billyhoyle

And if they are betting for themselves that is still wrong because they would know when they feel better/worse. If they are better for people they know, that is also bad because they could get inside information. Even if they are betting on a completely unrelated sport, it's a problem for them to be involved in gambling because maybe they get into a bit of debt and suddenly owe money to some unscrupulous folks.

The problem is that over the past 5 years, he was never actually given a chance to properly heal. It is the single worse mismanagement of an athlete in terms of health that I have ever seen in the sport. People forget just how successful he was as a junior on the world circuit-it was almost a foregone conclusion that he would compete for years winning senior world medals. And now if he ever makes a world team, I will be thankful and view it as an incredible comeback story. Anybody criticizing Lee for not competing at NCAAs or the Open has not followed his career-the guy has done nothing but compete when he should have been healing. It's true that people will remember him as a great wrestler regardless, but the sacrifice of his personal career for the Hawkeyes to get team points at NCAAS is one that will unfortunately probably be forgotten. He was every bit the wrestler that Gable Steveson was and could have been one of the best US wrestlers of our time.

Does she act?

Exactly. He could go down as the greatest U.S. wrestler ever. He is probably the favorite now to win his second olympic gold...And he will only be 24 years old. He clearly isn't cut out for WWE, and I'm sure he'd be good at MMA, but being good isn't enough-it's about selling PPVs. The guy is so comfortable on a wrestling mat in a way I've only seen a couple other times.

The reason there aren't fans in the stands at international events is that most NCAA wrestling fans support their universities, not the athletes. The wrestling product itself is better.

Stanford plays more to Koll's strengths than Oklahoma.

Just put it in Philadelphia. You still get the the huge PSU crowd, but other people will be able to attend without driving through 3 hours of farmland.

It is a bigger deal, but you're confusing what is important with what makes somebody famous/notable. Not everyone thinks becoming famous is important.

It changes the relative value of takedown compared to an escape or reversal.

No. You are still 1 takedown away from tying the score.

It's pretty obvious if you just think back at some of the athletes who were good at one weight, then put on a significant amount of weight in a single offseason and suddenly got a lot better. Maybe a 197 who goes up to 285 and dominates after being good at 197. Or Somebody who jumps from 174 to 197 in a single season and can muscle everyone around without a problem. Sometimes you even see it from 125 to 141-and sometimes those athletes go to MMA and later do test positive for steroids (like Lesnar).

I hope they are better, but if they were I think he would have walked through NCAAs.

*whistle . They got rid of the edit button here.

I don't think his knees are good. Just based on observing him wrestle.

You're allowed to bounce your opponent once. Two times and it's double dribbling, so the ref blows the winner. Three times and you're out of here.

Think of these guys not as athletes but as characters in the show that represent components of the zeitgeist for the people who watch WWE (mainly disgruntled men). Why was Angle a great character for that show at the time? It wasn't just that he was an Olympic champion-He was a throwback to the era in which pro wrestling was largely a USA vs Enemy show (e.g. USSR, Iran, etc). Wrestling fans in the 70s/80s waved the flag and there was a clear enemy. Angle was an American "hero," who showed up at a time when the fanbase was becoming more isolated from the mainstream of the country-there no longer was that enemy. So he was the perfect antivillian-where the fans could show their dislike for a character who was supposed to be loved. (There is a great article about this shift in Pro wrestling over the years, but I can't find it). So what does Gable represent in the WWE story? The Angle angle is played out. In theory, you'd think he could be another Lesnar type-where Lesnar is just an absolute monster and represents a genetic freak/incredible athlete. Except Gable doesn't look like that at all, and actual skill/real athleticism doesn't matter at all. So what is the point of Gable being on WWE? The current Zeitgeist is still populist/anti-establishment, but Logan Paul has seized that. How is Gable close to as compelling a character as the Paul brothers, KSI, etc, who represent the current heel of the wrestling fan (influencers/mainstream popular celebrities)? What does Gable's character represent?

