steamboat_charlie

Could just be pointless semantics... "strength training" vs. "weight lifting"

I'd agree with you there--that's what I meant by QOL. In this case I meant "location" as in, proximity to recruiting hotbeds.

A step above in terms of program quality, agreed. Location and conference point to Rutgers. Compensation probably a wash. QOL and COL may point to VT, depending on your perspective.

A more desirable job? Tanelli left that job for a position that would be considered a lateral move for Pritzlaff...

Big 10: Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Nebraska Big 12: Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Missouri, ASU ACC: NC State IVY: Cornell

To be fair to Yianni, he's had some injuries. But It's been two years since his silver and I feel like every time I've seen him since then he's looked worse. Dake left for NLWC in September 2022. Coincidence?

I don't know how anyone could look at Yianni's post-collegiate career trajectory and think he needs to do anything other than make a dramatic change.

Interesting. Very, very interesting

He's a very serious individual. Almost to the point where you feel like as a fan, "lighten up man, it's OK to have some fun." But it's a result of the standard that he sets for himself. He has ultimate confidence, something you can't fake but have to earn. I haven't heard him say it but I'd venture a guess that he wasn't happy with his season last year. He lost twice. His bonus rate was only 69%. He didn't separate himself from the pack at the NCAA tournament. I think it's pretty much a guarantee that he's focused on widening that gap with a dogged determination.

Agreed. This is coming, it's just a matter of when. Exactly. Have to think about who the decision makers are, and what their appetite is for the negative PR that will come when there's undoubtedly an avalanche of lawsuits on their doorstep, even if they have a solid legal case. For university presidents, the answer is typically that they have next to no appetite for this. They know how fickle most of their boards can be, and the average length for these jobs is <5 years. So why would they pick this fight, unless they have the absolute backing of all of their constituents (e.g. someone like Alabama or Clemson). This is why I think we'll have a handful of universities that are vying for CFB national titles getting out in front paying football players, and many deciding to sit it out altogether. I tend to think that the FBS schools are not going to pay players in a meaningful way. So Ohio State and Michigan are paying $20mm to their football team... how does this change the athletes that CMU football can recruit? They are still going to be doing their best to work with develop whatever 2* and 3* athletes they can get. Also, I don't think most power 5 schools can afford this. The very top echelon, probably. But the mid-tier P5 schools for the most part cannot. Those that attempt to do it in order to stay relevant are going to have to come up with those funds from somewhere, and the list of schools in that typical AP 25 to 60 range that can fundraise $20mm annually for it isn't really a list at all, it's maybe a handful of schools at best. These are the schools to watch.

Playing devil's advocate, treatment would be different for the players because they're not technically employees. I think you're probably right that this is the path most of the heavyweights will take, until forced to do otherwise. Many schools will not be wading into these waters at all.

