Tofurky

Like the University of Notre Dame?

https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/6218843-mike-duroe-1955-2018

"Accessibility" is one aspect of this.  "Being welcome" is another.  It's not just that we don't have programs geared toward adults who want to learn wrestling; we send a clear message of "WTF are you doing here?" when they walk in the door.
 
This is like the controversy over girls' wrestling, where we puzzle over the problem, "Should we exclude half our potential customers right off the bat?"

Kustra had his own cloud?  I dislike the man, but that's impressive.

https://www.instagram.com/dodolovesthekids
 
This is the guy. $280 for a pair.

What if we... I don't know... increased the number of high-quality wrestlers coming out of high school?  Or is that just crazy?
 
On a totally unrelated note, I'm kind of short on money this summer.  Wondering how to pay for camps, vacations, and such.  I was thinking maybe I'd look for a way to make extra money, but... nah.  I'll just put my kids up for adoption.

I think Tofurky has a point, but not for what reasons have been addressed so far.  I was a college coach for a very good NAIA team, and we often competed against NCAA schools that were very bad.  This creates a big problem for wrestling.  For admin, fan base, recruiting, and just overall presentation, teams that cannot be competitive looks really, really bad for the sport.  It makes it appear that a team that cannot win is a total joke, and probably shouldnt be around.  This happens for long enough, it is proven, those teams get cut and they dont come back.
 
Im seeing DI teams that dont get a single All American for 25 years.  Im seeing DI teams send 5 guys to a big tournament.  Im seeing forfeits in DI matches where both schools are less than a few hours apart.
 
My solution would be this:  Limit the number of DI teams, but increase the opportunity at the other levels.  You dont lose participation, you actually gain.  Wrestlers will keep going if they think they can be competitive.  The average JUCO kid, if you told him, its either pay your own way at a DI school or quit, they quit.  Let some of the basement teams move down.  Now, let the finalists of D2, D3, and NAIA qualify for NCAA DI championships.  Now, teams will be more competitive without actually losing the ability to win DI.  Like the poster above me has stated before, for a lot of guys, wrestling is about ME, not the team.  The team is an added bonus, but guys mainly leave HS thinking "Im going to be an NCAA champ" much more than "I want my new team to win NCAAs". 
 
Letting guys compete in a more team competitive atmosphere where wrestling is attractive and exciting and limiting blow outs with the ability for the individual to meet their goals seems to me would produce a much more visually appealing and fan friendly version of wrestling than watching Indiana take on Penn State.

I did a few times in this thread alone. You, on the other hand, want to make it personal and have provided nothing in return but personal attacks. You're arguing from the heart, not the head.
 
Groupthink is not only unproductive, but it is dangerous, boys.

Bacon(e)! You'll fry for this.*
 
* Original credit to Shakespeare on the Mr Peabody and The WayBack Machine cartoon. If you remember this you are older than dirt .... way older. One of the top 10 so-bad-its good kid cartoon jokes of ancient times.
 
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/hollywood.html
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe what we could start doing and what we should start doing is valuing events in wrestling beyond the NCAA championships. We get damn near a half a year of quality wrestling from tournaments starting in mid November and going all the way till the end of March. I find it pathetic and ridiculous that in five months of wrestling, the only thing that seems to matter to us are three days in March.  It's disheartening to know that mentality is preached, encouraged and celebrated and anyone with a different perspective is seen as "weak" or in the least absurd. 
 
Cliff Keen, Midlands, Reno, Southern Scuffle,we have four major in season tournaments. We have a ton of great duals.  
 
IF we valued any of this 1/10th as much as we value the NCAA tournament, our sport would be more popular.  We'd have a bigger fan base.   
 
Basketball obviously values more than the NCAA tournament. If it didn't, we wouldn't have the NIT.  Wrestling is way too proud and way too full of itself to even joke about such a thing for its sport. It's hard sometimes to get someone to value second place, let alone something of that nature. 
 
Football values every single game. 
 
