okay, But we did did a little We did did
a little research on that to see just where people
just where the matches are that since we investigated the
margin of victory, with that being said, to settle up
that margin of victory at the one possession game, there
are more chances now for a buzzer beater takedown. Okay,
(11:45):
but let's figure this. The margin of victory we have
is the end of the match, Okay, So we don't
know where that takedown came in at the end of one,
but it does appear that there is more of an
opportunity for a buzzer beater takedown, which, let's face it,
the march Mannes said, basketball has been creative because a
(12:06):
buzzer beater, three court shops, three point shots of half court.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Okay, all right, we just looked at four four slides
of all statistics and that's that's you gorms. But you
need to talk our language. Let's I think and I
and I know you have. Let's look at the charge
you put together to kind of sum up that data.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
Okay, thank you for that, Kevin, and I appreciate both
of you guys bringing me into the world that not
everyone's a statistician. Okay. On the slide, Jason is up
there in division. This is a cumulative frequency, meaning at
the at the one on the x axis, that means
all matches of zero m ov and one then two
(12:53):
means you're a one two. Okay. You can see, Okay,
the orange line or the top line the left there
is twenty three, the green one is twenty four. You
can see where there are more close matches at the beginning,
and then the green one goes ahead there at the
tech range and then of course twenty three catches it
with the pins and then they even out at the end.
(13:16):
What I did to make this easier then is I
also did it what you can see on slide twenty four,
which is an individual percentage, and I think that's a
lot easier to read. What is what? So in other words,
you can see there there's more two point matches, one
point match, zer point matches on twenty three, and then
(13:38):
you can see in twenty four where there's a lot
more technicals. You can see again twenty three where there's
more pins. This is for Division one, okay. Then I
did the same thing for Division two. Okay. On the
next slide okay, and that of course does the same
(13:58):
thing where it's cumulative frequency, which is tough to read.
And then the slide that Jason has up, which is
Division two. The difference there is you don't see the
spike in the technicals that we saw in Division one.
Who knows why that's the situation. There could be a
lot of different reasons for that. The next two slide
(14:20):
do the cumulative comparing Division one in Division two over
the two years. You can see when we get to
twenty twenty four on slide twenty eight, they almost totally
mirror each other. That's the one interesting thing I found
out about the takedown rule change is the more the
points change, the more division one in Division two get
(14:42):
closer together, which is interesting.
Speaker 6 (14:48):
Okay, we had that data, so we had and with
the data, you know, if you look at it close,
they go back through and look, you'll see their fewer
close matches.
Speaker 4 (14:59):
And were pins in twenty four. So what does that mean?
But and there were a lot more texts in D
one and twenty four. Do you think that that was
something to do with the rule or or maybe even
an anomaly just for the year. How does that all work?
Speaker 5 (15:21):
Okay, my thoughts on this, Kevin. As I've said this
before and I'm going to say again on the show,
we do have to investigate this for just more than
a one year timelag. Okay, like next year we'll do
twenty two or twenty three and twenty four and twenty five.
I'm not sure why there's less close matches, more techs,
(15:41):
and less pains. It's it's very it's a strange thing here, Jason,
you have any thoughts on.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
That, not particularly because the differences between divisions. To me,
it's in terms of the scoring. Isn't that great? I mean,
I know we're gonna have the you're gonna have your
your super studs that end up you know, probably being uh.
I don't want to say two good because you know
we've got you know, each level any given day wrestling,
(16:10):
you know that kind of thing. But sometimes there's a
guy that transcends a division, so he might skew that
Kurby like, well, he's going to tech his way through
because that's that. That may be a D one championship
talent that decided to choose a different option Division two
or Division three, or somebody like that, or somebody that's
been on a tear. I mean, you'll get your Marcus
Lovesser out there in Division three, you'll get you'll get
(16:30):
your Joey Davison division two. So those things are bound
to happen in the smaller divisions. So what I found is,
I really think it's the increase in the tech falls
was probably the most notable thing across the three point thing.
It's like, okay, and then we went back, we can
go back a couple episodes, the difference between the seven
point outcome and the eight point outcome one year and
(16:52):
then oh well, this this three point takedown has made
that the difference to seven, eight to seven and nine
or seven and ten, so matches being oh it's ten
to seven in ot It's like what what you have
to double take on that stuff. So nothing really ers
shattering in terms of the difference and point outcomes other
than yeah, we know there's more points on the board,
(17:13):
but is it really more action?
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Then?
Speaker 2 (17:16):
We discussed that in previous episodes as well.
Speaker 4 (17:20):
I'd like to add there. I really think we've only
had one year with the wrestlers and the coaches, you know,
kind of focusing on they changed the rules, But every
time you change the rule, it takes a couple of
years and then they kind of kind of game it.
It's like when we did the weight loss thing. The
(17:40):
first year, everybody jumped up a weight class, and then
five years in, everybody was figuring out a way, you know,
to get to where they should be wrestling. I think
the same thing is going to happen with this rule.
I mean, if you look at it, fifty percent of
the points are now takedowns, so do you coach is
probably going to spend more time on feet, right, and
(18:01):
I think and pins are worth four, so you're gonna
take down in a near fall. Now you're up seven,
so I think that will kind of start to feather
out as they get used to it.
Speaker 5 (18:16):
Thank you for that, Kevin. Now let's go gob to
the next part of the show, which is points points
per minute. Okay, Just so you guys know on this,
in Division one, when with Kevin and Pipsey put everything together,
we didn't see every single point that we scored on
a pin. In Division two, we do have that, whether
(18:38):
it's a takedown, reversal, et cetera. So what we've done
here in the Men's D one Championships from twenty three
to twenty four, there was an increase of twenty seven
points per minute, okay. In other words, Kevin went through
and found out how long every single overtime match was
(18:59):
when the technical fall was completed, when the pin happened.
There was a lot of research by so that is
no surprise once again because the takedown is now worth
three points dot two. Now when we go to slide
thirty three, what we see here is there was statistically
no change in the number of scoring moves per minute
(19:23):
at the Men's NCAA D one Championships of twenty three
to twenty four. So Anybody who was at the D
three's of twenty three and twenty four and really thought
they saw more action is confused, senile or both.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
But it kind of felt like that when we were
there because I mean, like you, especially the D one,
I mean, texts were way up. So more things change
the more they say the same. We saw more points
per minute, but no more more points per minuted, but
no more scoring moves. So really there really hasn't been
(20:07):
that much of an effect on the number of you know, moves.
And again it's going to be interesting to see how
the coaches and rests adapt in the upcoming years. Okay,
now we also that was the D one we just
looked at. Now we got to look at the D
(20:30):
two's same different or how does that all work?
