boconnell

I'd define it by the meaning of the word. I don't get to choose a new definition then what it actually means. So in other words, the way you're defining it. The idea that Hahn was loyal to those wrestlers is dumb. He was loyal to the team. That's why he asked the team. All of these coaches are loyal to the team and what's best for the team (in part because of how what's best for the team mostly lines up with what's best for them). The idea that a coach should be loyal to an individual wrestler over other individual wrestlers or to the team as a whole is dumb. Cael Sanderson owes loyalty to the PSU wrestling team. Not to every individual PSU wrestler in all situations. If he owed loyalty to every individual wrestler regardless of context, then he'd make it about 15 minutes before those individual loyalties would conflict. For example, he recruited Ryder with Jack Kelly on the roster. Nobody cared that he recruited a better wrestler over a worse wrestler. But now that's a big deal and it's disloyal because he owes the job to the guy who was brought in over someone else initially. This sport is built on the best guy winning the spot. The idea that a coach is supposed to counteract that and keep better wrestlers off the team is dumb. It's hand wringing from fans who want to find ways to make big teams that they don't root for into bad guys.

How does this work? He brought in 4 potential new starters but because the team was okay with it, it was loyal to the guys getting replaced? Absurd. Loyal would be letting the guys who are being replaced decide. But to be clear the idea of loyalty equaling not allowing better wrestlers on the team is absurd. The guy who made this thread is clearly trying to show that and did a pretty good job.

You didn't mention Wyatt but you made a post about pins at heavyweight in a thread called "Hendrickson wins the Hodge". More pins at heavyweight doesn't make majors or tech falls more impressive than pins at heavyweight. There are data points that say pins happen more at heavyweight, so you could say that 10 pins at 157 is more impressive than 10 at Heavy. But the biggest data point is that pins are worth more points and are the ultimate goal in collegiate wrestling. So it might be easier to pin at heavyweight, but it's still what every heavyweight is trying to do, so there is no reasonable world where a major at heavyweight is more impressive than a pin at heavyweight.

Where are you getting the idea he's a sergeant?

Do you seriously doubt that Wyatt Hendrickson was outclassing his opponents? Anybody who thinks percentage of matches with bonus is more important than average team points per match is making a good argument. I'd disagree, but I'd totally get it. I think Starocci had a great case for the Hodge. I'm not sure I can separate rooting interests from my vote, and if I could separate it, I'm not sure what I'd vote. If you threw out the criteria and just asked me who is the best 2025 NCAA wrestler I go Starocci. But comparing what Wyatt Hendrickson did at heavyweight to fat kids rolling over in HS wrestling is not a good argument. Saying that a HWT getting majors or techs for less team points is more impressive is not a good argument.

Bo was an awesome PSU wrestler and he is now an awesome PSU fan. I think it's incredible the way he supports them.

Not one person has said anybody is monetizing 6+ figures in this thread. But that's because you're the only one to mention 6 figures in this thread. You keep beating up a strawman while quoting people who didn't say anything close to whatever you're arguing against.

I agree it's a dumb nickname. I don't mind it for Christian Pulisic because he plays in Italy and Italian fans call him that, but I generally think it's a lazy nickname.

Tons of people were called captain america before him. He borrowed the nickname. Just like everybody not holding a shield in a marvel comic. If Pete Rose was called Charlie Hustle after a dozen other guys, then it would be dumb for Pete Rose fans to get mad at the name being applied to Ricky Henderson. Just like it's dumb for people to get mad on Kyle Snyder's behalf over a nickname he has always shared with many others.

So every discussion of NIL has to prove that somebody is getting 6 figures for their likeness or none of us are allowed to discuss it, even if we aren't talking about those numbers at all? Can you let us know any other rules you have for all of us? Or would you rather not tell us so you can climb up on the soapbox with replies that have little to do with the comments you're quoting?

Was the nickname invented for Kyle Snyder or was it applied to tons of other people before and now after Snyder? Any athlete (or more likely fan) claiming rights to the captain america nickname is absurd.

Your question was which wrestler monetized their likeness. You got multiple answers. You responded to those answers by telling us nobody is getting 100-250K. Then you said that was the number being discussed. But you're the only one to bring that number up. You are bringing up a random number that isn't connected to anything in the thread, and then you are firing back at anyone that won't engage on your ever moving terms. If you want to talk about how NIL isn't really NIL, and how it's really pay for play, then just say it. Don't use riddles and passive aggressive replies to drag the thread to what you want to talk about.

Where did I ever say anything about hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or Buchanan? If you wanted to beat up a strawman, you didn't need to quote me to do it.

There are a ton of wrestlers mentioning products to social media followers. That is by far the most common way to monetize your likeness.

Why would we want to tell a student how they can monetize their likeness? Why would we want to limit them from receiving money for any wrestling related reason?