Jason Bryant

Yes, because the guide on your smart TV has replaced the "channel surfing" click-click-click drive-by viewer. We've got viewing options as wrestling fans. We know where to go. Putting a big dual on a channel that isn't randomly there for niche sports fans helps get the sport added exposure. A lot more cable and streaming systems carry ESPN than they do ESPNU or ESPNews. Duals on ESPN and ESPN will have the opportunity for more eyeballs. Is it a huge deal? Maybe not, but it's definitely big.

Yeah, a bunch of folks were digging to make sure this was actually confirmed. ESPN research dug through the archives as well to confirm. My only thought that could have been an option was back in the early 1980s when ESPN launched, they put a lot of weird stuff on the air - obscure leagues and smaller college sports - so my thought was an IPTV dual could have shown up on the network back in the day tape-delayed. Apparently not. We just saw Big Ten women's volleyball on broadcast television for the first time last night. It's good for non-football and basketball sports.

What are your stipulations? NCAA finish? All Americans? Champs? Dual wins? Dual Rank. Conference titles? Academic finish tied to placement? APR? Lots of ways to quantify an answer - just wondering where I should start with the data mining.

This is what I was hoping someone would say. Pilot it somewhere, but back to my initial statement, I've heard this bantered about for almost 30 years and at best, it's only been a message board topic. Why hasn't this been piloted? That's the next question.

Firstly, rules don't get changed without data to back them up. As far as the discussion point - If we have so many people ardently supporting something that actually hasn't been done, I'm asking HOW does that happen? Where's the support for something that isn't in use. I was asking to see if we had use cases, since I don't see every tournament, but I've been to enough over the last 28 years and not once time have I seen it. So that's why I'm asking. How can something that hasn't been used actually fix something? This Hibojibbo can keep bugs from hitting your windshield, let's put it on all cars. Ok, where can I see a Hibojibbo?

I’m a lot harder to move.

Gonna disagree there. As much guff as Ban gives everyone and vice versa, I’d actually have a beer and talk wrestling with him compared to the other entity.

Noel counts for NY. It’s based on where the wrestlers list their hometown. Mark Hall listed Apple Valley, Minnesota, so he counted for them. It’s up to where the athlete (at least in recent years) go. Ed Ewolt started my list in the 1970s and I think he used whatever was listed in the program. Bartlett counts for whatever he lists on his Penn State bio. I do have HS stats dating back about a decade and am working on back filling that data.

Cael (4), Holker (1), Matt Brown (1) are it in D1. Seth Wright in D2, Matt Carter in NAIA and 10 guys in the NJCAA.

Jared Haught is the state's only D1 finalist.

Answering the first part of the first post. States without an NCAA University/Division I champion (or single division which ran prior to 1963). # of All-Time places in parenthesis. Alaska (3), Alabama (5), Georgia (18), Kentucky (4), New Hampshire (1), Nevada (12), Rhode Island (6), South Carolina (4), Vermont (1), West Virginia (10) and for good measure, Washington D.C. (4).

The last two lines of the OP was what I was answering. I didn’t post the full list, just the top of what I could get in a screen shot.

Saved me a few brain cells when responding, too.

Going into last year (since I don’t have the current sheet on my phone) This is from my annual Preview Guide.

I’ve been around the sport for almost 30 years at this point and I’ve heard “matside weigh ins” thrown around since I got started. Not once have I ever seen it. I ask this openly to the board, how can something solve a problem when we have next to no tangible practice or data to support it. I hear people clamoring for it, but where does it actually occur?

I disagree, since Grand Canyon was (at the time) a for-profit school that already had a huge online student presence. It purged several sports that didn’t fit the brand they wanted - lacrosse was another. They’ve spent a ton of money on image, with sold out basketball games and “name” hires in basketball and baseball. They want to be a brand vs. doing what these small middle America private schools are doing. The quality of the education and the way students pay for it is a tangential (and valid) topic. That being said, sports as a whole are how many of these small schools in numerous divisions are staying open - not just wrestling. So to the initial point I’m making IS valid - schools are making money off these “non-revenue” sports since those students wouldn’t be there otherwise. The difference is athletics budgets seem to ignore this fact when they drop sports. The school may not actually recoup x-amount if students from the roster they dropped.