Couture is a great example of excelling at the highest level in two sports. Hendricks Jones, and Lesnar were not at the world level in wrestling, and Lesnar is exceptionally rare in that he is the perfect type for WWE. Ever since Lesnar went from 171 to 285 pounds, he was ready for stardom in WWE. Also, Hendricks and Couture both rose to success at a different era in MMA, when it was an actual sport that highlighted the best athletes. Now it is all about who can be the biggest clown.

I don’t see it. Going into college, he was a junior world champion and seemed likely to win world/Olympic gold medals. Year after year he was sent out there on one good leg and now I’d be surprised if he makes a world team. Is there any doubt his prospects are worse now than they were prior to college?

1. I mean for the average person watching on tv. You want team scoring to be simple and easy to follow. Obviously I know how it works. 2. If you add a team championship, moving the individual tournament from a 3 to a 2 day event is a good idea. Fans don’t show up on Thursday. 16 individual qualifiers means the conference tournaments are more important. It also would mean more AAs from smaller schools because there would be fewer at large qualifying spots from the big 10. 3. Where did this idea come from that everyone should compete in the post season 4 times no matter how long it takes? If you spend 3 years with various types of redshirts, you should get 1 or at most 2 postseasons. 4. Good suggestions. Feel free to not like my ideas, but there’s no question this past season was a disaster. Changes are needed.

He never actually gave himself the time to heal properly. I never thought such a focus on the NCAA results over long term health made much sense.

Whatever Cael's reasons were in 2012, change is needed now. I don't think there has been a less interesting NCAA season in my lifetime. The winner was a foregone conclusion from the start, and nobody is graduating ever because of so many different type of redshirts and the covid year. 1. A dual should decide the NCAA team champion. Enough with making the team championship a 3 day event that requires an excel spreadsheet to figure out what the standings are. Qualifying for the dual championships (an 8 team tournament) should be entirely based on regular season dual performance and not a qualifier tournament. Every dual should be important, just as every NCAA football game is important. 2. Because of this team championship, the individual tournament should be a 16-man bracket. Hold it over two days instead of three. Nobody even shows up on Thursday or Saturday morning, and barely anyone shows up Thursday Night. Going to a 16 man bracket could eliminate two of these pointless sessions. 3. Redshirts need to be eliminated. College football, basketball, and baseball effectively have no redshirts at this point, since the best athletes all go professional. In Women's basketball, the best players are foregoing their extra years of eligibility to go pro. In wrestling, we have 6th year college "students" who grayshirted and graduated high school at 19 getting 5th place. 4. Wrestlers and "wrestling culture" needs to make some effort to become a bit more mainstream. This means maybe some rule changes to encourage more action. Shortening the matches a bit to 5 or 6 minutes and decreasing a tech to 10 points. We also have to get as many matches back on streaming services that people actually have access to (ESPN, Fox, BTN, CBS, etc). How can a better product be put on the mat in front of more people?

Maybe T-Money can give him some advice. It just seems obvious that he is not very good at being what WWE wants (Logan Paul). He has been with them for a year and they have barely used him. He is one of the very best amateur wrestlers on the planet though, so it makes perfect sense that he will be returning to the sport-it's great news for US Wrestling. How many people are there at Gable's level of talent/superstardom in one sport, that can then go and achieve that same level in something else? Bo Jackson is pretty much it. Ohtani if you count pitching/hitting as different enough skills even within the same sport. Michael Jordan couldn't in Basketball/Baseball. Askren couldn't do it with UFC. Cejudo comes to mind as somebody who did, but UFC wouldn't pay him because he wasn't a draw. Cormier I guess?-but he played out his wrestling career before transferring over and probably ended up with a better MMA than wrestling career. To succeed at the highest level in multiple things is the exception, not the rule.

They have to pass the NCAA Clearinghouse..If you are recruited for a B10, B12, ACC, Pac12 sport, you are almost always going to get in if you qualify. The same is not true for the Ivies, where many of the teams may give a slight advantage but still have stringent admission standards. But big donations have a significant impact on how ivies treat certain sports.

The difference is the B10, B12, Pac12, etc almost universally let their athletes in. The Ivies do have fairly stringent academic standards in sports without ultra rich donors.

The degree to which an Ivy lowers standards depends on the sport and donors behind it.