Jump to content

AZCO

Members
  • Content Count

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Most all of those things are included, and vital aspects of a top wrestling program (community service, part-time jobs are usually always allowed, socializing responsibly, networking opportunities/job fairs, ample study time, etc.. Not to mention the values, time management skills, and relationships built through wrestling in college. Not everyone is a scholarship student-athlete out of the gate (not saying your son is not), but like anything in life, if you work for it scholarships are usually given. Also, like Swayz said- the NJCAA route is not the biggest negative. Knock out your gen eds. and move on to a four year school to focus on your degree program.
  2. I didn't read through all 5 pages, but the returning champs have all of their NC's coming back. I'd say they're the favorites. Buuut go Hawks! EDIT: And Devils!!
  3. I am also fairly in the loop with that program (both from a coaching and competitive standpoint). IMO one issue with college wrestling is coaches often get a pass for average results. Don't get me wrong, Coach Jensen did a heck of a lot for that program in his prime...they even won a DII title back in the late 90's. But the thing is they have not been very competitive on a national level for many, many years. SFSU is really affordable (although COL is obviously high in SF), in a pretty attractive location recruiting-wise, and should be a perennial top DII team. Especially in a state with now 0 DII programs outside of SF State. I think it was pretty nice to offer him the opportunity to apply for the position instead of firing him outright- although the writing was likely on the wall. Many coaches in virtually every sport across all divisions are not afforded that opportunity. It would have been cool for them to offer him another position within the college or dept., but with budget cuts across the country and SF being an expensive place to live it's not too far fetched to believe that this was not an option from a budget standpoint. Facts are facts, and to answer Old Dirty's questions for you (and yes, I am 100% clear on the DII mission and model of "life in the balance" and focusing on more than just athletics), although it is difficult for me to rate those on a number scale I'll give my rating: Recruiting: 3-6? Community and university presence: 1-4? Athletic results: 1-3 (for example, they didn't even have a national qualifier this year) EDIT: "In the loop" could be considered a stretch, as I was never directly tied to that program.
  4. What the heck is the mascot walking the wrestlers to the podium supposed to be?
  5. Sanderson was just so technical. I feel like he could have slowed Cox down a bit more than most, and negated some of his athleticism (think Pendleton staying technically sound and negating Askren's scrambling-as much as someone could at least). I know Moore is a stud, but he did push Cox to OT last year too.
  6. Dang, he had a heck of a national duals his jr. year -Ed Aliakseyenka (Montclair St.) W-TF, 6:45 -Josh Lambrecht (Oklahoma) W-MD, 16-8 -Daniel Cormier (Oklahoma St.) W-MD, 14-3 -Andy Hrovat (Michigan) W-F, :38 -Jessman Smith (Iowa) W-TF, 6:44 -Daniel Cormier (Oklahoma State) W-D, 10-3
  7. I'll attempt to recognize that more, I'm new to sports. I do think they get it right most of the time...that's why there isn't a challenge every minute of the match- coaches don't have to make them. What I am saying though is the people that are making the challenge are not watching from TV, or the stands. They are on the same mat as the guy reffing, just a different angle. I think the coaches know the sport pretty well, and it just seems like they lose a lot of challenges.
  8. This is a great rule! There should absolutely be an independent, unbiased official to do the review. I would be willing to bet if you go back and look at every review over the last X number of years you would find that the amount of times a ref changes his initial call is pretty low. I just find it really difficult to believe that the refs are right as much as they are (I 100% understand that you only have the one camera angle, and realistically coaches should be aware of where the camera is at, and its' angle before challenging). As tough as officiating is made out to be, it's not that difficult- winning a tough match is considerably harder. I could go on about it, but the tournament should have a couple refs (4 for the whole tourney and 2 for the finals?) at the table who are "review officials." The entire crew of officials should draw for the review official positions before the tournament. That way it's not lesser qualified officials doing the reviews. When a challenge is made one of their computers should get randomely selected at the table, and that's the ref that reviews the call. That's tough to beat if you ask me EDIT: oh ya, and there should be a time limit (45 seconds?). If the ruling can't be made in that time, it was probably too close and the call should stand
  9. New reply rules: 1.) Have X number of officials working in a "review area." Each official has their own video screen in the review area. When a challenge is made on a mat one of the reveiw officials is randomly selected to review that given challenge. The review officials' only job is to review challenges (maybe they can switch roles for day two). 2.) The review officials have 30-45 seconds (is 45 too long?) to make a call on the challenge, if it is not made in that time frame the call stands. 3.) If a coach loses a challenge it is a stall call to the wrestler. (I think coaches would challenge less with this rule in place)
  10. What is face value for the semis (session 4)? And how difficult would it be to get tickets for the semi-final round this late in the game?
  11. Sadly, I have moved on...it was a more elegant email host, for a more civilazed age. I am a gmailer now.
  12. 25 Gilman dec. 3-0 33- Clark dec. 6-0 (unless it’s the back up. Then MD. A tech, or pin isn’t out of the question either. If it’s Carpenter, remember how his match with Montoya went) 41- Carton 9-0 49- Retherford dec. 9-3 (Sorenson’s position, familiarity, and Carver keep this to a dec.) 57- Nolf dec. 9-6 (could be a MD) 65- Joseph dec. Gunther 9-9 *74- Meyer dec. Morelli 12-9 (Rasheed dec. Meyer) (swing match) *84- Nickal dec. Brooks 12-12 (swing match. Brooks could win this one, and I don’t see a big move from Nickal) 97 Mccutcheon dec Wilcke 15-12 *285- Nevills dec Stoll. 18-12 (swing match. I think Stoll will have a hard time pushing Nevills around, BUT physicality wins, and he might be able to wear Nevills down.)
  13. Maybe, but I think the head coach at OSU is pretty good at coaching freestyle too
  14. I think winning on criteria is cruddy. My fix: a 1 minute (or longer?) sudden victory overtime period, and if there is no score in that minute they go to the over/under clinch. The last to score gets the first lock. Each wrestler gets 1 "free," break of his lock once they start wrestling from the clinch. On the 2nd break that wrestler loses.
×
×
  • Create New...