Speaker 5 (20:34):
Okay, Kevin? In the D twos, we have a lot
more data points to examine. One of the things that
Kevin pointed this out to me when we're reviewing the analysis,
I did we know in the past that the points
per match, okay, what up one point seventy one points
per match of DVD two, but that translates to six
(20:57):
hundred and nineteen total more points, so there could be
an effect there where people see that. Okay. Now in
Division two once again, how what was a different number
of scoring moves from twenty three to twenty four in
all three hundred forty matches, the number is four, guys, Okay,
(21:20):
I cannot make that up. Four Okay. However, as you
see in the next slide, Okay, there were more minutes
of total wrestling in twenty twenty four. One of the
reasons was there were more defaults of twenty three to
(21:41):
twenty four, so the average match length was thirteen seconds
longer in twenty four than it wasn't twenty three, and
included on that there were less defaults at twenty four.
So those four more scoring moves you saw. If you
break that down by the minute, the points per minut
(22:04):
it went up thirteen percent, as you can see on
slide thirty nine. Okay. However, on slide forty, which is
the telling slide, the scoring moves per minute went down
four percent. Okay, So it's relatively the same again, and
(22:26):
it is staggered that there's only four more scoring moves
the whole tournament. Okay, Then we did the scoring moves
and pins per minute, because guys, as ironic as this
is a pin is not a match scoring move. You
don't get credit for your back points there. So we
added up the scoring moves and the pins of both things,
(22:48):
and we saw a reduction in five percent of that. Now,
Jason is wisely asked to be in past shows. Is
this statistically signific?
Speaker 3 (23:00):
Right?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
That is the key thing we always want to know
is that are we you know, correlation doesign equal causation?
Speaker 3 (23:07):
Does it mean? Does it? What?
Speaker 2 (23:09):
What does it mean? Statistically significant? Is that term that
the Sultan of stat over there sitting right above me.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
Once. We want to make sure that that is what
we're getting to.
Speaker 5 (23:20):
Okay, do you Jason? I do not believe this one
year decrease of such a small percentage is statistically significant
enough for alarm. No, I do not. Okay, However, I
do believe match Status needs a follow up on this
after the twenty twenty five D one and D two tournaments,
(23:40):
because if this, if you lose five percent enough years,
that's the troublesome. That's a troublesome.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Trained that is significant. Yes, yes, all right, cue the
dad joke horn on that one. All right, continue, Okay.
Speaker 5 (23:55):
One thing that both Kevin and Jason brought up in
the past is points don't necessarily mean action or lack
of points don't mean lack of action. I'll give you, guys,
two great examples. In two thousand and five, the Tide
beat the Valls six three on last on.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Field Why are these great examples or are these Glenn examples?
Because those are not mutually exclusive. Because you could have
a great example, but it not involved Tennessee. Just can
we do that.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
In the future.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
No, okay, and it can continue with your your your
volunteerism of tie.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Thank you see what I did there?
Speaker 5 (24:34):
Yes you did, Yes, you did so? R anyway and
oh five, And I would not bring this up if
it wasn't pertinent. Alabama beat Tennessee sixty three. In twenty two,
the Vols beat the Tide fifty two forty nine. Both
games ended one on a field goal with thirteen seconds ago.
What on the buzzer? My point is here. Sadly the
(24:57):
five game was as exciting and did have as many
action points. Okay, the problem was the Valls were only
on the top of one game. What I'm saying is
this is a great example of how one of the
best football games ever played was six three and another
one was fifty two to forty nine.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
So it's also depending on your perspective if you're one,
if you're somebody who thinks that a great match means
fifteen fourteen versus Now, we've bemoaned the three to two match,
we have bemoaned the old three two one oh eight
of riding time match, we've you know, I hate to
use this example, but the the mac Lunis versus Nick
(25:43):
Marrable match, because that was pretty much their blueprint. Every
time they wrestled, it was going to be three to two.
Somebody was going to have four extra seconds of riding
time over a minute, and that was going to be
the difference. So, uh, that's that's the match that we like. Okay,
it might have been a tactically well wrestled match for
a purist, but sometimes, you know, you know, people like
people want to go to boxing match, they want to
(26:04):
see the knockout. They don't they don't necessarily want to
see a four, you know, twelve rounds of strategic you know,
you know, Roberto Durant.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
You know, they don't necessarily want to see great technique.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
They want to see Mike Tyson get in there beat
somebody over the head, maybe bite their ear off and
go home happy. That's what you want. Excitement. Excitement doesn't
necessarily always match technique. Sloppy fifty two forty nine, fifteen fourteen,
that can is that great ed Bannock And it was
a bannock in is it ed Bannck in mark Schulzer
was Aluban one of the bannics in mark T widely reviewed,
(26:38):
regarded as one of the greatest match of all time.
When you look at that, it's really a sloppy match,
it really is. But because of you know, history adds
to that.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
So again part of that is the eye of the beholder,
and again eye test. We've talked about that. It's no
way you can measure the eye test. I'm looking at
that fifty two forty nine, to me, is will be
probably much more exciting than six three.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Because I want to be entertained. That doesn't necessarily mean
I want to good football, watching good wrestling and being entertained,
or watching good football and being entertained, They're not the
same thing. We need to also remember that too when
looking at these statistics.
Speaker 5 (27:13):
Yeah, I cree Jason, And on the next slide, I
won't bring up the change. But sometimes a goal line
stand is the most exciting thing.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
Yeah, or a fumble.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
In case you're you're a nineties eight, late eighties, early
nineties John Elway Denver Broncos fan, and you just want
to bemoan Ernest Byner and the Cleveland Browns. We can
throw that drive out there too. That was a goal
line stand of a different sort.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
Gable knowings. It was a great match. It was exciting
because it was Dan Gable. It was his last match.
But if you watch it, it was a really like
you were just saying, Jason, it was sloppy. It was
really a sloppy match. I mean I had to go
back through a couple of times just to kind of
figure out the score. It was kind of a wild match.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
I wasn't born yet, so I have no recollection of
watching it other than the clips that we have now.
The you know, it's the full match, but it's you know,
there's there's it's not the as long as.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
It actually took.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
Obviously, it's the the edited for TV version, but and
I'm not saying that as a joke. It's the literal
edited for TV version.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
That's what we've got.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
So yeah, and it's it's one of these things, like
we saw that the NAA Wolves committee tried to do
it to encourage scoring and action, but scoring and action
are not positively one correlated by any means. Okay, I'll
do my best here again.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
More things change the more they stay the same. D
two's new takedown did not have any effect on creating
more scoring moves, but doesn't mean there was less action
and excitement. And like we learned looking at the bowls
examples in all sports is playing action. It doesn't nesscort
(29:00):
and points and two goal line stands at nail and
Stadium great example of this.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
All right, I'm gonna do my bust here for everyone
to sum up the takedown point change from twenty three
to twenty four and what it all means to us. Okay,
we saw more points, but no real change in the
number of takedowns. We saw a small decrease in the
(29:30):
number of scoring moves permitted in D two, not enough
to panic but requires fire up. In D one, it
was about constant scoring moves permitted. We saw fewer close
matches and less pins, but more techs. We do see
the possibility of more buzzer beating takedowns. Which heck, that
(29:54):
might help the sport enthusiasm. Okay, personally, I'm all for
this rule change to see what happens. I have no
problem with it whatsoever. But it needs to be monitored
over the years by Matt stats because some things can happen.
