Timely Information for Takedown Scoring and Stats Users
Where's the Growth in College Wrestling?
It's not the NCAA. Surprisingly, most of the growth is from...
Digging further into the wrestling data set from the Dept. of Education, we looked at how the number of college wrestling programs has changed over time. Certain colleges -- such as public military academies -- are excluded as they are exempt from the reporting requirements, so upfront I recognize there are some holes. Not sure they are meaningful.
As of 2016 there are 349 college wrestling programs in the data set, up from 299 in 2003-04, for a total growth of ~17% or 50 programs. Except for the season following the 2008 financial crisis, there was a net gain of college wrestling programs every season during 2004-2016.
College Wrestling Programs, 2003-04 through 2015-16
Source: US Dept. of Education (certain colleges excluded -- click here for more info)
Tap or click to enlarge
Here's the breakdown by sanctioning body. NCAA is on the left scale, all other sanctioning bodies on the right scale.
College Wrestling Programs by Sanctioning Body
Source: US Dept. of Education
Tap or click to enlarge
From the above chart, here's the year-to-year change in number of programs by sanctioning body. The NCAA had net additions in six seasons while the NAIA had net additions is eleven seasons (out of twelve total).
College Wrestling Programs, Annual Additions by Sanctioning Body
Source: US Dept. of Education
Tap or click to enlarge
Here's the cumulative impact of program additions, by sanctioning body on left scale and total on right scale. Since 2003-04, the NCAA has added (net) eight programs and the NAIA has added (net) thirty programs. During the entire period, non-NCAA colleges accounted for 84% of the growth in the number of college wrestling programs from 299 to 349.
College Wrestling Programs Cumulative Additions by Sanctioning Body and Total
Source: US Dept. of Education
Tap or click to enlarge
NAIA is growing substantially faster than other sanctioning bodies, albeit from a much lower base relative to the NCAA. Still, the NAIA accounted for 60% of the total growth in number of programs from 2003 to 2016.
College Wrestling Programs, Contributions to Growth by Sanctioning Body
Source: US Dept. of Education
Tap or click to enlarge
What to make of this? NAIA seems to be doing well, wrestling-wise, and that's great news. In contrast, the NCAA added a total of eight programs (net) over the period on a base of 217 (2003-2004). I'm not sure that kind of growth is going to get us where we need to be. I know there are organizations trying to fix this very hard problem and I don't envy their task.
Use Takedown Scoring and Stats and Get These Things for Free
Most of us love "writing the book." When you "write the book" with Takedown, life is better and you'll do less work. Here's why.
I had the pleasure of scoring Boise v. Purdue dual meet last Friday evening.
This was a last minute assignment, but no matter. From scratch, setup took about ten minutes and most of that time was spent scouring the Internet for suitable team logos (thank you, Amanda).
After the last match, I emailed the scorebook and box score to each team’s Sports Information Directors and posted the relevant reports to social media. Both officials praised the scoreboard layout and functionality.
Below are the benefits of scoring a dual meet (or tournament) with Takedown.
Of course, these reports are much more powerful as more events are scored. Trends and tendencies become obvious, post-event analysis is data driven rather than belief based. Your fan base is happier, it's easier to update your website or compose an email update. All the content you need is automatically generated and immediately available. No logging into websites or copying from paper to a spreadsheet.
Score your events with Takedown, instead of with paper and pencil, and get all of these goodies:
Scorebook
Readable, durable, accurate, complete, shareable and branded.
Box Score
Easy to read, available in multiple formats including the text format preferred by newspapers and media outlets.
Image or PDF format.
Text format for press and media.
Scoring Detail
Wrestler scoring, for-against.
Riding Time
Riding time by wrestler, by period and total, for-against.
Short Time Scoring
By wrestler, for-against, 20/15/20/5 seconds remaining in period. This is the 10 second report.
Shot Success Rate
Shots by wrestler, for-against and success rate (takedowns / shots).
Wrestler Profile
Every metric for a wrestler on one page. What college coaches should ask for when recruiting high school wrestlers.
Leadboard
Ranked wrestlers in 19 categories.
Win/Loss Record
By wrestler, duals and tournaments, total and pins.
Seeding
By wrestler, each match, opponent, outcome, event with sorting options.
Schedule
Updated with results.
Takedown LIVE
Fan-focused, real-time scorebook and video on your Apple or Android mobile phone or tablet Free.
Live Results on Twitter
Auto-posted, end-of-period or end-of-match. Team score included. This is a sample of 50+ auto-posted tweets for this dual meet. These results were posted to our Twitter timeline as a matter of convenience. Teams post their results to their own timelines.
