Jump to content

DocRevue

Members
  • Content Count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DocRevue

  1. Hawk fans need to move on from this injury thing, it seems the athlete has. Maybe he just didn't perform well at the National Tournament, it happens.If all you folks "wondering" about McD aren't able to ascertain something so obvious on your own, there is no explanation I can give you that you'll be able to digest and rationalize anyway, so it really is a waste of my time. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. If anything, this thread enhances my belief that common sense isn't all that common. How about we just go with this then to appease the herd................... he wasn't hurt, looked really good all year, just so happens that all these other juggernauts just improved to the point where poor ol' McD just couldn't hang with the likes of Trent Sprenkle any more. Happens to the best of them. Good Day Gents Something was clearly wrong with McDonough, but that's kind of a cheap shot at Sprenkle, or at least comes off as one. Sprenkle is no slouch, put himself in a position to AA, and took McD as he found him. I'm sure you didn't mean to slight Sprinkle, but "the likes of" gives a negative connotation.
  2. I'm not saying Mark would win, but he's being sold short in this thread. Mark was as athletic as any American wrestler, ever. In his prime he was a lot of things but immobile was not one of them. And he would be very hard to handle in the present 2-2-(2) freestyle format.
  3. Why do we alway look for other people to fund our programs? We all say 'we need to find a wealthy donor to donate $100,000 a year towards our endowment to help us be safer but we need more people giving their own money. Why don't we have 100 people giving $1,000 a year or 200 people giving $500 a year? Everyone who is on this board should be writing checks to programs. It is easier to upset one donor than it is to upset a bunch of donors. Sadly, too many people, and often those that had success on the mat and were on scholarship, are the ones that don't open their check books rather they feel as though they are a part of the sport and give in other ways. If you're not giving money, you're not giving anything necessary to ensure there is a program. And fyi: attending camps doesn't count as giving money to a program. If you're a Penn State fan who enjoys programs coming into your gym so you can beat up on them, you certainly have an interest in helping them stay around so you can enjoy them returning for many years. There is nothing wrong with writing a check to Rider or Lock Haven as a Penn State fan. I mean, I seriously doubt any Penn State, right now, thinks that their donation will make Penn State lose a National Title to one of these schools. The same is true for all of the other programs. We need all these programs more than people realize. How many people have ever reached out to an administrator at a school to thank them for the program or to compliment them on the success of one of their athletes? We all know that Sacred Heart is the weakest program in Division-I right now. But how many of you know that they have New York State Champion and NHSCA SR National Champion, TJ Fabian, joining the program in the fall? How much of an impact do you think it would have if you sent a letter to the administration thanking them for the program and letting them know you were excited about the program landing a top prospect and then included a check for $50 or $100 earmarked for the wrestling program? How many people enjoyed watching Franklin & Marshall's Richard Durso win the EIWAs and make a run to the quarterfinals at nationals? How significant do you think it would be to the Division-III school's administrators if you sent them a letter stating how much you enjoyed watching their student compete and included a $50 or $100 check to the wrestling endowment? The reality is that the less funding the program has, the more significant the impact micro donors have. You can give $100 to Iowa and it doesn't have much of an impact and get noticed but there are many other programs that are in need of a new bike or practice room mats or something and will be very appreciative. Well, I should have said all true except for one point. It is NOT necessarily easier for a school to get away with pissing off one donor rather than many microdonors. Microdonors who are disappointed will send letters, sign petitions, piss and moan, and go away. A disappointed T. Boone Pickens will ruin you.
