98lberEating2Lunches

Just maybe, what weight each school wanted him at and how they approached him about it factored in more than childhood dreams or NIL $. Iowa could've made clear it wanted him to work towards wrestling 197 to replace Warner, presuming AJ wasn't going to be available. Since Bernie had just placed 4th at that weight, surely he'd be fine with it. And if AJ showed up and beat him out, then Iowa would support working him back to 184. Meanwhile Penn State could've wanted him to wrestle 184, but offered that if he wanted to wrestle 197 they'd support that too, just as they supported Cassar's move from 197 to HWT to replace an All-American. Winning 4th at 197 while weighing only 186 lbs, I could see such a PSU approach as being more persuasive to someone whose main goal is to win an NCAA championship vs bank some $. But sure, the NIL $ and Bernie's childhood dreams probably factored in too.

New portal transfer rules only allow one free transfer without sitting a year. So eligibility (available RS or Olympic RS) will come into play. I think it's best to recruit HS first. Then larger shares of surplus NIL $ cab be reserved for first time transferees that fill a need weight with enough eligibility to span the needs duration.

He-man and the Masters of the Universe.

The non-PSU Fandom doesn't want to vote on anything hypothetical that would make PSU stronger. Simply too psychologically painful. I voted Nagao because he's in the portal now and said he hopes to have decided towards the end of April. Once Nagao decides, I'll be changing my vote to Mesenbrink (assuming it's possible to do so).

I thought the opposite. My thjnking, earning a riding time point is now made harder, TD is 3, Reversal 3, Escape 1. Category 1: Wrestler is much better on their feet than earning nearfall - These wrestlers will never choose bottom again due to the incentive of 3 over 1 combined with risk of lost energy on bottom. They may be more cognizant and willing to free release to avoid a reversal. Category 2: Strong counter-wrestlers who are good at earning quick escapes or reversals - Continue to choose bottom. Sure, there are more categories. Regardless, I think the rules will lead to more and more starting wrestlers of Category 1. I expect trends may be a decline in the number of reversals along with a further reduction in nearfall points, as emphasis on mat skills may further decline. Possibly the 3-pt nearfall was proposed to make it harder to notice this anticipated decline. Maybe dual and tournament scoring will need to value falls a little bit more than tech falls before it is all over, if it is important to bolster an emphasis on mat wrestling.

I heard it continues to be a real bad winter in Gopher country. Young people worried about climate change should be expected to seek warmer climes... especially if they hail from CA.

I am for making wrestling more viable for more programs. I don't see how the loss of tv revenue from current conferences will be offset from likely reduced revenue (from national broadcasters) of less compelling regional conference matches, even with the reduction in travel expenses. Excluding conference and NCAA tournaments, there is a 14 competition date limit. Let's say 8 competition dates require travel where 2 are tournaments and 6 of 8 away duals are in conference travel where the trip is bundled to pair two geographically close foes over Fri thru Sun (which seems consistent with scheduling). Then wrestling would only have seem to have 5 real travel trips. Doesn't seem to me having shorter trips will yield much savings. I am for more scholarships, but they'll cost schools more money. Currently, many schools, including top tier, don't fully allocate the available 9.9 scholarships. There first has to be a viable increased revenue stream. Then available scholarships could be increased. Then the increase in maximum scholarships may need to be paired with a mandatory minimum scholarship allocation. I don't see local conferences solving this issue in a way that increases college wrestling opportunities at a reduced cost to participants. I do see NIL combined with compelling competition as having potential.

and/or Mesenbrink, yes!

The census data below could match the above "18.9%" = "about 20%" Although not directly displayed on the census page: The share of individuals that clicked Hispanic or Latino and selected two or more races may very well have increased from 6% to 33%. The share of individuals that clicked Hispanic or Latino and selected "other" as race (like didn't select any race listed) may very well have increased from 37% to 42%. I think the point of @mspart's article excerpt is more Hispanic or Latinos are interested and taking action consistent with their self-identification, which is not of the "white" race. I think @mspart's sharing the article was pointing out that despite the term "Hispanic" implying "white," the people completing the census may not consider themselves as white.