Scoreboard
Professional , wrestling-dedicated, referee and athlete friendly. Wired or wireless. Optionally deploy a mirrored, second screen for your announcer.
Audience Scoreboard
Mirrored secondary scoreboard for announcer
Use Takedown to "do the book" and derive a wide range of benefits for coaches, athletes, managers and fans.
How Expensive is an NCAA Division I Wrestling All-American?
Holy smokes! Developing an All-American is expensive!
With the recent demise of Boise State's wrestling program and discussions about budgets, we took a dive into the cost of operating a NCAA Division I wrestling program during 2015-2016.
For the sixty nine teams in the database, average annual expenses were roughly $886,000. University of Iowa has the most expensive program and spent more than twice that of the 20th most expensive program at University of Virginia.
Twenty Most Expensive Division I Programs
Source: US Dept. of Education
Click to Enlarge
Not surprisingly, these same programs did well at the NCAA Championships that year, capturing 57 (71%) of the All-American awards. Four of the twenty most expensive programs didn't not have an All-American in 2016.
Twenty Most Expensive Division I Programs -- All-American Awards
Source: NCAA
Click to Enlarge
From this data, it's easy to calculate a cost per All-American. On average, the top 20 most expensive programs invested about $500,000 to generate an All-American during the 2015-16 season.
Twenty Most Expensive Division I Programs -- Cost Per All-American
Source: US Dept of Education, NCAA
Click to Enlarge
As it turns out, many of the most expensive programs are also pretty efficient at making All-Americans. Virginia Tech, tenth in total expenses, was the most efficient at $229,351 per All-American in 2015-16.
Twenty Most Efficient Division I Programs -- Cost Per All-American
Source: US Dept of Education, NCAA
Click to Enlarge
What doe all these numbers mean? Wrestling is under siege -- witness Boise's demise -- and budget is part of the discussion. Knowing your "numbers" and improving spending efficiency might be important in battles that are sure to come.
Fun Facts: NCAA Division I Championship Finals
Next time you play college wrestling trivia with your buddies, use these facts to your advantage.
Congratulations to the NCAA for a wonderful championship in Madison Square Garden! For all you college wrestling trivia fans, here are some fun facts about the Saturday night Division I finals:
- Total number of match points scored: 103
- By winner: 65
- Match points by period:
- 1st: 24
- 2nd: 36
- 3rd: 41
- OT: 2
- Average margin of victory: 2.7 points
- Excluding 149 pound match: 1.8 points
- Percentage of periods with no scoring: 9.7 % (3 of 31)
- Total number of
- Takedowns: 26
- Near falls: 1
- Reverses: 0
- Takedown + escapes, percentage of all match points: 87%
- First takedown winners: 7
- 3rd period comebacks: 1
- Points scored in the last 10 seconds of any period: 11
- # of matches won by red: 8
- Probability of red winning 8 of 10 matches with random color assignment: 4.4%
Stats provided by Takedown Scoring and Stats.
A Letter to the NCAA Rules Committee re: Miller v. Realbuto Controversy
This is an email sent on March 28th to Ron Beaschler , NCAA Wrestling Secretary-Rules Editor regarding the Miller v. Realbuto controversy
[This is an email sent on March 28th to Ron Beaschler (r-beaschler@onu.edu) NCAA Wrestling Secretary-Rules Editor, republished in light of the upcoming NWCA Convention, Jul 31 - Aug 2 2015. This issue deserves attention.]
Hi Ron--
We've been in contact previously about some finer points in the NCAA rule book. I thought you might be interested in our perspective about a specific area of the rule book that needs some attention in light of the Miller v. Realbuto controversy at the NCAAs. This is a very bland, technical recommendation, but I believe it addresses the root cause of the scoring error (no NCAA bashing here -- it's a great and popular sport especially in the wake of this controversy, but not my concern) in this match and, prospectively, others.
Here's the issue, articulated in the context of the Miller v. Realbuto match and excerpted from a broader blog post:
The 2nd Takedown Mystery
With a continuously running clock, by rule it is not possible for a wrestler to score two consecutive takedowns without the opposing wrestler scoring an escape in-between those two takedowns. Yet, that is precisely what happened in this match. At this tournament, scoring was done with an electronic scoring system that, in normal operation, prevents the operator from scoring two consecutive take downs for a wrestler without an interleaved escape by the opponent. That’s the rule and it is incorporated into the electronic scoring system’s logic.