You lose five percent a year and nobody notices it,
and then you wake up one day and find out
(30:15):
there's no action. Okay, Scoring in action are not positively
one correlating. You can't even measure how correlated you are
because scoring is a definitive number. Action is a subjective term. Okay,
we are. We're in the situation here where I'm supporting
(30:36):
what the rules committee did in their effort, but it
is really tough to legislate action because the point of
the whole thing is to win the darn match and
it really doesn't matter if you win one nothing or
fifteen fourteen. You advance and the most good.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
GLA One thing I want to bring up here too,
is we're going to have a whole nother data set
to work with moving forward on this, because this is
entering high school this coming year. The NFHS, the National
Federation of High School State Associations, have adopted the three
point takedown. We saw the Super thirty two this past
weekend have the three point takedown. You know who's number
one below? Rest did the three point takedown. I think
(31:17):
they did it the year before. I think they did
it with the college rules for a while. But we're
going to have data sets now across the fifty wrestling
states plus DC that are doing high school wrestling. Yes
I say fifty because Mississippi's got it. So that's something
that we can also look at too. Now is the
different what are the difference is gonna be in the high
school level to the college level.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
That will be a massive thing.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Well, we'll just have Kevin just spend his time there
on the beach doing high.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
School stats for the next year. So now we can
do that.
Speaker 4 (31:49):
I guess I had a question here, you know, like
you're saying you're talking about action, should they be looking
at stalling?
Speaker 5 (32:00):
Well, we're going to do a show on stalling.
Speaker 4 (32:02):
Really, if you really reafford they never you know, in
stalling is very seldom called. And if they really changed
the criteria on stalling, do you think it would help
or not help? Or is that just I mean that's
now we're into opinion. But I'm wondering if that would
not be a good thing.
Speaker 5 (32:21):
Well, Kevin, you know me. I don't like to voice
an opinion. Choice you have statistics to back it up,
and I don't have any on the stalling. But we
will do a show installing, all right?
Speaker 4 (32:35):
So what did we learn? What?
Speaker 3 (32:38):
As did we learn?
Speaker 4 (32:41):
As of ten thirteen, there are now five hundred and
fourteen for year collegiate wrestling teams. That's NCUBLEA and NAIA
men and women, and two hundred and eighty seven men's
NC double A teams. The last time we had this
many men's NC double A teams was nineteen eight. Now
for me that's twenty years old, twenty years from my
(33:05):
college days. But still it's just it's a it's a
long time. It's just been the NWCA and might More
have just done a great job getting it out to
the schools. Takedown points on up about fifty percent from
twenty twenty three in twenty twenty four and fifty percent
of all scoring. D one had a lot more tech falls,
(33:29):
but D two did not see the same spike. Is
this just year one year anomaly? We'll find out in
the upcoming years. Margin of victory was almost identical in
twenty twenty four. Routeen D one and D two. D
one saw an increase of twenty seven percent points permitted
(33:50):
from twenty three to twenty four, but statistically no increase
in scoring moves. There was actually a slight decrease in
scoring moves in D two from twenty three to twenty four,
but there were over six hundred more point match point
scoring and that can give you a perception of more action,
(34:11):
more scoring, same overall number of scoring moves D through championships.
The more things change, the more they say the same.
And Matt Stapps is happy to share our work and
analysis with the rules Committee to help us work better.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Yeah, show to work. We're goad show.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
You with.
Speaker 5 (34:31):
I'm willing to show my working for jud Yeah. So, Kevin,
thanks for that synopsis of everything, just so everybody knows
the next show. And we have talked someone about high
school in this sing is high school participation numbers? Okay,
at the request the heads of state of the NWCA.
That's what we're gonna do in the next show. And Jason, Kevin,
(34:54):
do you have anything to say to wrap it up?
Speaker 2 (34:56):
I do, And this is one I'm looking forward to
as far as the high score, high school participation stats,
and I'm going to kind of throw a little teas
out there what I'm interested in analyzing. I'm also going
to look at this from what are some of the
answers we get these questions about those participation spikes, particularly
in the seventies, and then.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Oh well it's dropped this many.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
I want to also include and look at the competitive
aspect of what else our have our kids that we
actually I went through these things when I was, you know,
in the nineties. Okay, then now that's we're talking like
twenty seven years ago I graduated high school. Well, where
are those rates, like the number of sports being offered
(35:36):
in the high point in our heyday that is being
looked at all In the seventies we had this How
many sports did we have that we're competing for our kids?
We have more sports opportunities, We have so many more
specialized sports opportunities. Travel, basketball. My neighbors, I don't know
how many times between their three boys, they've been in
gyms across their summers the entire time. You know, we
(35:58):
got all you know, Fargo and all the the dual
meet wrestling tournaments on the wrestling side, the AU circuit,
the USA circuit, you know the New Way stuff, the
Wildcat events, you know the U stuff, roller we got
all that stuff. Hockey geez. Just look at the rinks
that are full all year round here in Minnesota. I mean,
you go into summertime and there's a hotel filled with
kids because they're in a hockey tournament in July. So
(36:19):
the the competitiveness for the kids opportunities at the high
school level is also greater than it's ever been. So
that's something to keep in mind when we go into
next month's episode. And that's something I'm really probably the
most interested looking at, is what else are our kids playing.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
Interesting?
Speaker 5 (36:38):
That's a great point. I vote that down. To pull
that down and analyze it for you, Jason, for the
next Yhow I can.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
Do that something I would be interested in. I was
at the Last Chance Olympic Qualifier and they were there
were a significant number of high school kids there competing.
Speaker 7 (37:02):
On a high high high level. And you know, I
mean two in the two or three in the finals.
One actually won it beat two n CUAA Tampa Jacks.
And I'm interested. I mean when I was a kid,
we wouldn't even think going to a college thing. Now
they compete at the college.
Speaker 4 (37:22):
I mean Carrie co Lot when you were coming through,
he would go to the Midlands in place, but he
was an anomaly. I don't think it's I think there's
a lot more high school kids competing on that on
the college level now.
