The 3-Point Takedown: Friend or Foe?

[Wrestleknownothing]

Thanks to the data provided by @cowcards we can now look at the 3-point takedown through a new lens. Check it out here.

Lights, Camera, ACTION

At the time the three pointer was approved the rationale was twofold:

1. The extra point rewards offensive actions and risk-taking.
2. It creates a more appropriate point differential between takedowns and escapes.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/8/media-center-3-point-takedown-approved-in-wrestling.aspx

Let's examine the first belief. Has there been more offensive action and risk taking? Well, with only two years worth of data it might be too soon to tell, but so far it looks like the answer is a resounding no. Not only has there not been more, there actually appears to be less.

Survey Says....

From 1993 to 2023, when all takedowns were worth 2 points and criteria was removed as a tiebreaker, for non-overtime matches ending in decision, or major decision (matches that go the full time and are not tech falls), the most common score was 3-2 (5.3%). With the advent of the 3-point takedown in the last two years, the most common score for these matches was 4-2 (7.9%).

One takedown matches have increased in frequency (+49%) even after they were already the most common outcome.

And sadly, during the last two tournaments the ninth most common score for non-TF, full-time matches was 2-0. That's right. A match with zero takedowns has entered the top 10 for full-time score since the rule change. For reference, 2-0 used to be the 27th most common score.

So?

One way to interpret this is that once the first takedown is secured wrestlers get into the mindset of keeping what they have rather than taking risk to try to add to it. The opposite of the stated goal.

A less direct measure is to look at the percentage of matches that go to OT.

• 1993 - 2023: 8%
• 2024 - 2025: 10%.

Not a huge leap given the size of the data for the 3-point era, but suggestive nonetheless.

Taken together you would be hard pressed to say they 3-point takedown has succeeded in rewarding risk-taking.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

I am starting to come around to the counter-intuitive.

If you want to increase risk taking, lower the score for a takedown to 1.5. If you only get 1.5 and a reversal is worth 1, you can no longer run and hide after a single takedown. A single stalling point loses the match. If you want to be safe you need more takedowns to build your margin.

I am beginning to believe they went the wrong direction if they want to promote scoring and risk-taking.

 

[Anon1683312534]

I am starting to come around to the counter-intuitive.

If you want to increase risk taking, lower the score for a takedown to 1.5. If you only get 1.5 and a reversal is worth 1, you can no longer run and hide after a single takedown. A single stalling point loses the match. If you want to be safe you need more takedowns to build your margin.

I am beginning to believe they went the wrong direction if they want to promote scoring and risk-taking.

Dude on the other board says one step back stalling, two steps back another stalling etc. Sounds like an Iowa fan!

 

[1995PSUGrad]

Thanks to the data provided by @cowcards we can now look at the 3-point takedown through a new lens. Check it out here.

Lights, Camera, ACTION

At the time the three pointer was approved the rationale was twofold:

1. The extra point rewards offensive actions and risk-taking.
2. It creates a more appropriate point differential between takedowns and escapes.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/8/media-center-3-point-takedown-approved-in-wrestling.aspx

Let's examine the first belief. Has there been more offensive action and risk taking? Well, with only two years worth of data it might be too soon to tell, but so far it looks like the answer is a resounding no. Not only has there not been more, there actually appears to be less.

Survey Says....

From 1993 to 2023, when all takedowns were worth 2 points and criteria was removed as a tiebreaker, for non-overtime matches ending in decision, or major decision (matches that go the full time and are not tech falls), the most common score was 3-2 (5.3%). With the advent of the 3-point takedown in the last two years, the most common score for these matches was 4-2 (7.9%).

One takedown matches have increased in frequency (+49%) even after they were already the most common outcome.

And sadly, during the last two tournaments the ninth most common score for non-TF, full-time matches was 2-0. That's right. A match with zero takedowns has entered the top 10 for full-time score since the rule change. For reference, 2-0 used to be the 27th most common score.

So?

One way to interpret this is that once the first takedown is secured wrestlers get into the mindset of keeping what they have rather than taking risk to try to add to it. The opposite of the stated goal.

A less direct measure is to look at the percentage of matches that go to OT.