Realbuto’s first takedown (at 0:24) was scored properly. The scoring system, rightly so, would have then disabled Realbuto’s takedown button until an escape for Miller was scored. But, the escape for Miller was never scored and when Realbuto executed his second takedown (at 0:10), the scorer had a serious problem: Realbuto’s takedown button was disabled. But, we know from looking at the scoreboard that Realbuto’s score increased by 2 match points at this point. How did that happen?
It’s been reported that the 2nd takedown was scored using a feature of scoring system that allows adding generic points to a wrestler’s score. These points don’t carry the standard scoring notation — T2 in this instance — but instead are simply recorded as “+1″ or “+2″ depending on the system used. These so-called generic points can be added to the wrestler’s tally at any time, regardless of match context or wrestler position. Some operators of electronic scoring systems use generic scoring when the button they want to tap — in this case, takedown — is disabled. It’s a way to circumvent the scoring system’s logic. And, it’s a bad idea that can lead to bad outcomes.
Generic Electronic Scoring Should Be Banned
Well, that’s a little extreme. But, consider carefully the case of Ian Miller. Had generic scoring been disabled in the NCAA’s scoring system, Realbuto’s final takedown wouldn’t have made it to the scoreboard and the natural wrestling process of everyone screaming bloody murder would have forced the official to give thoughtful deliberation to the scorebook. Instead, the scorer overrode the system’s logic and this action cascaded into a series of unfortunate events that unfairly sent Miller to the consies and Realbuto to the semis, and put an NCAA official in an embarrassing situation. Not good for Miller, Kent State or the NCAA.
s you know, the rule book has a table of scoring notations in 4.6 Scoring Abbreviations (WR-51). This table has a footnote that says "the abbreviations above are the only official terms for recording a result." As a practical matter, the "official" nature of these abbreviations has not been historically enforced. I'm guessing that the referees don't know all the abbreviations, nor do the scorers. And, in the case of manually scoring a bout, it is very difficult to enforce using these abbreviations in any case.
However, with the advent of electronic scoring systems, there is no reason, technical or otherwise, to use anything other than the "official" notations. Had this happened at the NCAAs, Miller would have been declared the winner, controversy avoided. Indeed, I suspect that Miller v. Realbuto's bout has accounted for in a manner in opposition to the NCAA rules in so much as the "official" scoring abbreviations were not used to record Realbuto's final take down.
y recommendation is that the rule book is revised to make clearer the role of the Scoring Abbreviations in official scoring and also articulate just what is meant by "official" in this context. For example, can an NCAA match have a declared winner if the scoring isn't "official"? The way the rules are currently written, that seems a reasonable question.
Further, and this is more specific, I'd suggest that any NCAA sanctioned event using electronic scoring use only the scoring notation in 4.6. This would have the benefits of (1) improving scoring accuracy and (2)standardizing scoring presentation. In turn, this change would reduce coach<->official interaction which often interrupts match flow (though, admittedly, highly entertaining depending on the coach!). For an electronic scoring system vendor like us, using the NCAA abbreviations is easy to implement and, in fact, we comply with most of 4.6 already. I'm sure other vendors would indicate likewise.
Thanks for reading this and I look forward to your response. Also, if you have any questions, please let me know. Our application has been used to score about 60,000 high school and college matches in two seasons, so we have deep user and technical expertise in this area.
____________________________________________
Lose Track of the Score at your Wrestler's Peril: A Harsh Lesson for Kent State and Ian Miller
In the quarter final round of the NCAA Division I Championships in March 2015, Ian Miller (Kent State) lost to Brian Realbuto (Cornell) 11-9 in sudden victory. But, that sudden victory round shouldn't have been wrestled because Ian Miller beat Brian Realbuto 10-9 in regulation. How'd that happen?
[originally published in March 2015; revived in light of upcoming NWCA Convention Jul 31 - Aug 2. This situation deserves some attention from that group.] In the quarter final round of the NCAA Division I Championships in March 2015, Ian Miller (Kent State) lost to Brian Realbuto (Cornell) 11-9 in sudden victory. But, that sudden victory round shouldn't have been wrestled because Ian Miller beat Brian Realbuto 10-9 in regulation. How'd that happen?
Background
With 24 seconds remaining in the 3rd period of bout #360, Miller led 8-5 and the wrestlers were in neutral. Realbuto scored a takedown making the score 8-7, Miller still leading. Four seconds later at 0:20 on the clock, Miller escaped, the score was then 9-7 still in Miller's favor. Realbuto followed with another takedown, tying the score at 9-9. The 3rd period ended with no further scoring. Miller, however, accumulated a riding time advantage in excess of one minute and was awarded the customary riding time point. Miller won 10-9. That's what happened. But, that's not how it was scored.