Speaker 3 (37:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (37:35):
I saw a tweet the other day, you know, Adam
Tirapelli said he he spent and he's one that's been
pretty pretty vocal about this, Like the gap between the
elite high school wrestler and the college wrestler is he said,
as narrow as it's ever been. I think that's gonna
be a hard one to statistically break out because you're
dealing with a bunch of high school unicorns essentially, you know,
and they're they're just did they exist back in the day,
(37:58):
We don't know, because they didn't have as many opportunities
to compete. Again, we're talking about the competitiveness now, the
ability and the access. I mean, I remember at when
when your son Brian and I worked the simulation camp
and it's spooky nook.
Speaker 3 (38:11):
You know, Bo Bassett is out there.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Uh, he's getting to work out with the freaking Olympic
team and this is I mean, you know, and he
walked up said, hey, says take this in man, soak
this up because this is the opportunities to people don't
And now we've kids got out for Sam Herrings out
there too, So you got you got opportunities for kids
to have access.
Speaker 3 (38:30):
To these athletes like never before. And that definitely plays
a role.
Speaker 4 (38:34):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
And you know, the more kids that have that access,
the more they can you can put that dream as
being attainable. You can get hands on somebody be like, wow,
I can be here, I can go there. I have
this dream versus reading in a magazine and putting up
a uh you know, a poster or a cutout of
Dan Gable on your wall or or something like that.
So the opportunity that our generation's kids, like I'm saying,
(38:58):
my kids are now, you know, I've got a twelve
year old.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
So the kids that are coming through being able to
watch all that stuff on YouTube. Uh, and then you know,
here here they are. You know, say four years later,
it'll be sixteen, be like I'm I'm at the Olympic
training center and oh, there's Kyle Diaco over there. There's
Jordan Burrows over there, There's there's Jayden Cox, There's Kyle Snyder.
You know, there's there's you know, there's there's Adeline Gray,
Helima Rulas. I mean, it's not leave the girls out by.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
Any stretch, but the opportunities for for that gap to
be closed, I mean, the access there, the ability to
see that stuff with their own eyes. It's just there
really isn't a measurable statistic you can put on that
value right there. So that's, uh, that's my position there.
Speaker 5 (39:35):
All right, were great guys, thanks for wrapping to show
up and for my co host Jason Bryant, Kevin Hazard.
I'm Glenn Gormley. See you guys next month.
Statistics. They can mean many things. It can be a
batting average, a win percentage, correlations, and standard deviation. But
numbers aren't just for nerds. In life, decisions need data.
In wrestling decisions, projections and hypotheticals also need data. Here
(00:24):
on Matt Stats, we take historical data, theories, and statistics
and apply it to the world's oldest and greatest sport.
Now to your trio of numerical nerd balls, Glenn Gormley,
Kevin Hazard, and Jason Bryant, and.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Welcome back again to the Matt SAT Show, Episode thirty seven.
Along with Kevin Hazard and Glenn Gormley, I'm Jason Bryant,
and we're going to take a look into things in
and around the sport of wrestling as it pertains statistics
easy for you to.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Say, I'm the host.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
I can't even say the words statistics and statistician right anyway.
With Glenn, our residents, statf Stition, the Sultan of stat
and the Grand Pooba. It's Kevin Hazard again, Jason Bright
here with you, finishing up part three of this three
part series. The more things change, the more things stay
the same. We've looked at the stats across the last
NCAA championships in Division one and Division two.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
We're going to spend a.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Little bit of time on that, summarizing it and of
course talk about the points per minute and margin of
victory here in this episode. But before we get to that,
we are in mid October. The leaves are starting to
fall here in Minnesota. We finally got some of that
that that f word on the ground, it's called frost.
Ah didn't want to see any of that. While the
only thing frosty on on Kevin's camera is his face.
(01:38):
Where did that grow in?
Speaker 4 (01:41):
I just I was watching Mobe Dick and I like
the beard, so I decided to I want to I'm
going to get a captain A have hat and I
don't know, I just liked it. My wife doesn't like
it very much, but I do. And you have a beard,
and I just that I want to be like Jason
(02:01):
when they grow up.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
You know, you could do a lot worse.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
You could do significantly better, but you can definitely do
a lot worse Glenn. Glenn's excuse pre show was he
actually has hair on his head, so he doesn't need
any more on his face. So Glenn's rubbing it in
and again this is by choice. Granted hereditarily, I may
not have a choice eventually, but yeah, this is this
is by choice. And like I said, I'd rather look
(02:25):
like a biker than a banker. So that's that's the
way I went with it. So no offense to bankers
out there or bikers. I may have offended with that statement.
Who think you think I look like you? But yeah,
that's what we got.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
Welcome to episode thirty seven. We'll get onto wrestling here
and not talk about what these three ugly guys look
like anymore. Okay, what this show is is we've done
two parts of Righty on a three part series on
the new takedown rule being a three point rule, and
we're going to go dive into it more deeply on this.
One thing I did want to do, as you can
(02:59):
see on the next slow is in today's world of
nil and different things going on, and all I thought,
I just, you know, take you walk down memory lane.
One of the big ways William and Mary wrestling up.
I paid the bills all the time was LD Davis
glues in adhesive. I always like to say it was
(03:19):
the glue that he'll tried wrestling together. Mister and Missus
Davis were very generous for trips four years at William
and Mary. He was also a Penn Charter guy who
was a high school team it is too and they
were very generous there. And actually, one hot summer in
seventy nine, I actually worked at that clue factory. And
let me tell you something, it's a lot easier doing
wrestling stats than it is working in a glue company.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
I'm I'm gonna try to refrain from making any any
thoroughbred joke I can right now.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
I'm gonna do that. I'm just gonna stop right now too.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
Okay, so I just wanted to give a shout out
and thank them. Okay, now, guys on this show. Here
we have on the next slide slide three in this
episode where it's more like a library function where you
can see if you drip just turning through and wanting
to advance to some different parts of the show. It
(04:17):
tells you what we do there.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Then once again, if you are listening along, we will
have the slide show at NWCA online and matttokonline dot
com to follow along. If you're doing anything but driving
or operating heavy machinery or mowing your lawn. So again,
the slide show, as with other shows, is part of
the show notes on this so scroll up, hit the
show notes and follow along if you are not watching
(04:40):
on the video.
Speaker 5 (04:43):
Thank you, Jason. Okay, why do we do this show?