• 1993 - 2023: 8%
• 2024 - 2025: 10%.

Not a huge leap given the size of the data for the 3-point era, but suggestive nonetheless.

Taken together you would be hard pressed to say they 3-point takedown has succeeded in rewarding risk-taking.

Has the number of tech falls increased?

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

Has the number of tech falls increased?

Significantly, as expected. That appears to be mostly due to score inflation rather than an increase in TDs. It is something I am going to look at.

The difficulty is it is hard to say for sure without details behind the scores.

That is why I focused on the obvious 1 and 0 takedown matches.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

Dude on the other board says one step back stalling, two steps back another stalling etc. Sounds like an Iowa fan!

But not an Angelo Ferrari fan.

 

[Still in State Colllege]

If the idea is to force action I am not sure you can do anything. You will always offensive guys and counter guys. You could have told Beau Bartlett that a takedown was worth 6 points and he would have still been a counter wrestler just like you could tell MM that a takedown was worth 0.5 points and he would still try to score10 takedowns. Wrestlers have a mentality and that is how they compete.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

If the idea is to force action I am not sure you can do anything. You will always offensive guys and counter guys. You could have told Beau Bartlett that a takedown was worth 6 points and he would have still been a counter wrestler just like you could tell MM that a takedown was worth 0.5 points and he would still try to score10 takedowns. Wrestlers have a mentality and that is how they compete.

If you told Bartlett a TD was worth 6, he would definitely only attempt one unless he gave up one. But if you told Bartlett a TD was only worth 1.5 points he might want to get two.

 

[1995PSUGrad]

Significantly, as expected. That appears to be mostly due to score inflation rather than an increase in TDs. It is something I am going to look at.

The difficulty is it is hard to say for sure without details behind the scores.

That is why I focused on the obvious 1 and 0 takedown matches.

I am just wondering that if the number of tech falls has increased then the percentage of 1 and 0 takedown matches would increase because of the smaller number of matches that aren't tech falls, which might be skewing the results.

 

[StickEm]

I still don’t understand why a reversal isn’t worth 3 points if a TD is worth 3. Doesn’t make sense

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

I am just wondering that if the number of tech falls has increased then the percentage of 1 and 0 takedown matches would increase because of the smaller number of matches that aren't tech falls, which might be skewing the results.

It does, but not to the extent that it changes the result too much. If you include all match types then the increase in 1 takedown matches goes from 49% to 39%.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

Zero Takedown Matches

• In the two years prior to the rule change (2022 -2023) there were 13 matches where the winner had 1 point (i.e. no takedowns).
• In the two years since the rule change (2024 - 2025) there have been 76 matches where the winner had 1 or 2 points (20 with a single point, 56 with 2 points).

One Takedown Matches

• In the two years prior to the rule change (2022 -2023) there were 51 matches where the winner had 2 or 3 points (i.e. one takedown).
• In the two years since the rule change (2024 - 2025) there have been 352 matches where the winner had 3, 4, or 5 points.
• Even if you expand the 2022-2023 scoring to include 2, 3, or 4 points for the winner, based on the assumption most 4 point matches involve one TD, one or two escapes, and zero or one riding point, the total is still only 281 matches.

No matter how you look at it there has been a substantial uptick in zero (+485%) or one takedown matches (between 24% and 590%).

I think by any metric it is clear that the 3-point takedown has had the opposite effect to what was intended.

 

[BriantheLion]

I still don’t understand why a reversal isn’t worth 3 points if a TD is worth 3. Doesn’t make sense

… or even four, since it is similar to an escape and subsequent takedown…

Watching college wrestling the last 10-20 years, I noticed there are minimal reversals, compared, at least, to high school in the 70s…

Perhaps it’s tougher to reverse stronger competitors, or just the tendency to allow an escape rather than risk being reversed..

If the latter, then increasing the points for reversals would further increase that tendency.

 

[The Pitchfork Rebel]

I still don’t understand why a reversal isn’t worth 3 points if a TD is worth 3. Doesn’t make sense

Since a reversal is the same thing as an escape and a takedown, it should be whatever a takedown is, plus the point for the escape.

