billyhoyle

Exactly. Both are entertainment in the same way that WWE is, and neither follow the "rules" of the sports that they're based on. But there's no doubt both are forms of "professional" sports, just like WWE. So yeah, I would not be surprised if this is used as a precedent for MLB/MiLB, NFL, or NBA players to go back to college and compete. There is an argument to be made that it shouldn't be a precedent for that because WWE is scripted, but who knows if that is a strong enough argument to work.

Yes, me having an opinion that's different than yours makes me dumb. Great logic there. WWE is professional wrestling. Yes, the outcomes are predetermined, and it's one of the lowest forms of entertainment on earth, but they are engaging in a type of wrestling and being paid professionally to do so. Could Gable make an argument that he shouldn't lose eligibility because WWE is different than NCAA wrestling? Yes, he could. But allowing him to compete in NCAA wrestling sets a precedent that could allow somebody to argue that freestyle is different than NCAA wrestling as well. A baseball player could argue that professional baseball uses wood bats and is therefore different than college, which still uses metal bats. We are at the point where the entire idea of amateurism in athletics is pretty much gone anyway, and this is just another example of that.

If the NCAA doesn't rule him ineligible for doing professional wrestling, I can't wait for this to be used in the lawsuit when NFL players who couldn't cut it try to go back to NCAA football. Then there can be legal filings over whether WWE is professional wrestling.

How so?

This in effect, has already happened, where ADs have become more like GMs. States like Alabama/Mississippi will never get an NFL team, so this is their closest thing, and the football program there is MUCH more important than any type of academics (or non revenue sports) offered by those state universities. That is unfortunately becoming more of the case at B10 universities as well, to the detriment of college wrestling programs. But can a 4-year limit on eligibility hold up when both A and B are going to be allowed by the courts? Why shouldn't college athletes be able be continue to compete as long as they are enrolled?

Maybe? I'm pretty sure the two highest-paid athletes from NIL have been Caitlin Clark and Livvy Dunne. Kind of unfair to the men.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/42286584/vanderbilt-qb-diego-pavia-suing-ncaa-eligibility-rules Once the courts decided that college athletes were essentially professional athletes and could get paid, it was obvious that the next thing to be challenged would be the eligibility rules. The Vanderbilt QB, who has no NFL potential, is suing to get back eligibility for the years he spent at community college. Does anybody think it's likely that the courts eventually get rid of the 4 year competition limit and possibly even allow professional athletes to reenter NCAA competition? Will we look back at NCAA athletes who only competed for four years similarly to how we see athletes from the time of Dan Gable and Hodge who only competed for 3? Maybe Max Dean was ahead of his time.

Every single match during the 2015 NCAA season in the 174lb weight class.

Are these confirmed legal? I thought it's illegal to bet on U.S. elections as a U.S. citizen? And wouldn't they only be legal in states with legalized gambling?

Yes, because they're going to keep the corporate tax rate low.

I don't think there was even much polling done in FL, TX, and VA because those states weren't even contested by either candidate.

The election is over, Trump won. They have to wait to officially call it until they are 99.9% sure, but it's obviously over just like it was over days before they called it 4 years ago.

That poll was an outlier. There was another Iowa poll with Trump up by like 10 released that same day.

The polls were basically spot on. It looks like they were accurate within like 2%.