jdalu75

One of whom is actually very good at her sport.

Oh, it's definitely moved around! But I'm fortunate in one way -- I lost twenty pounds before I began losing and finding ten.

Losing weight is simple. Finding it again is even simpler. I've been losing and gaining the same ten pounds for a decade, at least.

I prefer that posters have to make weight before posting. Of course, that would shut me up for the next couple of decades.

He never spoke to me about it, but I know from others that Strobel was really pissed. He even neglected to schedule Cornell the following year.

I'm kind of surprised that no one seems to remember that Cornell's current head coach was a Lehigh recruit until a few days before he enrolled at Cornell.

I'm still on some mailing lists; got this from the NCAA Prez a little while ago: Good afternoon, Last night’s hearing did not go as we hoped. The court posed worthwhile questions that the NCAA began working through immediately last night with our partners in the conferences. The proposal presented to the court was the product of months of negotiations with student-athletes’ attorneys whose track records speak for themselves when it comes to effective athlete representation. We believe the proposal offers both sides the best possible alternative to endless litigation: Student-athletes receive landmark financial benefits plus the ability to monetize their name, image and likeness rights without limitation, and the colleges and universities that combined deliver nearly $4 billion in scholarships and millions more in health, wellness and educational benefits to hundreds of thousands of young people every year receive stability. The proposal allows both sides to build a system that’s sustainable for years to come. Our next step will be responding to the court’s questions. As we prepare to do that, we will discuss the issues with the appropriate NCAA governance groups, including student-athletes and campus and conference administrators. Regarding the Fontenot and Cornelio lawsuits, we are advocating to address these claims, which are the same as the ones at issue in the House, Carter and Hubbard cases. However, the Colorado cases are being litigated by different plaintiffs’ lawyers from those in California. Our belief is that either the federal judge in California or the federal judge in Colorado will recognize the duplicate claims and view the settlement to have addressed the student-athlete claims in all cases. College sports’ impact is felt far beyond the walls of your schools. College sports launch careers, open doors to life-changing education, serve as the premier stage for women’s sports in America, train our nation’s Olympians and anchor communities everywhere. These impacts matter, but the issues we face are complex. If I learned anything serving as governor, it is that advancing hugely important but complicated issues is never easy and takes time. Resolving these important cases is one of several ways the NCAA and members are modernizing college sports. New requirements for all of Division I are now in effect, ensuring all student-athletes get health coverage and mental health support while guaranteeing scholarships and extra time to graduate. Our new NIL bylaws are in effect to set clearer rules for schools and student-athletes as they maximize their earning potential. The NCAA Post-Eligibility Insurance Program is now rolling out for all 500,000 student-athletes. These positive changes are making a difference. While there is clearly more work ahead, as president of the NCAA, I am eager to advance these vital priorities to best serve all 500,000 student-athletes and build a sustainable, equitable college sports system. Sincerely, Charlie Baker

My take is that the focus on the Olympics is destroying collegiate wrestling. One event, every four years, with six weight classes, that the IOC would be happy to kill in favor of ballroom dancing. For this our best wrestlers try to squeeze themselves into weight classes where they don't fit, take years off without regard to the effect on their college teams, wrestle an inferior style of wrestling where there are virtually no pins. IMO it will be a good day when the IOC removes wrestling from the Olympics. Just my opinion.

F&M has posted its schedule. Useful mainly for the dates of some tournaments: https://godiplomats.com/sports/wrestling/schedule/2024-25

So each conference has 24 teams, minimum? I wonder what the NIL money is like in Kurdistan.

Funny how the article didn't mention how his grades were. Forgot, that doesn't matter. Honestly, why do we even bother to pretend that these are student-athletes?

I don't know of any such list, but the definition of "fully funded" is a task unto itself. Several years ago the NCAA finally allowed schools to blend need and no-need (9.9) funding; until then a wrestler could receive one or the other, but not both. I know of a 3x All-American at Lehigh who received no 9.9 funding at all, because his need-based and academic aid were more than he would have gotten through no-need. Now that's not a problem, for institutions willing to blend the two. Three months ago I had a conversation with an EIWA head coach whose school will not permit it, so his wrestlers are still stuck with no-need (I didn't ask if he has the full 9.9) or need-based/academic aid, not both.

The NCAA rules are found in all kinds of nooks and crannies, so there's always room for question. That said, everything I've seen refers to the eligibility of the athlete, without reference to the team. Five years to compete four seasons is the rule. The exceptions to the rule are greyshirt years, Olympic redshirt years, military service, religious missions, and however many hardship years the NCAA is willing to grant in the event of injury or (evidently) something out of the athlete's control. And 2020-21, the COVID year that didn't count. A couple of years ago on The Mat forum I posted that someone entering college in the right year could stretch a career out over 12 years, without military or religious service. But transferring from one school to another doesn't stop the "five-year" clock.

If you go back far enough there were three, and defeated finalists had to wrestle off after the finals against the guys who had lost to the champion. Some finalists wound up not placing, strange as that may seem these days. There were six placewinners through the 60s and most of the 70s; when they first went to six a wrestler had to lose to a finalist in order to wrestle back and there were usually fewer than 32 wrestlers in a bracket -- when Mike Caruso won his first title in 1965 there were just 20 entrants at 123 and the 6th place finisher ended up with a record of 1-3 in the tournament .... his greatest accomplishment may have been drawing Mike as his first opponent. By the late 1970s brackets were usually full and often had five or six pigtail draws (from which the top seeds were not exempt -- Mike Frick went 6-0 both times he won). Full wrestlebacks didn't come in until the 1990s and seeding was spotty -- many worthy wrestlers went 0-1 and barbecue (doesn't have the ring that 0-2 does). Awarding eight places (I'm not sure that the 7th and 8th placers received trophies in the early days; may have just been certificates) seemed more appropriate given the size of the tournament.

The guilty always claim to be innocent. Of course, so do the innocent.