 

[pawrstlersinpa]

Dude on the other board says one step back stalling, two steps back another stalling etc. Sounds like an Iowa fan!

Not sure which board or which dude you're talking about, but I might be the dude. If the objective is to make wrestlers move forward and be aggressive and promote action, slap four stalling calls on them. Better yet, make the DQ at 4 stalls, and slap three on them. Make the refs call stalling more aggressively, and we wouldn't have to make stupid 3-point takedown rules, that have had the opposite affect.

 

[mvattivo]

I still don’t understand why a reversal isn’t worth 3 points if a TD is worth 3. Doesn’t make sense

Bingo. If a takedown is 3 points, a reversal should absolutely be 3 points.

 

[El_Jefe]

I still don’t understand why a reversal isn’t worth 3 points if a TD is worth 3. Doesn’t make sense

Incentives matter. If you make a reversal worth 3x an escape, then you're gonna get a lot more guys wasting time trying to get reversals that never happen.

Remember that match Verk lost by 1 pt after wasting 2 entire periods trying to get reversals? That was a preview of a 3-pt reversal rule.

If we truly want more scoring, then eliminate riding time. Top scoring is valuable. Top stalling is not, plus it's boring as hell and wastes a lot of time that could be used for scoring.

 

[manatree]

If we truly want more scoring, then eliminate riding time. Top scoring is valuable. Top stalling is not, plus it's boring as hell and wastes a lot of time that could be used for scoring.

Jawohl el Jefe!

 

[Anon1683312534]

Not sure which board or which dude you're talking about, but I might be the dude. If the objective is to make wrestlers move forward and be aggressive and promote action, slap four stalling calls on them. Better yet, make the DQ at 4 stalls, and slap three on them. Make the refs call stalling more aggressively, and we wouldn't have to make stupid 3-point takedown rules, that have had the opposite affect.

Sumo,push,push,not saying anything about stalling.I saw others cry about a wrestler winning a freestyle match with only three push out points.Never took a shot. Claimed it was boring?

 

[Hlstone]

Incentives matter. If you make a reversal worth 3x an escape, then you're gonna get a lot more guys wasting time trying to get reversals that never happen.

Remember that match Verk lost by 1 pt after wasting 2 entire periods trying to get reversals? That was a preview of a 3-pt reversal rule.

If we truly want more scoring, then eliminate riding time. Top scoring is valuable. Top stalling is not, plus it's boring as hell and wastes a lot of time that could be used for scoring.

I enjoy riding time. As you know, it's quite difficult to keep a Div 1 wrestler down.

 

[SleepyLion]

I enjoy riding time. As you know, it's quite difficult to keep a Div 1 wrestler down.

I like that part of college wrestling as well.
I think that it should be looked at to either award a point for each minute of RT (not just 1 min) or cap the amount of time that can be accumulated (maybe at a net of 90 seconds).
These are definitely two different directions but I think both have positive (and negative) impacts.

 

[Nitlion1986]

I don't have a problem with riding time. It could be refined a bit, but different subject thread.
I do not like the 3 point TD. 2 TDs, an escape and a riding time point equates to a major decision. To gain the bonus point there should be more of an offensive output.
At no point should a takedown have more value than a back exposure.
The supposed justification for the 3 point TD was more action, which hasn't manifested and leaves one to conclude it has been a failed experiment.

 

[mcpat]

I don't have a problem with riding time. It could be refined a bit, but different subject thread.
I do not like the 3 point TD. 2 TDs, an escape and a riding time point equates to a major decision. To gain the bonus point there should be more of an offensive output.
At no point should a takedown have more value than a back exposure.
The supposed justification for the 3 point TD was more action, which hasn't manifested and leaves one to conclude it has been a failed experiment.

I agree. We’re getting further and further from falls, which I grew up thinking was the ultimate goal.

 

[BriantheLion]

I enjoy riding time. As you know, it's quite difficult to keep a Div 1 wrestler down.

I think it’s a reasonable part of scoring in regulation… but I DON’T like it as a tiebreaker in overtime… I would rather see the sudden victory go on without a clock… someone will eventually score, whether it’s on attack, a counter, likely influenced by relative stamina/fatigue!