The system is bit messed up and arbitrary when it comes to true self-identification. I understand it supports evaluation of affirmative action considerations. During the census they establish a baseline demographic for a population. Then the same categories are used when filling government employment opportunities to try and assure the government reflects the people. In the last 10 to 20 years, I believe there was a concerted effort to increase identification of hispanic or latino persons, because those were thought to be erroneously disproportionately underrepresented. Many jobs, including U.S. government ones, require some racial/ethnic identification. A strange thing I learned is whenever one chooses not to voluntarily self-identify, then their supervisor does the identification based on what the supervisor believes.

Spainish and Portuguese are considered white. Hispanic derives from Historically Spanish. Latino equates to Central or South American. There are Black (e.g. descendants of slaves) and Native Americans who feel neither terms Latino or Hispanic are inclusive of them. Some say LatinX is preferred by a Black South Americans in line with Malcolm X. Some Chicanos adopted Xicano for their Native American identity. White Spaniard colonists invented the words 'mestizo' and 'mullato' to systematically discriminate among mixed race peoples.

I never said use of LatinX was differentiating by either ethnicity or nationality. I explained why LatinX seems to have come onto being -- greater inclusivity that avoids potential for gender bias. I agree LatinX homogenizes like white, black, and hispanic . But white (aka caucasian) is a race category while Russian and Iranian are nationalities, not racial ethnicities. The addition of "hispanic or latino" on employment forms associated with ethnic self-identification are for some statistical purpose, such as analysis for potential discrimination or demonstration of none. Italian used to be on forms.

Would you please provide a link to this NCAA rule and maybe clarify what you mean by "involved?" I understand a good bit of the NIL rule details were delegated by the NCAA to the conferences. Can you explain how the University of Iowa creation of the "Iowa Hawkeyes NIL Marketplace" fits into your assertion? It seems the University of Iowa administration remains involved (https://hawkeyesports.com/news/2023/01/25/ui-athletics-announces-the-iowa-hawkeyes-nil-marketplace-for-student-athletes/) in facilitating NIL deals. BTW - I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe you mean specific contract negotiations. Administration is responsible for compliance that contracts don't violate rules (like be contingent on athletic participation).

could be it's just @LJB's preferred style... e.e. cummmings wasn't much for capitalization or punctuation... seems to like to end one-liners with an ellipsis... though that could signal an incomplete thought... might be nodding off while typing... one can always feel free to fill in the blanks by reading between the lines... LJB leaves white space to do so...

I just realized there is a way to have an alternative group ID than the general population. Do something to earn your way into the restricted population (aka "The Zoo").

I agree with you that it's no sweat to call people what they asked to be called. I also agree that it's presumptuous to apply one homogenized label over another. Most Latino or Hispanic people I know prefer not to be lumped into one presumed homogenized entity. Instead they'd prefer to be called Puerto Rican, Taino, Salvadoran, Mexican, etc. A Latin cis gender male who is conservative might very well express his preference to be referred to as Latino over LatinX. I don't really expect white cis gender males or females to lead the charge for the term LatinX. And I don't think proponents of LatinX expect them to. Again, they are looking for empathetic supportive allies for the broader inclusion they seek.

Amazing is the ability to know another's motivation with such resolve. Was it the frequency (or infrequency) of Cael historically becoming 'frantic' that gave him away? What is it about his action that makes you to think they were 'frantic?' And what actions do you think cause the expression of one's opinion to rise to the level of a 'campaign?' Just maybe you were exaggerating for effect.

