New NCAA Wrestling Bylaws
- Thread starter AFHawk86
- Start date
I’m going to preface this by saying I think the redshirt just needs to go by the wayside and make it 5 years attached to wrestle in 4 postseasons, but if there are going to be redshirts, the “no 1st year student can wrestle unattached in 1st semester” is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever seen. That’s when all the opens are.
How many opens are the non-starters wrestling anyway?
Can they just decide to limit it to say three opens in the first semester attached. Save two in case they're needed as a backup in the second semester without losing eligibility?
Yes, this would seem to be the death knell on the normal Opens. I wonder if that was by intent OR did they not recognize the potential fallout?
Only speaking from our team we hit 4-5 usually. But what about the teams out East? They don’t have to travel far and there’s a bunch of opens for guys to go to out there. A true freshman could easily go to 8+ if he wanted to.
why? they'll just be wrestling attached at the opens instead of unattached nothing has actually changed other then the possibility of a true freshman filling in a dual later in the year without losing eligibility.
I don't see the same problems some are seeing with regards to the first two new bylaws listed in the OP.
First year students wrestle those first semester opens as Hawkeyes. If the shirts not getting pulled they wrestle the second semester unattached, still preserves the redshirt. Plus now first year students can have the U pay entry and transportation to those first semester opens. Seems okay to me.
First year students wrestle those first semester opens as Hawkeyes. If the shirts not getting pulled they wrestle the second semester unattached, still preserves the redshirt. Plus now first year students can have the U pay entry and transportation to those first semester opens. Seems okay to me.
Can't they wrestle the open attached 1st semester? They are allowed 5 attached dates, and that didn't include a 1st semester exclusion.
Ok, i may not have fully comprehended the proposals. But don't most red-shirters get 20'ish matches in? If limited to 5 dates, then they would have to wrestle 4'ish times per day to get the same number of matches in, no?
It means that if a wrestler is on scholarship then the wrestler must get at least a 1/5th (20%) scholarship. A wrestler can still not be on scholarship and get nothing (but NIL). So, if my calculations are right. with the 9.9 max NCAA D1 limit, the theorecically most scholarship wrestlers (all at minimum) would be 49.
I'm not really sure why this rule was needed. I guess isn't intended to affect Ivy League schools, because they give financial aid (not scholarships).
BTW - I misunderstood it the same as I believe you did. Because the other rules dealt with competition, I initially thought the 20% also referred to competition dates.
There’s no limitation on the number of matches. But this feels like yet another silly complication, kind of like the whole concept of redshirting. It’s contrived and unnecessary.
Do 2-day events like the scuffle count as 1 date or 2? Is our new event going to be multiple days as well?
This is a nice bonus for the wrestlers as they no longer have to pay their own way for opens and they possibly get coaching. It is however, an added expense for the programs. Teams may possibly send less wrestlers to opens.
Don't see us throwing a lot of true frosh into the lineup but it could happen and still protect RS.
This is a nice bonus for the wrestlers as they no longer have to pay their own way for opens and they possibly get coaching. It is however, an added expense for the programs. Teams may possibly send less wrestlers to opens.
Don't see us throwing a lot of true frosh into the lineup but it could happen and still protect RS.
Most opens they go to are a bus ride away. I'm guessing they can use the same bus and thus not incur much additional expense.
I like all of it, except limiting it to 1st year students.
I'm also for a hard 5 year cap, and could be talked into a 4 year cap very easily, even though it would have deprived us of some great Hawks the last two years (and one guy in particular this coming year).
I'm also for a hard 5 year cap, and could be talked into a 4 year cap very easily, even though it would have deprived us of some great Hawks the last two years (and one guy in particular this coming year).
it will be nice go get past all the extra covid years….. kinda ironic that by accommodating the older athletes with a year to make up lost competition time….. younger athletes basically lost opportunities to compete
5 years. Wrestle them all. No 6th years. Period. So simple, straightforward, and fair. Redshirting is such a silly concept with even sillier rules in place with it.
This guy is most displeased by your post
And how was he looking after 7 years in a college room? Could have gotten time as a true frosh as a trade off.
Really though, there’s very little drawback. His rare situation would be one of them.
It seems aimed at ensuring a true freshman wrestler has the best chance to get acclimated to the rigors of college life as a student athlete. As such, the bylaws could be in response to some big data observations related to wrestler dropouts when compared to other student athletes.
Alternatively, wrestling may have felt recent pressure to make wrestling a second semester only sport. I seem to remember some talk about it. If that's the case, the new bylaws could represent compromise response that address some of the reasons given to justify making wrestling a second semester only sport.
From these perspectives, the bylaws appear more than reasonable to me.
Alternatively, wrestling may have felt recent pressure to make wrestling a second semester only sport. I seem to remember some talk about it. If that's the case, the new bylaws could represent compromise response that address some of the reasons given to justify making wrestling a second semester only sport.
From these perspectives, the bylaws appear more than reasonable to me.
Spooner I love you, but do you ever look in the mirror and say, “Some day I’ll be wrong” do wonders
Spooner I love you, but do you ever look in the mirror and say, “Some day I’ll be wrong” do wonders
That kind of argument has never made sense to me. Why would anyone worry about an opinion being wrong? Especially here. Lol
Btw common sense is hardly ever wrong.
That kind of argument has never made sense to me. Why would anyone worry about an opinion being wrong? Especially here. Lol
Btw common sense is hardly ever wrong.
Well, maybe "worry" is too strong, but a possible answer is that humility and healthy self-skepticism may be more likely to lead one to to a more objective/informed and less biased opinion? At least to me that matters, so I "worry" about it.
Commonness and sense probably have little to do with one another, and of course 'common sense' is dependent on which group one uses to determine commonness.
Okay, now what was this thread about?
Now why in the hell would I ever do that?
Don't ever change Spooner. You could make a great moderator some day for the cesspool, but I hear the pay sucks.
Similar threads