 

[dicemen99]

Top stalling is not, plus it's boring as hell and wastes a lot of time that could be used for scoring.

Neutral stalling is much more boring to me than top stalling, and there's much more of it.

When you have one guy in the top position, most times he is either dominating or the bottom guy is trying to escape, either way there is tension.

It seems to me that the majority of the lack of action in wrestling comes from the neutral position, yet the community is always focused on the other situations, and throws up their hands at neutral stalling.

How about if I suggested this? We start a 1:00 clock in neutral instead of the other way around?

 

[BriantheLion]

Neutral stalling is much more boring to me than top stalling, and there's much more of it.

When you have one guy in the top position, most times he is either dominating or the bottom guy is trying to escape, either way there is tension.

It seems to me that the majority of the lack of action in wrestling comes from the neutral position, yet the community is always focused on the other situations, and throws up their hands at neutral stalling.

How about if I suggested this? We start a 1:00 clock in neutral instead of the other way around?

From my limited understanding of freestyle, it seems like when there’s little initiative from EITHER guy, the ref will seemingly randomly put one guy on the clock(then often the other guy a minute later)… I don’t see how he could put BOTH guys “on the clock” at once

 

[El_Jefe]

Neutral stalling is much more boring to me than top stalling, and there's much more of it.

When you have one guy in the top position, most times he is either dominating or the bottom guy is trying to escape, either way there is tension.

It seems to me that the majority of the lack of action in wrestling comes from the neutral position, yet the community is always focused on the other situations, and throws up their hands at neutral stalling.

How about if I suggested this? We start a 1:00 clock in neutral instead of the other way around?

 

[mcpat]

For every minute you don’t score, you are deducted a point and any match in which both wrestlers have 0 points or less at the end of regulation results in loss of NCAA eligibility for both wrestlers.

 

[El_Jefe]

But to reiterate: I did not advocate eliminating riding.

I advocated eliminating the incentive point.

 

[BriantheLion]

From my limited understanding of freestyle, it seems like when there’s little initiative from EITHER guy, the ref will seemingly randomly put one guy on the clock(then often the other guy a minute later)… I don’t see how he could put BOTH guys “on the clock”

The other variable is the boundary… freestyle has common and seemingly well defined scoring for push outs; folk style has more subjective rules on calling stalling for going out of bounds…,
Actually I usually agree with the call in neutral, I more often disagree on attempts at escape-standing and they both go forward out of bounds… did the bottom guy run out, or the top guy run him out!

Rules can be adjusted, including clock rules…

…but mat borders can’t realistically be made that much larger… even if they used a mat the size of a football field, guys would find their way to the sideline!

 

[mvattivo]

Reversals are more rare than escapes. The one thing I like about the 3 point takedown is that it de-values escapes, which are often times given away. Reversals should also be worth 3 points to de-value escapes.

Wrestler A gets a takedown on Wrestler B. Wrestler B gets a reverse and wrestler A escapes. The score right now is Wrestler A 4 - Wrestler B 2, which I don't think accurately accounts for the action. I think 4-3 for Wrestler A is a more accurate depiction.

Not to beat a dead horse, but, I like the 3 point takedown only if there is a 3 point reverse. Otherwise, I'd rather it go back to 2 point takedowns.

Speaking of reversal percentages, I don't know if anyone has ever done the math, but, I think in David Taylor's college career, he'd have one of, if not the highest reversal percentages. He was amazing at being able to create space and get reversal (except for against Dake)

 

[El_Jefe]

I like that part of college wrestling as well.
I think that it should be looked at to either award a point for each minute of RT (not just 1 min) or cap the amount of time that can be accumulated (maybe at a net of 90 seconds).
These are definitely two different directions but I think both have positive (and negative) impacts.

Tony Nelson approves multiple RT points.

RT cap? Not sure what this accomplishes. RT is already effectively capped at 60 sec of differential. Capping absolute RT at 90 sec per wrestler will eliminate the RT point in enough matches to not bother. (Once both guys reach 0:31 RT, then neither can score that point.) It would be simpler to just eliminate the RT point.