The reason we do this show is Mike Mooreyer of
the NWCA reached out to Matt Stats and he wants
to create a library statistical analysis. So that's the point
of this show. In our own little way, we're trying
to help the If you guys all remember that I
(05:04):
feel like a number that we do every show, we'll
skip through that real quickly. But of course we can't
skip through quickly eight six, seven, five three oh nine
Danny's Glass at Yorktown, Virginia, and that is their phone show. Okay,
we're skipping it this show. The opinions express of this
(05:25):
show do not less soly reflect any opinions of the NWCA,
nor do gorm Lee, Jason and Kevin always agree with
each other. Okay, Matt Stats is a numbers show and
about finding stats and analyzing them. It's not it starts
with facts, not opinions. That makes this difference from many
(05:47):
of the shows here. Okay, it revolves around stats. It's
We're lucky though that we do have some opinions on
this where Jason and Kevin come into this after seeing
the statistics and really helps the show go. Now, what
we like to start the show with every time is
account of how many collegiate four year NCAA and NAIA
(06:13):
teams there are. There are now five hundred and fourteen
of them eyes of ten thirteen twenty four. Now, Kevin,
fill in what you told me about what we said
about this while we were talking on the phone the
other day.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
Well, that's three hundred and ninety two men's teams, and
that's pretty much the most team since, well since basically
your era at William and Mary when you were coaching.
It's it's just a phenomenal and just and it's you know,
the NWCA is just a phenomenal job helping grow it
(06:48):
on the D two and the D three level, and
women's wrestling is a huge component of this. I mean,
it's three ninety two men, but by fourteenth total, that's
a huge, huge number of teams.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Yeah. As a matter of fact, Kevin, as we can
see on slide eleven, as of ten thirteen twenty four,
there were two in eighty seven announced teams that men's
and CAA wrestling teams. That is more than at any
point since nineteen eighty eight. To put this in perspective, guys,
if you're fifty four years or younger, there are more
(07:23):
teams now than at any time you wrestled in college.
How old are you, Jason?
Speaker 3 (07:29):
I am forty five.
Speaker 5 (07:31):
Okay, So in other words, from the time Jason's been
in college. Okay, there are more teams right now than
at any time since Jason's been in college.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
I started college in nineteen nineteen ninety seven, so it
took me a good almost decade to get into al
or not. I was told there would be no math
on a show, but stats, this is about me at
least I'm not counting. I'm not using my high school
reunions and counting them backwards in abacus is So yeah, yeah, you, yeah,
thank you you guys. Yeah, of course, thankfully. These two
(08:06):
gentlemen still go, oh, you're young yet, so I'll still
hear that from them.
Speaker 4 (08:09):
So yep, okay. So we're going to talk about the
new takedown rule and last year NCAA that released a
statement and basically it said the members think that it's
going to create more uh more action and reward risk taking.
(08:30):
And so now let's just do a quick recap. And
we've talked about in the first two shows.
Speaker 5 (08:36):
H sure, will Kevin, takedown points per match? We did
this apart more in part two. Takedown points per match.
We're up about fifty percent. No surprise that the takedowns
that wereth three points. But the number of takedowns remained
relatively constant. The percentage of all points from takedowns were
up over twenty percent. They are now more than half.
(08:58):
The scoring and exposures went way down. Texts went way
up in Division one but remained relatively close to Division two.
The number of scoring moves per match remained relatively constant
from twenty three to twenty four in both D one
and D two.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Okay, and we're talking abouta tournament.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
Yes, thank you, thank you, Kevin. We are Okay. What
we're going to talk about on today's show is the
change in margin of victory at the NCAA Men's D
one and T two from twenty three to twenty four.
The points per minute and the scoring moves permitted, all right.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
With margin of victory MV and We've talked about that
over the last couple of years, but I think it's
a good thing to talk about. And what what did
we learn about margin victory with these two tournaments?
Speaker 5 (09:52):
Okay to tom Chester what we did here and you
can see on slides six coming up here, there's a
bunch of data and I try to then do it
with charts. I want to make this clear. In the
NCAA Division one in twenty three and twenty four, Kevin
and I cannot access to twenty rattail matches, So all
(10:15):
this data is for the six hundred and twenty matches
starting in the round of thirty two and the first
full of al de Conzi's just so everybody knows that
what we have on this chart is the percentage of
all matches and then the cumulative frequency. We have that
for the Men's D one. I'm not going to read
you guys all those numbers. You can check it out, Okay.
(10:36):
Then in the next slide, of course, is the margin
to victory for the twenty four Men's D one championship.
Then the next slide we go Division three and twenty
three and twenty four. Okay, now, what Kevin, One thing
I want to do is when we talk about margin
of vispray set this up here a little bit because
(10:57):
a lot of people have been asking me, well, you
just within one takedown of tying it or going ahead. Okay,
the one possession argument that we use in basketball and
football all the time doesn't work as well in wrestling
because in order this to be jermaine, we both have
to be on our feet at the time. Okay, I
could be losing by three and how's it can be
(11:18):
riding the heck out of me and it doesn't really
matter about it takedown because.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
I'm not on my feet.
Speaker 5 (11:22):
Okay, But we did did a little We did did
a little research on that to see just where people
just where the matches are that since we investigated the
margin of victory, with that being said, to settle up
that margin of victory at the one possession game, there
are more chances now for a buzzer beater takedown. Okay,
(11:45):
but let's figure this. The margin of victory we have
is the end of the match, Okay, So we don't
know where that takedown came in at the end of one,
but it does appear that there is more of an
opportunity for a buzzer beater takedown, which, let's face it,
the march Mannes said, basketball has been creative because a
(12:06):
buzzer beater, three court shops, three point shots of half court.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Okay, all right, we just looked at four four slides
of all statistics and that's that's you gorms. But you
need to talk our language. Let's I think and I
and I know you have. Let's look at the charge
you put together to kind of sum up that data.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
Okay, thank you for that, Kevin, and I appreciate both
of you guys bringing me into the world that not
everyone's a statistician. Okay. On the slide, Jason is up
there in division. This is a cumulative frequency, meaning at
the at the one on the x axis, that means
all matches of zero m ov and one then two
(12:53):
means you're a one two. Okay. You can see, Okay,
the orange line or the top line the left there
is twenty three, the green one is twenty four. You
can see where there are more close matches at the beginning,
and then the green one goes ahead there at the
tech range and then of course twenty three catches it
with the pins and then they even out at the end.
(13:16):
What I did to make this easier then is I
also did it what you can see on slide twenty four,
which is an individual percentage, and I think that's a
lot easier to read. What is what? So in other words,
you can see there there's more two point matches, one
point match, zer point matches on twenty three, and then
(13:38):
you can see in twenty four where there's a lot
more technicals. You can see again twenty three where there's
more pins. This is for Division one, okay. Then I
did the same thing for Division two. Okay. On the
next slide okay, and that of course does the same
(13:58):
thing where it's cumulative frequency, which is tough to read.
And then the slide that Jason has up, which is
Division two. The difference there is you don't see the
spike in the technicals that we saw in Division one.
Who knows why that's the situation. There could be a
lot of different reasons for that. The next two slide
(14:20):
do the cumulative comparing Division one in Division two over
the two years. You can see when we get to
twenty twenty four on slide twenty eight, they almost totally
mirror each other. That's the one interesting thing I found
out about the takedown rule change is the more the
points change, the more division one in Division two get
(14:42):
closer together, which is interesting.