For whatever reason, Miller's escape at 0:20 was missed by the official scorer. The scoreboard showed Realbuto ahead 9-8 when the clock expired and with Miller's riding time advantage added, the score was tied 9-9. From the moment the whistle blew ending the third period until the whistle blew starting sudden victory, 25 seconds elapsed. Miller's head coach, Jim Andrassy, said that he approached the scoring table at third period's conclusion to question the score, but was rebuffed by the officials. Realbuto scored a takedown in sudden victory to win 11-9. Subsequently, Kent State approached the tournament committee and asked for a review. The tournament committee reviewed the situation in accordance with NCAA Rule 3.11.2 and decided not to overturn the match outcome. Realbuto moved on to the semi-final round and placed 2nd and Miller dropped into the consolations and placed 5th, both All-Americans and excellent wrestlers.
Kent State Reaction
Kent State's head coach, Jim Andrassy, approached the scoring table and officials at the end of regulation to contest the score. Andrassy, in a video interview after the match, said:
I knew the score was wrong, I went up to the head table, the referee said it was right and ... two officials sat me down and started overtime.
There's been no word from the NCAA or the officials on what transpired between the officials and Andrassy at this point in the match.
Referee's Role
Whatever was communicated between the mat officials and Andrassy at the end of regulation, the NCAA Rules (p. WR-27) are clear:
3.12 Questioning the Referee
3.12.1 Coach. A coach shall be permitted, without penalty, to approach the scorer’s table with the intent of correcting or asking for an interpretation of the score or time...The referee and coach shall discuss the situation in a rational manner directly in front of the scorer’s table.
In the 25 seconds from the end-of-regulation whistle to the start-of-sudden victory whistle, the official took 18 seconds to walk to the scoring table and walk out to center mat to start sudden victory leaving about seven seconds for discussing the situation in a "rational manner" with the contesting coach, Andrassy. Perhaps the official heard the coach's protest as he was walking toward the table, so it is possible the official was considering the issue for a longer period. Best case would be, say, 20 seconds of deliberation if he was still pondering the protest as he jogged out to start sudden victory. Still, in a critical match with lots of scoring in the period's final 32 seconds (2 takedowns, 2 escapes, 6 points), the rush to start sudden victory and not give more consideration to the issue seems ill-advised if not in opposition to the NCAA Rules.
NCAA Role
At a sanctioned tournament, the NCAA's Rule Book mandates a three person tournament committee to arbitrate all disputes (3.16.2) . Further details appear in 3.11.2:
Error by Timekeeper and/or Scorers. If there is an error on the part of the timekeeper and/or scorers, the error shall be corrected and the referee will inform the wrestlers, coaches and announcer of the correction...For a tournament, the correction shall be made by the referee and shall take place before the contestants leave the mat area or the bout sheet leaves the scorer’s table. Any error not resolved by the referee shall be arbitrated by the tournament committee.
In this instance, the tournament committee did not overturn the match result. However, in a video interview, the Chair of the NCAA Division I Wrestling Committee offered a mind-numbing explanation of why the tournament committee didn't overturn the match outcome, saying:
I think it's key to understand that there was never an official challenge made at the match...the protocol that's in place is to go over, grab that flag and say 'no, that's wrong' and that never occurred.
The Chair is referring to NCAA Rule 3.21, Mat-Side Video Review which was established to challenge judgement calls by the referee, not clerical scoring errors. Moreover, the protocol for questioning the score is in rule 3.12 cited above. There is no requirement in the NCAA Rules to use a formal challenge, ala 3.21 Mat-Side Video Review, to question the official score accuracy. The NCAA Chair's statement reveals an ignorance of the rules that's distressing. Some suggest that the statement is a red herring, that the real reason the NCAA declined lies elsewhere. I'm not on the committee so I take the Chair's statement at face value.
Where's the escape?
Why wasn't Miller's escape, the one with 20 seconds remaining, accounted for in the official score? Maybe the referee gave a poor signal or none at all, this isn't clear from available match video. We know for certain that the scoring table missed the escape. Much has been made of this missed escape, but the reality is referees often give poor signals and scoring tables miss scores. It happens and, here's the point: missing the escape isn't the critical error in this situation. It's what happened next that is important to understand and internalize.