Chalk this up as another unpopular JT#1 opinion. 

i see your thinking.
however, i recall some on here saying nobody follows lower levels (d2 naia etc...)
 
I do. not like i used to, but I try.
 
just imagine what it would be like if there were more than 9.9 schollies.

In the combat sports universe, MMA is king and everything else short of boxing (for now, thanks only to its long legacy) is small potatoes. The average Joe doesn't care about who has the best double leg, the best kimura, the best jab-cross combination or the best leg strikes, all by themselves. Blend all of those things together and people start paying attention because they want to know who the single biggest bad @$$ around is, not who can score the most nearfall points from a roll through tilt.
 
While the backgrounds/martial arts bases of the competitors might be interesting to some fans, I'm willing to bet that jiu jitsu and muay thai have seen more growth in the last 10 years, because their skills (submissions and strikes, respectively) are more practical than scoring two for a takedown. I wish it weren't so, but I do suspect as much.

It's obviously a boy dancing to a man playing bagpipes.
 
My bigger issue, as a teacher, is the horrendous grammar:  "ItALifestyle" and "all wrestlers wanting to the most out of their career."

I was always wanting to the most in my career, but found that it a lifestyle.

I was in St. Louis last week, hanging with this board's own killdozer (supremely excellent dude, by the way), and he mentioned an idea about changing the season and an idea about tournaments. He mentioned something about regionals and it had me thinking... what if the dual team national tournament included EVERY team in Division 1? How is that possible you ask? Well, let me tell you MY thoughts!
 
1. Break the tournament up into four distinct regions. Instead of tying them to geographic locations, let's call them regions 1, 2, 3 and 4.
 
2. Break the tournament up into two weekends. The first weekend would feature (using the 76 teams in D1 as of the 2017-18 season) four, 19 team tournaments. The tournaments would have four rounds on the championship side of the bracket and would be designed to find the two finalists from each Region. Those two undefeated teams would not compete until weekend two, bringing the top eight teams from the four dual tournaments to another site two weeks later. The rest of the teams would finish the tournament out, guaranteeing each team at least two duals on the weekend, and maybe more if the coaches wanted to find a way to make it happen.
 
For an example of this, see the NWCA Multi-Divisional Dual brackets for everyone except Division 3.
 
3. Not unlike the NCAA basketball tournament, teams in each Region will be seeded 1-16, with proper seeding and the top four teams garnering the top seeds in each of the four regional tournaments. In this case, seeding is based on point scoring from the previous year's national tournament (let's use 2018, for example: found here). As you can see, Penn State would face Fresno State out of the gates in Region 1. In Region 2, Ohio State would face Cal Poly. Region 3 would feature Iowa versus Binghamton and Region 4 would start off with Michigan vs. Oklahoma U.
 
4. As I mentioned, since there are 19 teams per Region (as of the 2017-18 season), for those final 12 teams outside of the top 64, three teams are randomly drawn into each Regional site.
 
5. Those top eight teams would convene in a centralized location, say, Chicago (selfish me) and determine the top eight teams for that dual year.
 
What does any of this accomplish? Here are my thoughts:
1. Every single team is now included and has a stake in the game. That makes programs, colleges/university ADs and the NCAA very happy.
 
2. It (typically) breaks up the traditional powers. While that will change year to year, you see no more than four B10 teams in any of the brackets. 
 
3. Who can be the "bracket buster" each year? Yeah, I know... this isn't basketball. That said, what teams wouldn't relish the chance at making the "Elite Eight" by knocking off a highly ranked team? Maybe a non-traditional power each year can take advantage of injuries or lack of a gas tank... maybe?
 
4. Teams that might not normally face one another are now facing one another in this format. It's great for the sport's fan base. Here are some of the rat tail match ups that I came up with at random to give you an idea of what I mean (not all are sexy, if any):
 
Region 1:
Gardner Webb face Northern Illinois and feeds into Lock Haven
Northwestern faces Citadel and feeds into the winner of Eastern Michigan and Bloomsburg
 
Region 2:
SIUE and Stanford go at it with Pitt waiting in the wings
Bono's Wisconsin team duals Davidson, the winner then seeing Rider
Cornell and Air Force go at it, with Franklin & Marshall on the receiving end
 
Region 3:
Oklahoma State goes against VMI, who then feeds into the winner of Michigan State and Brown
SUNY Buffalo takes on Columbia U, the winner moving on to see Duke U.
 