Speaker 6 (14:48):
Okay, we had that data, so we had and with
the data, you know, if you look at it close,
they go back through and look, you'll see their fewer
close matches.
Speaker 4 (14:59):
And were pins in twenty four. So what does that mean?
But and there were a lot more texts in D
one and twenty four. Do you think that that was
something to do with the rule or or maybe even
an anomaly just for the year. How does that all work?
Speaker 5 (15:21):
Okay, my thoughts on this, Kevin. As I've said this
before and I'm going to say again on the show,
we do have to investigate this for just more than
a one year timelag. Okay, like next year we'll do
twenty two or twenty three and twenty four and twenty five.
I'm not sure why there's less close matches, more techs,
(15:41):
and less pains. It's it's very it's a strange thing here, Jason,
you have any thoughts on.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
That, not particularly because the differences between divisions. To me,
it's in terms of the scoring. Isn't that great? I mean,
I know we're gonna have the you're gonna have your
your super studs that end up you know, probably being uh.
I don't want to say two good because you know
we've got you know, each level any given day wrestling,
(16:10):
you know that kind of thing. But sometimes there's a
guy that transcends a division, so he might skew that
Kurby like, well, he's going to tech his way through
because that's that. That may be a D one championship
talent that decided to choose a different option Division two
or Division three, or somebody like that, or somebody that's
been on a tear. I mean, you'll get your Marcus
Lovesser out there in Division three, you'll get you'll get
(16:30):
your Joey Davison division two. So those things are bound
to happen in the smaller divisions. So what I found is,
I really think it's the increase in the tech falls
was probably the most notable thing across the three point thing.
It's like, okay, and then we went back, we can
go back a couple episodes, the difference between the seven
point outcome and the eight point outcome one year and
(16:52):
then oh well, this this three point takedown has made
that the difference to seven, eight to seven and nine
or seven and ten, so matches being oh it's ten
to seven in ot It's like what what you have
to double take on that stuff. So nothing really ers
shattering in terms of the difference and point outcomes other
than yeah, we know there's more points on the board,
(17:13):
but is it really more action?
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Then?
Speaker 2 (17:16):
We discussed that in previous episodes as well.
Speaker 4 (17:20):
I'd like to add there. I really think we've only
had one year with the wrestlers and the coaches, you know,
kind of focusing on they changed the rules, But every
time you change the rule, it takes a couple of
years and then they kind of kind of game it.
It's like when we did the weight loss thing. The
(17:40):
first year, everybody jumped up a weight class, and then
five years in, everybody was figuring out a way, you know,
to get to where they should be wrestling. I think
the same thing is going to happen with this rule.
I mean, if you look at it, fifty percent of
the points are now takedowns, so do you coach is
probably going to spend more time on feet, right, and
(18:01):
I think and pins are worth four, so you're gonna
take down in a near fall. Now you're up seven,
so I think that will kind of start to feather
out as they get used to it.
Speaker 5 (18:16):
Thank you for that, Kevin. Now let's go gob to
the next part of the show, which is points points
per minute. Okay, Just so you guys know on this,
in Division one, when with Kevin and Pipsey put everything together,
we didn't see every single point that we scored on
a pin. In Division two, we do have that, whether
(18:38):
it's a takedown, reversal, et cetera. So what we've done
here in the Men's D one Championships from twenty three
to twenty four, there was an increase of twenty seven
points per minute, okay. In other words, Kevin went through
and found out how long every single overtime match was
(18:59):
when the technical fall was completed, when the pin happened.
There was a lot of research by so that is
no surprise once again because the takedown is now worth
three points dot two. Now when we go to slide
thirty three, what we see here is there was statistically
no change in the number of scoring moves per minute
(19:23):
at the Men's NCAA D one Championships of twenty three
to twenty four. So Anybody who was at the D
three's of twenty three and twenty four and really thought
they saw more action is confused, senile or both.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
But it kind of felt like that when we were
there because I mean, like you, especially the D one,
I mean, texts were way up. So more things change
the more they say the same. We saw more points
per minute, but no more more points per minuted, but
no more scoring moves. So really there really hasn't been
(20:07):
that much of an effect on the number of you know, moves.
And again it's going to be interesting to see how
the coaches and rests adapt in the upcoming years. Okay,
now we also that was the D one we just
looked at. Now we got to look at the D
(20:30):
two's same different or how does that all work?
Speaker 5 (20:34):
Okay, Kevin? In the D twos, we have a lot
more data points to examine. One of the things that
Kevin pointed this out to me when we're reviewing the analysis,
I did we know in the past that the points
per match, okay, what up one point seventy one points
per match of DVD two, but that translates to six
(20:57):
hundred and nineteen total more points, so there could be
an effect there where people see that. Okay. Now in
Division two once again, how what was a different number
of scoring moves from twenty three to twenty four in
all three hundred forty matches, the number is four, guys, Okay,
(21:20):
I cannot make that up. Four Okay. However, as you
see in the next slide, Okay, there were more minutes
of total wrestling in twenty twenty four. One of the
reasons was there were more defaults of twenty three to
(21:41):
twenty four, so the average match length was thirteen seconds
longer in twenty four than it wasn't twenty three, and
included on that there were less defaults at twenty four.
So those four more scoring moves you saw. If you
break that down by the minute, the points per minut
(22:04):
it went up thirteen percent, as you can see on
slide thirty nine. Okay. However, on slide forty, which is
the telling slide, the scoring moves per minute went down
four percent. Okay, So it's relatively the same again, and
(22:26):
it is staggered that there's only four more scoring moves
the whole tournament. Okay, Then we did the scoring moves
and pins per minute, because guys, as ironic as this
is a pin is not a match scoring move. You
don't get credit for your back points there. So we
added up the scoring moves and the pins of both things,
(22:48):
and we saw a reduction in five percent of that. Now,
Jason is wisely asked to be in past shows. Is
this statistically signific?
Speaker 3 (23:00):
Right?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
That is the key thing we always want to know
is that are we you know, correlation doesign equal causation?
Speaker 3 (23:07):
Does it mean? Does it? What?
Speaker 2 (23:09):
What does it mean? Statistically significant? Is that term that
the Sultan of stat over there sitting right above me.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
Once. We want to make sure that that is what
we're getting to.
Speaker 5 (23:20):
Okay, do you Jason? I do not believe this one
year decrease of such a small percentage is statistically significant
enough for alarm. No, I do not. Okay, However, I
do believe match Status needs a follow up on this
after the twenty twenty five D one and D two tournaments,
(23:40):
because if this, if you lose five percent enough years,
that's the troublesome. That's a troublesome.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Trained that is significant. Yes, yes, all right, cue the
dad joke horn on that one. All right, continue, Okay.
