CHROMEBIRD

Cal will have close, low scoring matches with Mesenbrink but I don't see MM losing unless he has a mental lapse and forgets about riding time again or something. MM will light up his other opponents but overrespect Caliendo, which will make it seem closer than it is. We've seen similar with Nolf (Hidlay), Starocci (Kemerer), RBY (ADS), etc.

There was discussion of this I think on one of the BB recruitment threads. I think @MPhillips is referring to the Designated Student Athlete rule which grandfathers athletes onto their team. Schools aren't required to keep the extra athletes, but can name anyone who would've been cut from the roster as a DSA so they don't count towards the limit (and it also follows the athlete if he or she transfers, so they don't count against their new school's roster limit). I think the deadline has passed for schools to name their DSAs, so it's probably safe to assume that the guys you see on Bloomsburg's roster today are protected.

All but 50 or so schools have opted-in so at this point, it's might be easier to see which ones have opted-out of revenue sharing. For wrestling, I believe the schools are the Ivy League + Air Force American Bellarmine Binghamton Bucknell Citadel Gardner-Webb Lehigh Mercyhurst Navy Presbyterian Queens VMI JB probably has a complete and accurate list on his website

Sucks. I think Wyoming and UNI have new facilities in the works too? Can't remember who else. I think UNI will be funding its new wrestling facility 100% through direction donations, so hopefully it'll continue forward. However, UNI's athletic department hasn't been self-sustaining for at least a decade, and gets funding from the university's general fund to keep sports afloat. That's not a huge surprise, since the MVC doesn't pull big media money; but UNI athletics has opted-in to revenue sharing and it's unclear what its path forward to self-sufficiency is, especially when the BOR is under pressure to stop transferring money from academia to athletics. There was a proposal in the state legislature for Iowa and ISU to share a % of their sports revenue with UNI, but that was shot down to no one's surprise. Tough road ahead, haves vs. have-nots, etc. Panthers insiders here may have details on what's happening.

I saw clips of Summer McIntosh on social media. Man, she's got a motor.

I thought AGON was a pretty good hybridized style at the time. It's too bad it never took off. Are the international pro wrestling leagues still around? I assume they are, but am not familiar. I just remember JB, Helen, and others getting recruited to compete overseas some time ago.

Good point about withholding federal money, though I don't think there are many programs that directly support college sports or the NCAA itself, and the big athletic departments are supposed to be self-sufficient. Maybe they'd withhold scholarships and grants, but that would be pointless while minimally affecting revenue sport athletes. The NLRB portion might be a big deal, as it could open the doors for athlete unionization and collective bargaining, minimum wage or possibly OT pay, benefits, and (at public schools) transparency laws regarding their compensation. Some other stuff like taxes, job security, roster caps would probably be affected as well. Historically, the NLRB has leaned towards the idea that college athletes should be employees. I can't remember the name of the case but a group of athletes sued the NCAA not long ago, citing the NLRB's actions around player unionization and non-amateur classification. This all directly contradicts one of the biggest components of the SCORE Act (the other being the antitrust waiver for the NCAA and conferences), so it's a little weird to see its sponsors applaud the EO and say it's complementary to their bill.

I think this story made a some waves on socials last week because a lot of ppl misinterpreted the headline. The $147M budget gap is what Iowa State is projecting in additional costs through 2031 with the $20.5M NIL/revenue sharing cap increasing by 4% each year (and because its own conference revenues have been diluted due to the Big 12's expansion to 16 teams), assuming they max out their cap sheet. I mean, ISU is 100% right to raise red flags about its financial horizon, given that the department has historically been self-funding up until last year, Covid season excepted, but that's pretty much the case for for most of the opt-in schools outside the P2. By comparison, Iowa was $235M in the red at the start of FY24. Most of that remaining debt is from revenue bonds issued for capital projects (CHA, Kinnick, etc.). The athletic department also took out a $50M loan from the university during the Covid season to keep things running and has pretty much only been able to repay the interest so far. They've only knocked about $2M off the principal so far, and have 15 years to pay back the University, who like most public schools is also not in fantastic financial shape these days and wants the money ASAP. The Hawkeyes' revenue should increase by around 10% this year from the B1G's tv deal, but will level off over the next 5 years (I think) as Oregon and Washington are phased into revenue sharing. The other big question is whether WBB and Wrestling can sustain their sport's revenues, which got a pretty nice bump during the Caitlin & Spencer years. Anyway, the big takeaway from that news for us I guess is that the construction of ISU's new wrestling facility and the (Hilton Coliseum renovation) has been put on hold indefinitely. Kind of a bummer for Dresser's guys.

I really like the idea of giving non-revenue sports better funding, but does the EO have any teeth? Congress needs to pass legislation and codify a national NIL/revenue sharing framework. Getting a definitive answer from the NLRB on whether student athletes should be classified by employees, regardless on where you stand on the issue, is also a pretty good way to light a fire under Congress and get something passed.

Aw man, I miss ILLINIWrestlingBlog. Jombo would be all over this.

Wow! Have all the Sun Belt schools opted-in to revenue sharing? ESPN was saying that Fresno State would have to break up the mandatory athletic fee, which I assume is something they already do for internal accounting purposes, and eliminate or reallocate the line items that go towards D1 sports. Sounds like it'll be a pretty big hit to those schools either way, though if the legislation passes. There used to be an 80/20 deduction rule where ticket buyers could deduct 80% of the "athletic contribution fees" on their taxes, but that went away under the first Trump administration. I think the only way they can still be tax-deductible is if there's no direct benefit to the buyer (i.e., doesn't give you priority access to preferential seating). I guess the upside, if it can even be called that, of the mandatory fees at massive D1 schools is that in theory the cost should be diluted across 50k+ or whatever students, but I get the feeling that it just furthers the Big Football/Big Basketball arms race and causes programs to spend more.

Pretty cool. Does the data also indicate the reasons for the team point deductions? At the end of the day points are points, but it might be fun to see which ones are headgear tosses and which ones are like, doing a cartwheel and attempting a Kimura on an opponent. (Actually, I don't think Drexel was penalized for it, but you get the idea)

I've wondered if takedown scoring zones would add more excitement or at least mitigate a little bit of stalling and fleeing. Setup the mat as 3 concentric circles with takedowns in the bullseye zone (center mat) worth 2 points, then 3 points for takedowns in the middle ring, and 4 points at the outermost ring with continuation for OOB. Or maybe the points should be flipped to award more points in the center? Idk. But my thinking is that a wrestler sitting on a lead will want to minimize risk and not hang out at the edge of the mat, and force them to wrestle near the center rather than flee. No idea if this would work, I'm sure someone else here could game this out better than I can, but just some food for thought.

Yeah, that USC graphic also has some hidden fees, for example season parking is complimentary for the top 3 tiers, but the middle tiers (4-6) pay an additional $1,000-3,000 if they want to park their car. Tiers 7-9 aren't offered parking. California is supposed to have an "all in" pricing law now but that's just the seat + "required contribution" price; stuff like requiring a certain membership donor level just to qualify to buy season tickets, parking (since it's technically optional), etc. are still separate. I guess buying expensive season tickets might be a flex to some people, but even the pricing at lesser P4 programs seem a little out of step reality. That's a lot of money for 7 or so football games. I think the reason why the pricing is split between the seating and contribution is because of the revenue calculation as y'all say. The salary/spending cap is based on generated revenue. The contributions are basically fundraising and are to keep the athletic dept's lights on.

Wow. Ozzy, Theo Huxtable, and the Hulkster. These things really do come in 3s.