Region 4:
Cleveland State face Iowa State and feeds into UNorth Carolina
Sacred Heart duals Clarion, with the winner going up against South Dakota State
Oregon State battles Ohio U and the winner takes on Utah Valley
 
4. Each year is something new! It's not always the same old teams dualing one another and it offers (somewhat of) an element of surprise.
 
My final thought on this is that you could even do away with conference tournaments and go to this exact same medium for individual tournaments. You place the top eight wrestlers with the one wild card per weight going to the last kid who lost to the young man who finishes seventh in each bracket. Though the teams in each region are based on last year's results, the individuals are seeded based on individual criteria.
 
Here would be the example of the teams in each region (again, based on 2017-18 results):
 
Region 1                        Region 2                         Region 3                           Region 4
1.Penn State                  2. Ohio State                   3. Iowa                               4. Michigan
64. Fresno State            63. Cal Poly                     62. Binghamton                 61. Oklahoma
32. Virginia                     31. Pitt                             30. West Virginia               29. Purdue
33. CSU Bakersfield      34. Stanford                     35. Drexel                          36. Edinboro
17. Minnesota                DI. SIUE                          19. Wyoming                      20. UNC
48. Chattanooga            18. Wisconsin                  46. North Dakota State      DI. Cleveland State
DI. Gardner Webb          DI. Davidson                   14. Oklahoma State           45. Iowa State
49. Northern Illinois        47. Rider                          DI. VMI                              13. Illinois
16. Lock Haven              15. Lehigh                        DI. Michigan State            52. Bucknell
9. Nebraska                    50. Appalachian State     51. Brown                          12. South Dakota State
56. American                  10. Arizona State             11. Rutgers                       DI. Sacred Heart
24. Northern Iowa           55. Indiana                       54. Old Dominion             53. Clarion
41. Penn                         23. Kent State                  22. Duke                           21. Oregon State
25. Northwestern            42. Army                           DI. SUNY-Buffalo             DI. Ohio U
DI. Citadel                       26. Princeton                   43. Columbia U                44. Utah Valley
40. Eastern Michigan      39. Northern Colorado     27. Maryland                    28. Hofstra
DI. Bloomsburg               7. Cornell                         38. Central Michigan        37. Navy
8. Virginia Tech               DI. Air Force                     6. Missouri                       5. NC State
57. Campbell                  58. Franklin & Marshall     59. George Mason          60. Harvard
 
DI = Drawn In (finished outside of top 64)
 
The teams (and their strengths) in each region change from year to year, and it keeps the 
 
Thoughts?

2007 - six golds and a bronze in seven weights... though the seventh gold medalist (Sahin "from" Turkey) grew up in and trained in Dagestan with the likes of Adam Saitiev, Farniev (the bronze medalist that year at that weight), Makhach Murtazaliev, the Batirov brothers, et al.

Is that what Cael tweeted? 
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

on a serious note, interesting idea, but WAY too much of a behemoth to ever get done and too many parties/politics involved.

I was in St. Louis last week, hanging with this board's own killdozer (supremely excellent dude, by the way), and he mentioned an idea about changing the season and an idea about tournaments. He mentioned something about regionals and it had me thinking... what if the dual team national tournament included EVERY team in Division 1? How is that possible you ask? Well, let me tell you MY thoughts!
 
1. Break the tournament up into four distinct regions. Instead of tying them to geographic locations, let's call them regions 1, 2, 3 and 4.
 