Speaker 5 (23:55):
One thing that both Kevin and Jason brought up in
the past is points don't necessarily mean action or lack
of points don't mean lack of action. I'll give you, guys,
two great examples. In two thousand and five, the Tide
beat the Valls six three on last on.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Field Why are these great examples or are these Glenn examples?
Because those are not mutually exclusive. Because you could have
a great example, but it not involved Tennessee. Just can
we do that.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
In the future.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
No, okay, and it can continue with your your your
volunteerism of tie.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Thank you see what I did there?
Speaker 5 (24:34):
Yes you did, Yes, you did so? R anyway and
oh five, And I would not bring this up if
it wasn't pertinent. Alabama beat Tennessee sixty three. In twenty two,
the Vols beat the Tide fifty two forty nine. Both
games ended one on a field goal with thirteen seconds ago.
What on the buzzer? My point is here. Sadly the
(24:57):
five game was as exciting and did have as many
action points. Okay, the problem was the Valls were only
on the top of one game. What I'm saying is
this is a great example of how one of the
best football games ever played was six three and another
one was fifty two to forty nine.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
So it's also depending on your perspective if you're one,
if you're somebody who thinks that a great match means
fifteen fourteen versus Now, we've bemoaned the three to two match,
we have bemoaned the old three two one oh eight
of riding time match, we've you know, I hate to
use this example, but the the mac Lunis versus Nick
(25:43):
Marrable match, because that was pretty much their blueprint. Every
time they wrestled, it was going to be three to two.
Somebody was going to have four extra seconds of riding
time over a minute, and that was going to be
the difference. So, uh, that's that's the match that we like. Okay,
it might have been a tactically well wrestled match for
a purist, but sometimes, you know, you know, people like
people want to go to boxing match, they want to
(26:04):
see the knockout. They don't they don't necessarily want to
see a four, you know, twelve rounds of strategic you know,
you know, Roberto Durant.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
You know, they don't necessarily want to see great technique.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
They want to see Mike Tyson get in there beat
somebody over the head, maybe bite their ear off and
go home happy. That's what you want. Excitement. Excitement doesn't
necessarily always match technique. Sloppy fifty two forty nine, fifteen fourteen,
that can is that great ed Bannock And it was
a bannock in is it ed Bannck in mark Schulzer
was Aluban one of the bannics in mark T widely reviewed,
(26:38):
regarded as one of the greatest match of all time.
When you look at that, it's really a sloppy match,
it really is. But because of you know, history adds
to that.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
So again part of that is the eye of the beholder,
and again eye test. We've talked about that. It's no
way you can measure the eye test. I'm looking at
that fifty two forty nine, to me, is will be
probably much more exciting than six three.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Because I want to be entertained. That doesn't necessarily mean
I want to good football, watching good wrestling and being entertained,
or watching good football and being entertained, They're not the
same thing. We need to also remember that too when
looking at these statistics.
Speaker 5 (27:13):
Yeah, I cree Jason, And on the next slide, I
won't bring up the change. But sometimes a goal line
stand is the most exciting thing.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
Yeah, or a fumble.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
In case you're you're a nineties eight, late eighties, early
nineties John Elway Denver Broncos fan, and you just want
to bemoan Ernest Byner and the Cleveland Browns. We can
throw that drive out there too. That was a goal
line stand of a different sort.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
Gable knowings. It was a great match. It was exciting
because it was Dan Gable. It was his last match.
But if you watch it, it was a really like
you were just saying, Jason, it was sloppy. It was
really a sloppy match. I mean I had to go
back through a couple of times just to kind of
figure out the score. It was kind of a wild match.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
I wasn't born yet, so I have no recollection of
watching it other than the clips that we have now.
The you know, it's the full match, but it's you know,
there's there's it's not the as long as.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
It actually took.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
Obviously, it's the the edited for TV version, but and
I'm not saying that as a joke. It's the literal
edited for TV version.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
That's what we've got.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
So yeah, and it's it's one of these things, like
we saw that the NAA Wolves committee tried to do
it to encourage scoring and action, but scoring and action
are not positively one correlated by any means. Okay, I'll
do my best here again.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
More things change the more they stay the same. D
two's new takedown did not have any effect on creating
more scoring moves, but doesn't mean there was less action
and excitement. And like we learned looking at the bowls
examples in all sports is playing action. It doesn't nesscort
(29:00):
and points and two goal line stands at nail and
Stadium great example of this.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
All right, I'm gonna do my bust here for everyone
to sum up the takedown point change from twenty three
to twenty four and what it all means to us. Okay,
we saw more points, but no real change in the
number of takedowns. We saw a small decrease in the
(29:30):
number of scoring moves permitted in D two, not enough
to panic but requires fire up. In D one, it
was about constant scoring moves permitted. We saw fewer close
matches and less pins, but more techs. We do see
the possibility of more buzzer beating takedowns. Which heck, that
(29:54):
might help the sport enthusiasm. Okay, personally, I'm all for
this rule change to see what happens. I have no
problem with it whatsoever. But it needs to be monitored
over the years by Matt stats because some things can happen.
You lose five percent a year and nobody notices it,
and then you wake up one day and find out
(30:15):
there's no action. Okay, Scoring in action are not positively
one correlating. You can't even measure how correlated you are
because scoring is a definitive number. Action is a subjective term. Okay,
we are. We're in the situation here where I'm supporting
(30:36):
what the rules committee did in their effort, but it
is really tough to legislate action because the point of
the whole thing is to win the darn match and
it really doesn't matter if you win one nothing or
fifteen fourteen. You advance and the most good.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
GLA One thing I want to bring up here too,
is we're going to have a whole nother data set
to work with moving forward on this, because this is
entering high school this coming year. The NFHS, the National
Federation of High School State Associations, have adopted the three
point takedown. We saw the Super thirty two this past
weekend have the three point takedown. You know who's number
one below? Rest did the three point takedown. I think
(31:17):
they did it the year before. I think they did
it with the college rules for a while. But we're
going to have data sets now across the fifty wrestling
states plus DC that are doing high school wrestling. Yes
I say fifty because Mississippi's got it. So that's something
that we can also look at too. Now is the
different what are the difference is gonna be in the high
school level to the college level.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
That will be a massive thing.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Well, we'll just have Kevin just spend his time there
on the beach doing high.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
School stats for the next year. So now we can
do that.
Speaker 4 (31:49):
I guess I had a question here, you know, like
you're saying you're talking about action, should they be looking
at stalling?
Speaker 5 (32:00):
Well, we're going to do a show on stalling.
