98lberEating2Lunches

First, I am glad we are communicating civilly. I am glad you are tangibly invested in the issue of support for education and student athletes. To me, it adds credibility to you. Here's a couple more tenets that I live by: 1) I refrain from telling tell any parent how to best raise their children. 2) I refrain from violating any laws of the land in which I inhabit. 3) I believe in the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- taken together as one whole. People should be free enough to pursue what makes them happy as long it does not infringe of the inalienable rights of others Based on the above tenets, I can't get too worked up about a parent holding a child back for whatever reason that does not violate law. Personally, I wish all young people could have the opportunity to take two gap years between HS and university. I believe most HS graduates these days will end up working until they are 70. SS benefits may be cut and only one's best 35 years count. Say one works 40 years in a job (excluding pro sports careers), one needs only enter the workforce by 30. It's my opinion that it's best to take time to find a career one loves, and can love for a lifetime, in the interest of one's pursuit of happiness.

I believe the "privilege" being referred to had to do with the family's financial situation irrespective of merit due to athletic performance leading to earning a scholarship (a difference between gray and red shirts, in general). Similarly, the "level up" year, as a true freshman redshirt, provides an equalizing lever against the same privilege that might have afforded one would be student athlete better training and nutrition over another.

So do you think you understand stand me and what I am saying any better? For what it does or doesn't matter, I never was a student athlete, I know some student athletes quite well and have supported them directly, I provide financial support to my alma mater's academic programs, and I am a financial supporter of student athletes. How about yourself? What's your standing in all of this?

If the member institutions agreed it was in the best interest of its student athletes and they could support it financially, I wouldn't create a post to say 2 redshirt years should be eliminated. One evaluation criteria I would consider is whether a proposal is effectively telling people the moral value they should have when spending their money. I would avoid doing so. Also, in the interest of student athletes, I would avoid policies that might reduce their opportunities due to reduced contributions to athletic scholarship funds. There are probably government funding criteria and other laws that govern what constitutes a full time student. Those should suffice. I believe the term "student athlete" implies they are a full-time student.

As I stated earlier "in the best interest of the member institutions of the organizing athletic organization (e.g., NCAA) and their student athletes." I am not opposed to student athletes becoming paid employees. However, I believe if such a change is made, then if schools try to control NIL related funds, as a company might any of its employees per the terms of employment, then this will cause a schism. I believe two athletic organizations would result with no shared competition between the two. Personally, I am not against student athletes having more options, so this wouldn't bother me at all.

Which of your strawmen would you seriously propose, and why would those proposals be mutually exclusive to maintaining redshirts rather than eliminating them (in the best interest of student athletes)? Where do you understand the majority of athletic scholarships money comes from? Who pays the bill, and what do you believe their motives are? Which of your strawman proposals might you characterize as telling other people how to best spend their money? Which of your proposals might drive more would be scholarship donations to NIL opportunities targeting the elite, and thereby producing unintended consequences to the opposite effect of what you appear to promote (a greater spreading of some resource to a greater number of student athletes)?

I'll check back when the ground swell of support to eliminate redshirting due to its obvious lack of benefits to students athletes, as expressed by student athletes themselves, wins the day.

Except rarely does a wrestler get a full scholarship and many schools don't give the full 9.9. I don't think it was about spreading out the wealth. Kept going on about perverse motives. This is something with which a person from a privileged class might tend to be less likely to take issue.

Trackwrestling : https://www.trackwrestling.com/opentournaments/MainFrame.jsp?newSession=false&TIM=1667844139660&pageName=%2Fopentournaments%2FTournamentHub.jsp&twSessionId=cmpbnpeqtx

I agree that if everything goes smoothly and its their priority then the average student should be able to graduate in 4 years. However, extenuating circumstances arise (e.g., severe illness, death of financial supporter) and majors do change midstream within both the general student population and that of student athletes. I am not sure how being hypothetucally able to graduate in four years provides justification to warrant elimination of redshirts. But maybe, there was no intended connection. Maybe if I understood how the elimination of redshirts would be in the best interest of student athletes or NCAA member institutions then I might appreciate the merits of the OP's proposal.

Military academies are ideal for rocket scientists with an aversion to redshirts and a penchant for equal treatment among athletes, tuba players, and Chem E majors. Redshirts are only granted for the rarest of circumstances. Just commit to 5 years public service and 3 years in the reserves upon graduation for your free books, tuition, room and board, and stipend. Try not to wash out after the start of your junior year.

Obviously the solution includes making all universities 5-year institutions with 5 year scholarships. That should put all the tuba players and Chem E majors at ease while actually increasing scholarships.

I guess we'll see what happens once Intermat updates its 157 rankings (https://intermatwrestle.com/rankings/college/157?).

Many HBCUs offer band scholarships. Has to do with the importance the school places on it. Variety is the spice of life. Almost all schools offer some kind academic scholarship or financial aid. The individual terms of marching band or academic scholarships likely include consideration of hardship events. It's unwise to argue from an easily disproved faulty premise. The NCAA only governs athletics purportedly in the mutual best interest of its member schools and their students athletes. Bringing in "tuba players" (and Chem E majors) is a non sequitur. All in all, the "eliminate redshirts" argument has not been persuasive. I am considering giving a C- borderline D+, just to move the kid forward toward graduation.

All "The Dog in the Manger" rhetorical arguments. Nope. Same number of scholarships. Just some different percentage of student athletes. And by the way, many schools don't give out the existing full complement of allowed NCAA athletic scholarships.

No problem. Somehow I'm not surprised. Your interpretation. I believe "leveling up" means much more like creating a more level playing field for those with ability but no access to quality training including nutrition. Anyways, I hope the crowdsourcing effort helps with your upcoming debate composition or competition.

The original post sure smells like a "Dog in the Manger" scenario to me (https://read.gov/aesop/081.html). This article pretty much spells out all there is to know about redshirting: https://www.americanwomenswrestling.com/news/why-redshirt There nothing devious, bad or subversive about the process. Assertions of coach and college administration having perverse motives comes across as projection and paranoia. The OP would have you believe it simply couldn't be that the process might actually be in the student athletes' best interests. Any coach can redshirt whomever by not starting them. And some student athletes graduate in 4 years or less, and continue their academic and athletic pursuits as grad transfers. Eliminating redshirts would be a totalitarian's solution in search of a problem.

I see the redshirt as only positive for the vast majority of student athletes. Any student athlete can graduate in four years if that's their priority. The redshirt is one tool that addresses social inequity. Without it, only those whose family is in an advantageous financial position would have the opportunity to delay enrollment to optimize their lineage's athletic potential. Eliminating all gray shirts by making all athletic competition strictly bracketed by age could be seen as fairer. But this doesn't address nutrition issues associated with social inequities. The redshirt year helps make a body stronger and more able to fairly compete.

Even if Wisconsin is already supporting Kyle's transfer to Nebraska without loss of eligibility, it is not a bad look if Kyle's intention is to raise awareness of student athletes to eliminate similar circumstances and suffering.