2. Break the tournament up into two weekends. The first weekend would feature (using the 76 teams in D1 as of the 2017-18 season) four, 19 team tournaments. The tournaments would have four rounds on the championship side of the bracket and would be designed to find the two finalists from each Region. Those two undefeated teams would not compete until weekend two, bringing the top eight teams from the four dual tournaments to another site two weeks later. The rest of the teams would finish the tournament out, guaranteeing each team at least two duals on the weekend, and maybe more if the coaches wanted to find a way to make it happen.
 
For an example of this, see the NWCA Multi-Divisional Dual brackets for everyone except Division 3.
 
3. Not unlike the NCAA basketball tournament, teams in each Region will be seeded 1-16, with proper seeding and the top four teams garnering the top seeds in each of the four regional tournaments. In this case, seeding is based on point scoring from the previous year's national tournament (let's use 2018, for example: found here). As you can see, Penn State would face Fresno State out of the gates in Region 1. In Region 2, Ohio State would face Cal Poly. Region 3 would feature Iowa versus Binghamton and Region 4 would start off with Michigan vs. Oklahoma U.
 
4. As I mentioned, since there are 19 teams per Region (as of the 2017-18 season), for those final 12 teams outside of the top 64, three teams are randomly drawn into each Regional site.
 
5. Those top eight teams would convene in a centralized location, say, Chicago (selfish me) and determine the top eight teams for that dual year.
 
What does any of this accomplish? Here are my thoughts:
1. Every single team is now included and has a stake in the game. That makes programs, colleges/university ADs and the NCAA very happy.
 
2. It (typically) breaks up the traditional powers. While that will change year to year, you see no more than four B10 teams in any of the brackets. 
 
3. Who can be the "bracket buster" each year? Yeah, I know... this isn't basketball. That said, what teams wouldn't relish the chance at making the "Elite Eight" by knocking off a highly ranked team? Maybe a non-traditional power each year can take advantage of injuries or lack of a gas tank... maybe?
 
4. Teams that might not normally face one another are now facing one another in this format. It's great for the sport's fan base. Here are some of the rat tail match ups that I came up with at random to give you an idea of what I mean (not all are sexy, if any):
 
Region 1:
Gardner Webb face Northern Illinois and feeds into Lock Haven
Northwestern faces Citadel and feeds into the winner of Eastern Michigan and Bloomsburg
 
Region 2:
SIUE and Stanford go at it with Pitt waiting in the wings
Bono's Wisconsin team duals Davidson, the winner then seeing Rider
Cornell and Air Force go at it, with Franklin & Marshall on the receiving end
 
Region 3:
Oklahoma State goes against VMI, who then feeds into the winner of Michigan State and Brown
SUNY Buffalo takes on Columbia U, the winner moving on to see Duke U.
 
Region 4:
Cleveland State face Iowa State and feeds into UNorth Carolina
Sacred Heart duals Clarion, with the winner going up against South Dakota State
Oregon State battles Ohio U and the winner takes on Utah Valley
 
4. Each year is something new! It's not always the same old teams dualing one another and it offers (somewhat of) an element of surprise.
 
My final thought on this is that you could even do away with conference tournaments and go to this exact same medium for individual tournaments. You place the top eight wrestlers with the one wild card per weight going to the last kid who lost to the young man who finishes seventh in each bracket. Though the teams in each region are based on last year's results, the individuals are seeded based on individual criteria.
 
Here would be the example of the teams in each region (again, based on 2017-18 results):
 