Speaker 4 (32:02):
Really, if you really reafford they never you know, in
stalling is very seldom called. And if they really changed
the criteria on stalling, do you think it would help
or not help? Or is that just I mean that's
now we're into opinion. But I'm wondering if that would
not be a good thing.
Speaker 5 (32:21):
Well, Kevin, you know me. I don't like to voice
an opinion. Choice you have statistics to back it up,
and I don't have any on the stalling. But we
will do a show installing, all right?
Speaker 4 (32:35):
So what did we learn? What?
Speaker 3 (32:38):
As did we learn?
Speaker 4 (32:41):
As of ten thirteen, there are now five hundred and
fourteen for year collegiate wrestling teams. That's NCUBLEA and NAIA
men and women, and two hundred and eighty seven men's
NC double A teams. The last time we had this
many men's NC double A teams was nineteen eight. Now
for me that's twenty years old, twenty years from my
(33:05):
college days. But still it's just it's a it's a
long time. It's just been the NWCA and might More
have just done a great job getting it out to
the schools. Takedown points on up about fifty percent from
twenty twenty three in twenty twenty four and fifty percent
of all scoring. D one had a lot more tech falls,
(33:29):
but D two did not see the same spike. Is
this just year one year anomaly? We'll find out in
the upcoming years. Margin of victory was almost identical in
twenty twenty four. Routeen D one and D two. D
one saw an increase of twenty seven percent points permitted
(33:50):
from twenty three to twenty four, but statistically no increase
in scoring moves. There was actually a slight decrease in
scoring moves in D two from twenty three to twenty four,
but there were over six hundred more point match point
scoring and that can give you a perception of more action,
(34:11):
more scoring, same overall number of scoring moves D through championships.
The more things change, the more they say the same.
And Matt Stapps is happy to share our work and
analysis with the rules Committee to help us work better.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Yeah, show to work. We're goad show.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
You with.
Speaker 5 (34:31):
I'm willing to show my working for jud Yeah. So, Kevin,
thanks for that synopsis of everything, just so everybody knows
the next show. And we have talked someone about high
school in this sing is high school participation numbers? Okay,
at the request the heads of state of the NWCA.
That's what we're gonna do in the next show. And Jason, Kevin,
(34:54):
do you have anything to say to wrap it up?
Speaker 2 (34:56):
I do, And this is one I'm looking forward to
as far as the high score, high school participation stats,
and I'm going to kind of throw a little teas
out there what I'm interested in analyzing. I'm also going
to look at this from what are some of the
answers we get these questions about those participation spikes, particularly
in the seventies, and then.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Oh well it's dropped this many.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
I want to also include and look at the competitive
aspect of what else our have our kids that we
actually I went through these things when I was, you know,
in the nineties. Okay, then now that's we're talking like
twenty seven years ago I graduated high school. Well, where
are those rates, like the number of sports being offered
(35:36):
in the high point in our heyday that is being
looked at all In the seventies we had this How
many sports did we have that we're competing for our kids?
We have more sports opportunities, We have so many more
specialized sports opportunities. Travel, basketball. My neighbors, I don't know
how many times between their three boys, they've been in
gyms across their summers the entire time. You know, we
(35:58):
got all you know, Fargo and all the the dual
meet wrestling tournaments on the wrestling side, the AU circuit,
the USA circuit, you know the New Way stuff, the
Wildcat events, you know the U stuff, roller we got
all that stuff. Hockey geez. Just look at the rinks
that are full all year round here in Minnesota. I mean,
you go into summertime and there's a hotel filled with
kids because they're in a hockey tournament in July. So
(36:19):
the the competitiveness for the kids opportunities at the high
school level is also greater than it's ever been. So
that's something to keep in mind when we go into
next month's episode. And that's something I'm really probably the
most interested looking at, is what else are our kids playing.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
Interesting?
Speaker 5 (36:38):
That's a great point. I vote that down. To pull
that down and analyze it for you, Jason, for the
next Yhow I can.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
Do that something I would be interested in. I was
at the Last Chance Olympic Qualifier and they were there
were a significant number of high school kids there competing.
Speaker 7 (37:02):
On a high high high level. And you know, I
mean two in the two or three in the finals.
One actually won it beat two n CUAA Tampa Jacks.
And I'm interested. I mean when I was a kid,
we wouldn't even think going to a college thing. Now
they compete at the college.
Speaker 4 (37:22):
I mean Carrie co Lot when you were coming through,
he would go to the Midlands in place, but he
was an anomaly. I don't think it's I think there's
a lot more high school kids competing on that on
the college level now.
Speaker 3 (37:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (37:35):
I saw a tweet the other day, you know, Adam
Tirapelli said he he spent and he's one that's been
pretty pretty vocal about this, Like the gap between the
elite high school wrestler and the college wrestler is he said,
as narrow as it's ever been. I think that's gonna
be a hard one to statistically break out because you're
dealing with a bunch of high school unicorns essentially, you know,
and they're they're just did they exist back in the day,
(37:58):
We don't know, because they didn't have as many opportunities
to compete. Again, we're talking about the competitiveness now, the
ability and the access. I mean, I remember at when
when your son Brian and I worked the simulation camp
and it's spooky nook.
Speaker 3 (38:11):
You know, Bo Bassett is out there.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Uh, he's getting to work out with the freaking Olympic
team and this is I mean, you know, and he
walked up said, hey, says take this in man, soak
this up because this is the opportunities to people don't
And now we've kids got out for Sam Herrings out
there too, So you got you got opportunities for kids
to have access.
Speaker 3 (38:30):
To these athletes like never before. And that definitely plays
a role.
Speaker 4 (38:34):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
And you know, the more kids that have that access,
the more they can you can put that dream as
being attainable. You can get hands on somebody be like, wow,
I can be here, I can go there. I have
this dream versus reading in a magazine and putting up
a uh you know, a poster or a cutout of
Dan Gable on your wall or or something like that.
So the opportunity that our generation's kids, like I'm saying,
(38:58):
my kids are now, you know, I've got a twelve
year old.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
So the kids that are coming through being able to
watch all that stuff on YouTube. Uh, and then you know,
here here they are. You know, say four years later,
it'll be sixteen, be like I'm I'm at the Olympic
training center and oh, there's Kyle Diaco over there. There's
Jordan Burrows over there, There's there's Jayden Cox, There's Kyle Snyder.
You know, there's there's you know, there's there's Adeline Gray,
Helima Rulas. I mean, it's not leave the girls out by.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
Any stretch, but the opportunities for for that gap to
be closed, I mean, the access there, the ability to
see that stuff with their own eyes. It's just there
really isn't a measurable statistic you can put on that
value right there. So that's, uh, that's my position there.
Speaker 5 (39:35):
All right, were great guys, thanks for wrapping to show
up and for my co host Jason Bryant, Kevin Hazard.
I'm Glenn Gormley. See you guys next month.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.