  4. BYU had a wrestling friendly AD (Rondo Fehlberg) but no administrative or true booster support for its program. Fehlberg was run out and the program was dropped. Obviously, it is better to have a wrestling friendly AD than not, and AD's have more pull than coaches. That said, AD's still have to answer to the administration, the administration still has to answer to the board, and everyone has to answer to the boosters. You want to keep programs, get some wealthy, aggressive, assertive boosters. Money talks. Why do we alway look for other people to fund our programs? We all say 'we need to find a wealthy donor to donate $100,000 a year towards our endowment to help us be safer but we need more people giving their own money. Why don't we have 100 people giving $1,000 a year or 200 people giving $500 a year? Everyone who is on this board should be writing checks to programs. It is easier to upset one donor than it is to upset a bunch of donors. Sadly, too many people, and often those that had success on the mat and were on scholarship, are the ones that don't open their check books rather they feel as though they are a part of the sport and give in other ways. If you're not giving money, you're not giving anything necessary to ensure there is a program. And fyi: attending camps doesn't count as giving money to a program. If you're a Penn State fan who enjoys programs coming into your gym so you can beat up on them, you certainly have an interest in helping them stay around so you can enjoy them returning for many years. There is nothing wrong with writing a check to Rider or Lock Haven as a Penn State fan. I mean, I seriously doubt any Penn State, right now, thinks that their donation will make Penn State lose a National Title to one of these schools. The same is true for all of the other programs. We need all these programs more than people realize. How many people have ever reached out to an administrator at a school to thank them for the program or to compliment them on the success of one of their athletes? We all know that Sacred Heart is the weakest program in Division-I right now. But how many of you know that they have New York State Champion and NHSCA SR National Champion, TJ Fabian, joining the program in the fall? How much of an impact do you think it would have if you sent a letter to the administration thanking them for the program and letting them know you were excited about the program landing a top prospect and then included a check for $50 or $100 earmarked for the wrestling program? How many people enjoyed watching Franklin & Marshall's Richard Durso win the EIWAs and make a run to the quarterfinals at nationals? How significant do you think it would be to the Division-III school's administrators if you sent them a letter stating how much you enjoyed watching their student compete and included a $50 or $100 check to the wrestling endowment? The reality is that the less funding the program has, the more significant the impact micro donors have. You can give $100 to Iowa and it doesn't have much of an impact and get noticed but there are many other programs that are in need of a new bike or practice room mats or something and will be very appreciative. All true BUT you need macrodonors because they have pull. They have connections, they have lawyers, and they have a source of funds that board members and administrators (who are all essentially professional fund raisers) can't afford to alienate.
  5. BYU had a wrestling friendly AD (Rondo Fehlberg) but no administrative or true booster support for its program. Fehlberg was run out and the program was dropped. Obviously, it is better to have a wrestling friendly AD than not, and AD's have more pull than coaches. That said, AD's still have to answer to the administration, the administration still has to answer to the board, and everyone has to answer to the boosters. You want to keep programs, get some wealthy, aggressive, assertive boosters. Money talks.
  6. I don't understand the idea that there is a moral imperative that wrestling (or any other sport) be part of the modern Olympic games. What are at work here are market and societal forces. It's not per se right or wrong to include or exclude any sport from the Olympics. I know this is heresy for a wrestling fan, but the fact is that the "oldest and greatest sport" defense never has and never will help wrestling overcome market and societal pressures. Wrestling has to bring value to the table and we need to effectively deal with the social issues contributing to its current state if we want the sport to survive.
  7. I always felt that Lincoln McIlravy had a style and a career similar to those of Kolat.
  8. A healthy Howe at 174 is a tough match-up for Taylor. An injury-hampered Howe at 165, on the other hand - interesting match.
  9. Pat Smith is vastly underrated.
  10. Why is it so hard to accept that maybe Dake is the Cael/Schultz in this match up? Dake's a beast, man. The near reversal showed this - Taylor is a great rider, and Dake just shook him off like the Incredible Hulk.
  11. Exactly. Dake rode Taylor's guts out. It's hard to be aggressive when you're just trying to get to a base. Midway through the third period, Taylor looked shot. Then, like the champ he is, Taylor got it together and made a run at Dake, and it wasn't enough. Two great wrestlers and a good match. I know Taylor is amazing but Dake finished 3-0 against him in folk. Dake just really is that good.