Not saying this is a a better explanation (or one aligned to particular sensibilitie), but I understand Latinx is primarily about 'gender identity inclusivity.' It may also be a more general rebuke of patriarchal society--especially historically in Latin or hispanic communities. It is akin to the movement towards gender neutral pronouns (they) and (to a lesser degree) the greater use of 'she' in U.S. government publications. In the Romantic languages, certain words have been designated 'masculine,' such as 'farmers.' These words are nominally preceded by 'el' or 'los' (a 'masculine' 'the,' singular or plural). These words nominally end with the letter 'O'/'os' (or another, what is termed, 'masculine' suffix). 'Farmers' has been designated 'masculine' as 'los granjeros.' Other words have been designated 'feminine,' like 'liberty.' These words are nominally preceded by 'la' or 'las' (a 'feminine' 'the,' singular or plural). These words nominally end in the letter 'A'/'as' or another 'feminine' suffix. 'Liberty' has been designated 'feminine' as 'la libertad.' Furthermore, when both female doctors ('doctoras') and male doctors ('doctoros') are present together, grammatical rules would have the collection referred to with the 'masculine' form, even if only one male doctor is present. The gender association to words may be seen as unnecessary, arbitrary, and detrimental to a segment of the latin community. It is seen as excluding individuals who do not conform to a society's gender identity norms. It may dissuade youngsters from pursuits contrary to the language's gender association when it differs from their own. Following the grammatic rule, 'latinos' has been used to refer to a collection of Latin individuals where one male of a Latin ethnicity is present. LatinX removes gender consideration from the word. In this way, it is similar to the use of 'Xmas,' by those who celebrate seasonal Black Fridays and gift-giving absent any religious affiliation. One view is that the Latin language perpetuates a gender-bias within the Latin community. This theoretically poses an unnecessary barrier to opportunity or general acceptance/inclusivity. Advocates of terms like LatinX and proponents of elimination of the historical near exclusive use of the 'he/his/him' pronouns in publications seek to eliminate perceived barriers to radical gender identity inclusivity. Proponents of Latinx who are most directly affected by exclusion certainly aren't the political majority. One person's blame is another person's credit. The LatinX community is looking for allies not enemies. Interesting, a sociologist from Southern California popularized 'Chicano' (distinctly 'masculine' form) in the late 1960s, co-opting a prior racial slur as part of a movement The intent was to identify a distinct Mexican- American experience of the time. The term LatinX can be viewed similarly.

I agree to an extent. Most coaches have autonomy to decide what is to be part of their job. They need not be directly involved in arranging NIL. But if NIL is part of acquiring some portal transferee, then coaches will more likely coordinate in some fashion with those who might provide NIL sponsorships. This isn't so clear to me. I believe that some states may have passed laws prohibiting university employees (which would include coaches) from facilitating NILs and many if not all of these states have rescinded their legislation. I think Ohio did not pass such legislation, but Pennsylvania did and then rescinded their's. Regardless, the university's athletic deparment's NCAA compliance office would be expected to maintain whatever records are necessary to ensure compliance with NCAA rules. Additionally, I expect athletes would've signed some obligation to act in good faith regarding the rules and providing records.

Can you send me a link to that professional study? Here, I had been under the impression that your assertion is a well-known trope to goad Iowa fans, which some hypothesize is also used as a negative recruiting tool against Iowa. Live and learn.

Some say that competing injured during a tournament sometimes happens, but theorize it's less often than when hard live goes are over-emphasized during training. I honestly don't know. Maybe someday someone will publish a study.

Some say, not all say, so yeah, they say. I believe it is reasonably inferred the coach's context is his first hand knowledge of PSU wrestlers. Don't know how he'd really know much, if anything, about other teams' wrestler's NIL deals and their associated contractual obligations. I don't assume he does.

Except of recently published Cael Sanderson interview, when discussing RBY: "To see where he started and then where he finished – it’s very impressive across the board, and he just did it with hard work and being tough. He didn’t quite have the finish he wanted. You know, he actually hurt his ankle in the quarterfinals, but he is one of the first guys to come through with a lot of obligations and stuff with NIL. I think he did pretty well for himself, but I think that comes with a bit of a cost. He was doing appearances, and meet and greets, and had a documentary come out on him during the season. Those things add a lot of pressure and distraction. I think he really managed it well and competed great. I think he’s shown over the years that he’s one of the best wrestlers in the world. I think if he sets his heart and mind on winning at the next level – at the World and Olympic levels – he definitely can."

To be clear, I was not assuming a racist motive, but I certainly did consider the possibility. I also considered the possibility the words were chosen to elicit reactions similar to mine or those that might act dismiss anyone who might take offense (like myself). It looks to me like some have chosen the latter through broadening my singular comment to be generalized to wokeness or Dylan Mulvaney, as well as hyperbole or feigning obtuse to the context of my comment. I purposefully chose not to quote it in its entirety in my initial response, limiting it to a single word. I pointed out what I saw as an insensitive word choice. Surely other equally descriptive metaphors are available for such a sound defeat. I appreciate those who thanked me or liked my original comment. It gives me hope. Back to RBY - I look forward to him competing without an injured ankle (sustained in his quarterfinal match). I've no doubt his performance will be vastly improved.

So you're saying, the context of his story was not a white wrestler soundly defeating a hispanic/black wrestler, where the vanquished competitor had to treat the wounds of his lashing with aloe? That seems a pretty off-target anecdote to me, but you do you.