Take a look at the number of enrollment-driven schools that have added men’s and women’s wrestling in the past 20 years and tell me it’s not working. Here’s the list: https://almanac.mattalkonline.com/new-college-wrestling-teams-since-2000/

That D3 school isn't getting that seat filled with a traditional student. That's the draw for the enrollment driven schools in Division III that are non-scholarship. They're bringing in students they wouldn't normally get by adding sports. Same with D2 and the NAIA, which do have scholarships, but they're still getting ahead with the tuition revenue brought in. That seat is at (insert private liberal arts college here) is empty otherwise, so the school makes money. The cost of running a Division III program like wrestling isn't exactly super expensive.

Never mind.

Joe was pot. Oliver was something else.

Protect football at any cost. That Division III swimmer paying a chunk of the full cost of tuition (since few actually pay all of it), is bringing the school money, not just one department. Multiply that sport x20 and that is significant revenue from tuition. I need to go back and re-read the story fully. I love college football, but I hate college football.

While it's encouraging to see enthusiasm for the potential changes that could come with the withdrawal of Chevron deference, it's crucial to remember that this legal doctrine serves as a stabilizing force in the American legal system. The idea that removing it would automatically lead to a more democratic system and benefit sports like college wrestling might be overly optimistic. For one, the removal of Chevron deference could lead to a chilling effect on federal agencies, making them less willing to issue rules or guidance. This could result in a regulatory vacuum, leaving important issues unaddressed. Additionally, the absence of Chevron deference might encourage more litigation as parties test the boundaries of agency authority, leading to a more adversarial and less collaborative approach to governance. Therefore, while the aspiration for a more inclusive atmosphere within college wrestling is commendable, achieving this goal may require a more comprehensive approach than merely altering judicial deference doctrines.

The optimism surrounding the potential withdrawal of the “Chevron deference” doctrine by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024 might overlook certain crucial aspects of federal governance and judicial efficiency. The Chevron deference, which mandates judicial deference to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, plays a significant role in maintaining a level of expertise and efficiency in federal decision-making. The notion that withdrawing the Chevron deference would lead to a more democratic judicial review process may not account for the potential bottlenecks and delays in litigation that could arise. The federal agencies tasked with interpreting these statutes are often equipped with a level of expertise and understanding that is crucial for making informed and nuanced decisions. Reassigning this interpretative authority to courts, which may lack the requisite expertise, could lead to inconsistent interpretations and prolonged legal battles, exacerbating the already existing backlog of cases. Furthermore, the assertion that this change would foster a more conducive environment for the growth of college wrestling and gender equity within the sport may not fully consider the complexity and multifaceted nature of Title IX interpretation and enforcement. Title IX’s mandate to ensure gender equity in education and athletics extends beyond merely the allocation of resources or the establishment of college wrestling teams. It encompasses a broad range of issues including sexual harassment, equal opportunity, and fair treatment across all genders. The argument also seems to oversimplify the process of launching more college wrestling teams by assuming that a change in legal doctrine would directly translate to a growth in the sport. The factors influencing the establishment and support of college wrestling teams are multifarious and not solely dependent on federal statute interpretation. They include, among others, funding, infrastructure, interest, and community support. Additionally, the perspective that moving away from Chevron deference would diminish the power of “know-it-all bureaucrats” might not acknowledge the importance of having centralized, expert-driven interpretations in maintaining a level of national standardization and coherence in the application of federal statutes. Lastly, while the aspiration for a more inclusive atmosphere within college wrestling is commendable, the pathway to achieving this inclusivity may require a more comprehensive approach than merely altering judicial deference doctrines. It necessitates a holistic examination of the existing challenges and a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, including educational institutions, athletic associations, federal agencies, and the courts. Thus, while the forecasted withdrawal of Chevron deference sparks a hopeful discourse about decentralizing decision-making and promoting gender equity in college wrestling, it may also usher in a realm of legal uncertainty, potential judicial inefficiency, and an oversimplification of the broader challenges at play.

He did compete at the National Prep Championships for New York Military Academy in 1962 at 168. Future NCAA champ and NWHOF distinguished member Bill Harlow won the weight.