The 2nd Takedown Mystery
With a continuously running clock, by rule it is not possible for a wrestler to score two consecutive takedowns without the opposing wrestler scoring an escape in-between those two takedowns. Yet, that is precisely what happened in this match. At this tournament, scoring was done with an electronic scoring system that, in normal operation, prevents the operator from scoring two consecutive take downs for a wrestler without an interleaved escape by the opponent. That's the rule and it is incorporated into the electronic scoring system's logic.
Realbuto's first takedown (at 0:24) was scored properly. The scoring system, rightly so, would have then disabled Realbuto's takedown button until an escape for Miller was scored. But, the escape for Miller was never scored and when Realbuto executed his second takedown (at 0:10), the scorer had a serious problem: Realbuto's takedown button was disabled. But, we know from looking at the scoreboard that Realbuto's score increased by 2 match points at this point. How did that happen?
It's been reported that the 2nd takedown was scored using a feature of scoring system that allows adding generic points to a wrestler's score. These points don't carry the standard scoring notation -- T2 in this instance -- but instead are simply recorded as "+1" or "+2" depending on the system used. These so-called generic points can be added to the wrestler's tally at any time, regardless of match context or wrestler position. Some operators of electronic scoring systems use generic scoring when the button they want to tap -- in this case, takedown -- is disabled. It's a way to circumvent the scoring system's logic. And, it's a bad idea that can lead to bad outcomes.
Generic Electronic Scoring Should Be Banned
Well, that's a little extreme. But, consider carefully the case of Ian Miller. Had generic scoring been disabled in the NCAA's scoring system, Realbuto's final takedown wouldn't have been posted to the scoreboard and the natural wrestling process of everyone screaming bloody murder would have forced the official to give thoughtful deliberation to the scorebook. Instead, the scorer overrode the system's logic and this action cascaded into a series of unfortunate events that unfairly sent Miller to the consies and Realbuto to the semis, and put an NCAA official in an embarrassing situation. Not good for Miller, Kent State or the NCAA.
All Coaches Pay Attention
In his post-match interview, Kent State's head coach Jim Andrassy also offered the following:
To be honest with you, I thought [the score] was wrong, but I wasn't 100% sure. It didn't seem right.
From this statement, it's fair to assume that Coach Andrassy didn't confidently approach the officials with a specific description of why the score was in error. To be sure, the referee and scorer bear most of the responsibility. But, a coach without his own detailed, independently generated recording of the scoring sequence is risking an unjust outcome for the wrestler. When that happens in the quarter finals of the NCAA Div I Championship, it's a big deal.
So, coaches, when the outcome matters, use something -- a paper scorebook or, better, an electronic scoring system normally operated -- to correctly and independently record the match scoring activity. Mat officials and table scorers commit errors and it is your responsibility to confidently step in and make it right for your wrestler. They deserve nothing less.
Takedown Makes the Big Time
Stanford University versus Northwestern University Wrestling Dual Meet
Fun time yesterday at Stanford University's Burnham Pavillion watching Stanford v. Northwestern dual meet. Stanford uses Takedown to score their matches and generate performance statistics. Yesterday, they kept their expensive pedestal scoreboard in the closet and instead used Takedown's inexpensive and automatically generated scoreboard on their 90" wall-mounted flat panel display.
Here it is in action. With :49 left in the first period, no score in the 184 pound match.
Stanford University versus Northwestern University Wrestling Dual Meet
Another match, first period with 2:09 to go, NWU up 2-0 with :38 of riding time advantage. NWU is on top ( as indicated by the chevron under the NWU score).
Stanford University versus Northwestern University Wrestling Dual Meet
And, here's the Stanford wrestling manager using Takedown. See the green cable? That's the full extent of the setup -- run an HDMI cable from your iPad to your flat panel display. Stanford's display is huge, but the setup is the same no matter how large (or small) your panel. Also, instead of having one person run the scoreboard and another person doing the scoring, only a single person is required since the scoreboard content is automatically generated by Takedown.
Stanford University versus Northwestern University Wrestling Dual Meet
Stanford also used Takedown to stream the action to their 6,000+ Twitter fans:
Twitter Feed - Stanford University versus Northwestern University Wrestling Dual Meet
The outcome for the Cardinal wasn't great but Takedown had an outstanding debut on the big stage.
What about your program? If Takedown works for two premiere Division I NCAA wrestling programs, think it'll work for your high school or middle school program?
Be the coolest team in your conference, download Takedown from the App Store today and throw your paper scorebook in the trash.
Download_on_the_App_Store_Badge_US-UK_135x40