Region 1                        Region 2                         Region 3                           Region 4
1.Penn State                  2. Ohio State                   3. Iowa                               4. Michigan
64. Fresno State            63. Cal Poly                     62. Binghamton                 61. Oklahoma
32. Virginia                     31. Pitt                             30. West Virginia               29. Purdue
33. CSU Bakersfield      34. Stanford                     35. Drexel                          36. Edinboro
17. Minnesota                DI. SIUE                          19. Wyoming                      20. UNC
48. Chattanooga            18. Wisconsin                  46. North Dakota State      DI. Cleveland State
DI. Gardner Webb          DI. Davidson                   14. Oklahoma State           45. Iowa State
49. Northern Illinois        47. Rider                          DI. VMI                              13. Illinois
16. Lock Haven              15. Lehigh                        DI. Michigan State            52. Bucknell
9. Nebraska                    50. Appalachian State     51. Brown                          12. South Dakota State
56. American                  10. Arizona State             11. Rutgers                       DI. Sacred Heart
24. Northern Iowa           55. Indiana                       54. Old Dominion             53. Clarion
41. Penn                         23. Kent State                  22. Duke                           21. Oregon State
25. Northwestern            42. Army                           DI. SUNY-Buffalo             DI. Ohio U
DI. Citadel                       26. Princeton                   43. Columbia U                44. Utah Valley
40. Eastern Michigan      39. Northern Colorado     27. Maryland                    28. Hofstra
DI. Bloomsburg               7. Cornell                         38. Central Michigan        37. Navy
8. Virginia Tech               DI. Air Force                     6. Missouri                       5. NC State
57. Campbell                  58. Franklin & Marshall     59. George Mason          60. Harvard
 
DI = Drawn In (finished outside of top 64)
 
The teams (and their strengths) in each region change from year to year, and it keeps the 
 
Thoughts?

First and foremost, listening to Killdozer is a recipe for disaster.....

I was in St. Louis last week, hanging with this board's own killdozer (supremely excellent dude, by the way), and he mentioned an idea about changing the season and an idea about tournaments. He mentioned something about regionals and it had me thinking... what if the dual team national tournament included EVERY team in Division 1? How is that possible you ask? Well, let me tell you MY thoughts!
 
1. Break the tournament up into four distinct regions. Instead of tying them to geographic locations, let's call them regions 1, 2, 3 and 4.
 
2. Break the tournament up into two weekends. The first weekend would feature (using the 76 teams in D1 as of the 2017-18 season) four, 19 team tournaments. The tournaments would have four rounds on the championship side of the bracket and would be designed to find the two finalists from each Region. Those two undefeated teams would not compete until weekend two, bringing the top eight teams from the four dual tournaments to another site two weeks later. The rest of the teams would finish the tournament out, guaranteeing each team at least two duals on the weekend, and maybe more if the coaches wanted to find a way to make it happen.
 
For an example of this, see the NWCA Multi-Divisional Dual brackets for everyone except Division 3.
 
3. Not unlike the NCAA basketball tournament, teams in each Region will be seeded 1-16, with proper seeding and the top four teams garnering the top seeds in each of the four regional tournaments. In this case, seeding is based on point scoring from the previous year's national tournament (let's use 2018, for example: found here). As you can see, Penn State would face Fresno State out of the gates in Region 1. In Region 2, Ohio State would face Cal Poly. Region 3 would feature Iowa versus Binghamton and Region 4 would start off with Michigan vs. Oklahoma U.
 
4. As I mentioned, since there are 19 teams per Region (as of the 2017-18 season), for those final 12 teams outside of the top 64, three teams are randomly drawn into each Regional site.
 
5. Those top eight teams would convene in a centralized location, say, Chicago (selfish me) and determine the top eight teams for that dual year.
 
What does any of this accomplish? Here are my thoughts:
1. Every single team is now included and has a stake in the game. That makes programs, colleges/university ADs and the NCAA very happy.
 
2. It (typically) breaks up the traditional powers. While that will change year to year, you see no more than four B10 teams in any of the brackets. 
 
3. Who can be the "bracket buster" each year? Yeah, I know... this isn't basketball. That said, what teams wouldn't relish the chance at making the "Elite Eight" by knocking off a highly ranked team? Maybe a non-traditional power each year can take advantage of injuries or lack of a gas tank... maybe?
 