I haven't seen this discussed in depth here (I could have missed it), and I view this as a potential seismic event in terms of future implications for the collegiate athletics landscape. I'll do my best to summarize below. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. What are the facts? Two weeks ago, the NCAA and its P5 conferences (Big 10, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Pac 12) agreed upon terms for a settlement to pay approximately $2.8 billion in back-pay to student athletes that competed between 2017 - 2020, a period during which NIL payments were still prohibited. While an agreement was reached, the settlement hasn't yet been accepted by the federal judge. This should take place in the next several months. The $2.8 billion will be paid over a 10 year period. About 40% of the settlement will be paid by the NCAA itself. Power five conference members will pay about 24%. The remaining 35% will be paid by non-P5 schools. The settlement will largely be funded by NCAA withholding revenue distributions (primarily from NCAA basketball tournament revenue) from its member institutions. While the majority of P5 institutions voted to accept the terms of the proposed agreement, many institutions were not in favor--notably, many SEC institutions. In addition to the monetary back-pay settlement, this proposed agreement would provide a framework for universities to share revenue with their players. Revenue sharing in the proposed agreement would be permitted up to approximately $20 Million, representing approximately 22% of revenue for an average P5 institution. Allocation of shared revenue will be at the discretion of each member institution (i.e. each school can decide who they want to pay, and how much). Additionally, scholarship limits will be removed whole-sale, and replaced with roster limits. If everything is approved on a reasonable timeline, this would take effect as early as Fall 2025. What remains unknown? While terms have been agreed upon, there still isn't an official agreement in place for the judge to review. Even once there is, there will still be a several month review process and there is no guarantee that this judge will approve the agreement. While there is a feeling from many that it will be improved, rejection is a possibility. Schools paying student athletes directly throws gasoline onto an already lit fire with regard to athletes' treatment as employees by universities. There are multiple outstanding cases regarding this topic, and the ability for student athletes to unionize, and consequently, collectively bargain with their universities. Despite the particulars of revenue sharing being left to institutions individually, each school is still subject to Title IX regulation. Are schools within their rights to pay players on a percentage basis based on program revenues, or do these payments need to be distributed equitably across men's and women's programs? It's easy to speculate how an institution paying $19 million of their $20 million limit to football players could open themselves up to serious litigation risk with respect to Title IX. This would not "take the place" of NIL. However, the future of NIL funding and collectives is completely unclear. Would some funding currently directed toward NIL efforts be shifted to the athletic program itself? Will schools competing at the top level in football treat this as a soft cap and use NIL to incentivize players above and beyond the $20 million? Seems likely. My take: implications for NCAA D1 wrestling The $2.8 billion back-pay obligation is not a major issue for wrestling. The settlement is to be paid out over 10 years and split across all member institutions. The most any school will be "paying" on an annual basis is <$3 million. When we're talking about a majority of P5 institutions with annual budgets north of $100 million, it's not exactly a rounding error, but it does feel manageable. Most university presidents were happy to jump at a settlement they they could wrap their arms around that maintains some semblance of the status quo, in an effort to put a stay on the potential hundreds of additional lawsuits that might be brought against them on this matter. If this were to continue in the court system there is/was a non-zero chance of a significantly larger settlement, of a magnitude that would simply crush the NCAA--some presidents were in favor of simply letting it burn down, but most are just happy to kick the can down the road for 10 years and let someone else deal with it when the time comes. The real issue for wrestling is not the payment itself, but rather the future payment of athletes. Tightening the athletics budget by a couple million dollars doesn't upset the apple cart. However, tightening it by ~$20 million (if ~$20 million is going to be paid to football and basketball players) is a major, major problem. Athletic departments are going to have to make some very difficult decisions. Some departments are simply going to say, "No--we can't afford to pay players and we're not going to try to compete with the universities that can." This is actually a better scenario for wrestling at those institutions. The schools to watch for are the schools that are going to try to compete with the big boys by spending up to their limit, but don't have the same financial flexibility. It's hard for me to imagine any of the ~$20 million revenue share will find its way into the pockets of wrestlers, unless a school decides to make an equal flat payment to all athletes. The removal of scholarship limits will only serve to further increase the gap between the haves and have nots in D1 wrestling, and continues the current trend of the NIL era. If this goes through as presently envisioned, there are going to be D1 sports programs eliminated from MANY universities. When programs are getting put on the chopping block, I think we all know wrestling is one of the first names mentioned.

Difficult choice. As of this moment I think I'd lean Blaze but I can see an argument for any of the three. It'll be interesting to see how each guy is handled as a freshman. All three are good enough to go right away.

From 125 - 157 they were seeded: Camacho - 7 seed - DNP (-2) Orine - 3 seed - 8th (-5) Jack - 4 seed - 7th (-3) Arrington - 3 seed - DNP (-6) Scott - 4 seed - DNP (-5) IMO every one of those guys is somewhere between the 6th and 12th best wrestler at their respective weights. Every single one of them won the ACC "tournament" and was subsequently overseeded because of it.

Virginia Tech and UNC have both outperformed seeding in recent years. It's not strictly an ACC thing, although that is a factor.