Jason Bryant

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.

Wait, a chatbot for replies in a forum? Game changer.

Without turning this thread into something it isn’t, I’d be curious about the published report of that DNA, because I remember that situation well - before I even knew JH, and never recall reading that. He still vehemently denies it, turned down a plea deal to cut his time in the clink. I’m open for a DM on this, since I have no interest in talking Ferrari.

How people like Turberville get elected … truly boggles the mind.

I just looked at this, the OHSAA did away with sanctioning the state duals after 2020, so now it appears it's run by the state coaches association. The state sponsored it from 2013-2020. (I'm in a deep dive right now digging on all historic state championships and came across Ohio's duals about 30 minutes ago)

There’s more than one lawyer in the thread, too.

Not an option. Sport doesn’t have anything to do with snow or ice.

Sent you a DM. My comment wasn’t a dig.

Unless you’d frequented old Virginia forums 20 years ago, it’s unlikely you’d know who it is …

Yes it does.

https://www.olympedia.org/ is a site I frequent and infrequently help update (since they do a real good job across the Olympic universe).