4. Teams that might not normally face one another are now facing one another in this format. It's great for the sport's fan base. Here are some of the rat tail match ups that I came up with at random to give you an idea of what I mean (not all are sexy, if any):
 
Region 1:
Gardner Webb face Northern Illinois and feeds into Lock Haven
Northwestern faces Citadel and feeds into the winner of Eastern Michigan and Bloomsburg
 
Region 2:
SIUE and Stanford go at it with Pitt waiting in the wings
Bono's Wisconsin team duals Davidson, the winner then seeing Rider
Cornell and Air Force go at it, with Franklin & Marshall on the receiving end
 
Region 3:
Oklahoma State goes against VMI, who then feeds into the winner of Michigan State and Brown
SUNY Buffalo takes on Columbia U, the winner moving on to see Duke U.
 
Region 4:
Cleveland State face Iowa State and feeds into UNorth Carolina
Sacred Heart duals Clarion, with the winner going up against South Dakota State
Oregon State battles Ohio U and the winner takes on Utah Valley
 
4. Each year is something new! It's not always the same old teams dualing one another and it offers (somewhat of) an element of surprise.
 
My final thought on this is that you could even do away with conference tournaments and go to this exact same medium for individual tournaments. You place the top eight wrestlers with the one wild card per weight going to the last kid who lost to the young man who finishes seventh in each bracket. Though the teams in each region are based on last year's results, the individuals are seeded based on individual criteria.
 
Here would be the example of the teams in each region (again, based on 2017-18 results):
 
Region 1                        Region 2                         Region 3                           Region 4
1.Penn State                  2. Ohio State                   3. Iowa                               4. Michigan
64. Fresno State            63. Cal Poly                     62. Binghamton                 61. Oklahoma
32. Virginia                     31. Pitt                             30. West Virginia               29. Purdue
33. CSU Bakersfield      34. Stanford                     35. Drexel                          36. Edinboro
17. Minnesota                DI. SIUE                          19. Wyoming                      20. UNC
48. Chattanooga            18. Wisconsin                  46. North Dakota State      DI. Cleveland State
DI. Gardner Webb          DI. Davidson                   14. Oklahoma State           45. Iowa State
49. Northern Illinois        47. Rider                          DI. VMI                              13. Illinois
16. Lock Haven              15. Lehigh                        DI. Michigan State            52. Bucknell
9. Nebraska                    50. Appalachian State     51. Brown                          12. South Dakota State
56. American                  10. Arizona State             11. Rutgers                       DI. Sacred Heart
24. Northern Iowa           55. Indiana                       54. Old Dominion             53. Clarion
41. Penn                         23. Kent State                  22. Duke                           21. Oregon State
25. Northwestern            42. Army                           DI. SUNY-Buffalo             DI. Ohio U
DI. Citadel                       26. Princeton                   43. Columbia U                44. Utah Valley
40. Eastern Michigan      39. Northern Colorado     27. Maryland                    28. Hofstra
DI. Bloomsburg               7. Cornell                         38. Central Michigan        37. Navy
8. Virginia Tech               DI. Air Force                     6. Missouri                       5. NC State
57. Campbell                  58. Franklin & Marshall     59. George Mason          60. Harvard
 
DI = Drawn In (finished outside of top 64)
 
The teams (and their strengths) in each region change from year to year, and it keeps the 
 
Thoughts?

In the combat sports universe, MMA is king and everything else short of boxing (for now, thanks only to its long legacy) is small potatoes. The average Joe doesn't care about who has the best double leg, the best kimura, the best jab-cross combination or the best leg strikes, all by themselves. Blend all of those things together and people start paying attention because they want to know who the single biggest bad @$$ around is, not who can score the most nearfall points from a roll through tilt.
 
While the backgrounds/martial arts bases of the competitors might be interesting to some fans, I'm willing to bet that jiu jitsu and muay thai have seen more growth in the last 10 years, because their skills (submissions and strikes, respectively) are more practical than scoring two for a takedown. I wish it weren't so, but I do suspect as much.

Love you man, but you're wrong on this one. Erisman is a strong hire. 

Too much liquid baggage.  Plus, he'll make more than twice as much in his current role as a club coach there.  Erisman will do a good job.  ADs are doing a better job of finding the best coaches, as opposed to the most credentialed athlete.  

Maybe Henson and Chertow and be the coaches at Arkansas Little Rock.