 

[dicemen99]

From my limited understanding of freestyle, it seems like when there’s little initiative from EITHER guy, the ref will seemingly randomly put one guy on the clock(then often the other guy a minute later)… I don’t see how he could put BOTH guys “on the clock” at once

There are a bunch of guys on here (or at least over there on HVI) who think that freestyle is a better product. It is a different product. Vastly different on the mat, still pretty different in neutral.

One thing they have gotten very right since moving away from the days of the ball-grab is the rules of engagement in neutral. I know some here still seem mystified, but I would opine that if they watched as much freestyle as they did folkstyle, they wouldn't be. 95% of the time, I'm in complete agreement with the guy given the warning or being put on the clock. It is clear what you need to do in neutral. Control center, don't block with your head, don't use the ties to block, engage, don't disengage, don't back up to the edge.

It didn't take much for freestyle to severely inhibit the ability to stall in neutral. I'm not sure why we can't do that as well in folkstyle. That should be our primary focus, not other things that would change what makes our folkstyle different from freestyle. We still have a great sport here.

 

[El_Jefe]

I agree. We’re getting further and further from falls, which I grew up thinking was the ultimate goal.

I'd like to see an industry professional or someone with a lot of free time categorize # college pins as (neutral + transition) vs from base.

IDK what that ratio would be, but gut says fewer from base than most people think. Especially in the postseason.

 

[El_Jefe]

For every minute you don’t score, you are deducted a point and any match in which both wrestlers have 0 points or less at the end of regulation results in loss of NCAA eligibility for both wrestlers.

Let's cut to the chase:

 

[SleepyLion]

I think it’s a reasonable part of scoring in regulation… but I DON’T like it as a tiebreaker in overtime… I would rather see the sudden victory go on without a clock… someone will eventually score, whether it’s on attack, a counter, likely influenced by relative stamina/fatigue!

or a stalling call?

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

A new stat for you that suggests the 3 point takedown has had the opposite of the intended effect.

In the 2022 and 2023 tournaments there were 115 OT matches, 57 (50%) went to OT tied at 0 or 1 (no TDs).
In the 2024 and 2025 tournaments there were 128 OT matches, 93 (73%) went to OT tied at 0, 1, or 2.

 

[SleepyLion]

A new stat for you that suggests the 3 point takedown has had the opposite of the intended effect.

In the 2022 and 2023 tournaments there were 115 OT matches, 57 (50%) went to OT tied at 0 or 1 (no TDs).
In the 2024 and 2025 tournaments there were 128 OT matches, 93 (73%) went to OT tied at 0, 1, or 2.

NCAA rules makers, probably...

 

[Sullivan]

There are a bunch of guys on here (or at least over there on HVI) who think that freestyle is a better product. It is a different product. Vastly different on the mat, still pretty different in neutral.

One thing they have gotten very right since moving away from the days of the ball-grab is the rules of engagement in neutral. I know some here still seem mystified, but I would opine that if they watched as much freestyle as they did folkstyle, they wouldn't be. 95% of the time, I'm in complete agreement with the guy given the warning or being put on the clock. It is clear what you need to do in neutral. Control center, don't block with your head, don't use the ties to block, engage, don't disengage, don't back up to the edge.

It didn't take much for freestyle to severely inhibit the ability to stall in neutral. I'm not sure why we can't do that as well in folkstyle. That should be our primary focus, not other things that would change what makes our folkstyle different from freestyle. We still have a great sport here.

I like how freestyle doesn't use overtime and wouldn't mind seeing folkstyle adopt similar rules for breaking the tie.

 

[The Pitchfork Rebel]

I am starting to come around to the counter-intuitive.

If you want to increase risk taking, lower the score for a takedown to 1.5. If you only get 1.5 and a reversal is worth 1, you can no longer run and hide after a single takedown. A single stalling point loses the match. If you want to be safe you need more takedowns to build your margin.

I am beginning to believe they went the wrong direction if they want to promote scoring and risk-taking.

It's also utterly irrational to have a 3 pt TD and a 2 pt reversal.

If you start bottom in second period, assuming you think you have a realistic chance of TD-you have two choices:

1. Escape, get TD.
Points to take control-4

2.) Reversal
Points to take control-2

Huh?