billyhoyle

Dave and Mark Schultz are the most notable.

Fossil fuels contribute because CO2 is released. So does chopping down forests since less CO2 is captured. What matters is net CO2 emissions. Replacing combustion with solar, wind, and nuclear decreases emissions. Technology that captures carbon during combustion helps because net emissions decrease (there is some interesting work in this area). Technology that captures carbon in general helps. Anyone selling you a single solution isn't telling the full story, and the consequences of global temperature increases are more complicated than "everyone on earth is going to die." And obviously it's even more complicated because China and India are the two largest countries, and what incentive do they have to limit emissions?

Net capture of CO2, global temperatures go down.

Nothing he said refutes the greenhouse effect or makes it ludicrous. He's correct that both respiration and combustion produce CO2. There are processes (like photosynthesis) that capture CO2. If more CO2 is produced and introduced into the atmosphere than captured, the temperature of the earth will go up. Some people call that pollution, others call it global warming or climate change. Some people might call that progress. Whatever you want to label the change in the atmosphere, it has consequences, and we will need to decide how to deal with them one way or another. If you're are a great 149 lb wrestler but you gain 10 pounds in the offseason, either you are going to have to lose that weight or adapt to a new weight class. The scale doesn't lie though.

Google his name

Cael did the same thing at PSU when he started. It was a way to establish a culture, but obviously it's not enforced 100% at PSU. I imagine Taylor is just doing the same thing that Cael did to start things out and change the culture (very much needed there after Ferrari).

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/43048561/vanderbilt-qb-diego-pavia-granted-injunction-allowing-extra-year-eligibility Update on this case. For now, JUCO years do not count toward NCAA eligibility. So, Cornell could gray-shirt their team for multiple years. How long until all NCAA eligibility rules go away?

Better to learn that lesson now than in the state finals.

Apparently he was a high school wrestler.

By precedent-I meant assassination attempt on the CEO of a corporation because of unpopular business practices (not from a personal dispute-although the motive is still unclear here). I did not know about that this Frick shooting though-that definitely seems like a similar case. Still, this one is more notable for a number of the reasons outlined above.

We don't know the motive yet, but a political assassination does not have to be targeted at a politician. If we go by the theory that this was about insurance company practices ("Deny, Defend, Depose"), it is without question political. At the very least, the reaction to it has unfortunately been political, and possibly exactly what the assassin wanted to happen. It's similar to Patty Hearst in that way. Also, what is the precedent for this? I don't know any off of the top of my head in the U.S. at least.

He wasn't at their level of celebrity, hence why I think it is a question, but also they were involved in a rap/gang war, so the violence was less surprising in their case. It is more like the Lennon assassination where this was completely unexpected. Also, this one was caught on HD video in midtown Manhattan (not so far from The Dakota btw) and there is a manhunt to track the assassin down, which adds to the notoriety. The most similar incident in our history of political violence was probably the Patty Hearst kidnapping. Regardless of where it "ranks," there's no question why this was an extremely notable murder and one that will be talked about for decades.

It's more complicated than this. Obviously, 99% of people who live in cities and are used to taking the subway can spot that a homeless/druggie walking onto the train and screaming nonsense is not a threat and you should just just walk away from that person. And even if you aren't used to that type of thing and jump to action to subdue the person, we as former wrestlers know that you can subdue somebody without choking him to death and you should never continue to hold a chokehold even when the guy is clearly out. With all that said, the legal requirements for what is and isn't self defense are more complicated than just what is obvious to us. I don't think it's even in question whether it was justified to jump the guy, because Neely verbally threatened to kill people on the train. So subduing him is perfectly legal. The only question is whether he held the chokehold too long, and that's where all the evidence about the cause of death and whether he should have known he was no longer a threat comes into play. Then there is the question about the type of chokehold that he put on and whether he had the proper training to know the difference. There is a difference between what is "right" and what is criminal.

You're surprised that the murder of the CEO of the largest health insurance company in the country, which happened in the biggest city in the country, was caught on HD video, and the killer being a complete mystery and now on the run, is a big news story? This might be the single most notable assassination in the U.S. since John Lennon, and definitely the most notable since Tupac/Biggie.

Holding it where the fans don't live causes ticket prices to drop. So NCAAs should be held in North Dakota so they stay affordable.

The NCAA raising ticket prices because they notice tickets are being resold for higher than face value helps wrestling. In a word where all that matters for NCAA athletics is now revenue generation, you don't want tickets to your championship event selling for $50. Having the event at a location closer to where most of the fans are located is a great thing.

There's a difference between an event with huge demand and one where the tickets are being resold for less than face value (but eventually the stadium does fill up). One has the potential to generate significantly more revenue, and one does not.

This is what happens when you have NCAAs close to where fans of NCAA wrestling actually live. Huge mistake to do this if you want to see the sport die. Good news if you want to demonstrate to universities that wrestling can generate revenue.

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.