  12. Hasn't Burroughs been pretty clear all along that he has little to no interest in MMA?
  13. Because two years away from wrestling hurts more kids that it helps. During a mission it is really easy to get away from the grind that kids knew in high school and college wrestling. And while these kids come back older, they don't come back with any more wrestling experience than they had when they left. The mission time is not equivalent to a redshirt year because a redshirt spends that year on the mat. A missionary does not. Also, a lot of kids experience a change in mindset and it can be really tough for them to want to get back on the mat. Brown is an obvious exception. Justin Ruiz, Ben Kjar and Andrew Hochstrasser all had success after their missions, as well, as did Luke Lofthouse (to an extent). But even though each of those guys had success, I think they had it in spite of their mission time rather than because of it.
  14. I think the two year mission tends to hurt wrestlers, actually. I think it can help athletes in some other sports.
  15. The same exemption applies to military service and "recognized foreign aid services of the U.S. government." I'm not advocating for or against the rule, just stating what it is. Somebody lobbied hard, apparently. It's been the rule for many years, although I don't know exactly when it was instituted.
  16. It applies to "all official religious missions," whatever that means.
  17. The time spent on a mission is expressly exempted from the five year rule.
  18. JB, with the media experience you have, I'm interested in your viewpoint. Do you personally think the NCAA's (i.e. college wrestling season) is at the optimal time? Or if you could change it, where would you place it? My only argument against baseball is that popularity seems to be declining in baseball and wrestling doesn't have much crossover with the sport in terms of fan base, at least compared to football. Baseball really isn't very interesting until the post-season. I think his point is that even if there is not much fan crossover, the media resources that are used to cover the tournament for, say, ESPN, are not going to be there once baseball season opens. Wrestling is on ESPN right now because CBS has March Madness locked down and baseball (which ESPN devotes enormous coverage resources to) doesn't start until April. The value of the tournament for ESPN (as a way of competing for eyeballs with CBS) goes down dramatically once MLB opens.
  19. MLB isn't slipping at all. ESPN just ran an article regarding the fact that MLB teams overall have gained an incredible amount of value over the past five years in spite of the economy. There is a perception among non-baseball fans that it is slipping because there are not tons of games on the major networks. The reason for this is that baseball has gone regional - each team essentially has its own cable channel (in most cases a Fox Sports affiliate) that broadcasts nearly every one of its games. Additionally, MLB Network broadcasts tons of games. And if you don't think people are watching those games, well, you're wrong. More people watch (or listen to) the Cubs lose on any given Sunday afternoon than have ever watched any NCAA wrestling tournament. Further, unlike the NFL, MLB is popular in a number of countries outside the US. Wrestling could learn a lot from the people who market baseball.
  20. The frustration with the Stalemate rule, isn't in the RULE... it's in the APPLICATION and/or interpretation of it. A 'TRUE' stalemate is where neither wrestler can't improve with out giving up their position. Over many years, it has migrated it's way to "let's get a fresh start". EVEN at the NCAA tournament it is being called incorrectly (thus leading to many fans frustration with stalling) Don't mistake a stoppage and return to the center, due to a lack of action on the edge call for a stalemate. This IS the correct call.... (but often times the signal for a stalemate is show - which is incorrect) In the neutral position - 50/50 collar tie ups, over/under tie ups, IS often Stalemated... WHY...?? There used to be a REGULAR official at the DI's that would call these stalemates ALL DAY LONG... He even produced a DVD in order to TEACH his officiating techniques.. In one match he called 8 Stalemates in the 1st period... in neutral tie ups...WHERE there was NO Stalemate. That's an average of about a stalemate every 22 seconds... !! Those Neutral stalemates are outright ridiculous, and really don't have ANY rule to support their call. There was one match (either in the semi's of finals) that a stalemate was called when the top wrestler had a collar and waist ... I was floored.... I can't get away with that call...it's kind of a use it or loose it deal... it was a stall call... gone bad... By calling some of these stalemates (when there isn't one.) This leads all of our "...we need more stall calls.." posters to stand up and scream.. A coach once said to me (after his top wrestler was called for stalling for 'riding' legs with NO improvement), "...what's he supposed to do.. take the legs out... ", and you guessed it... I responded with "....well, yeah.." Mind you, the leg ride was stalemated 2x prior to the Stall call... I'm just stating this... : You may think it... but this is the reality... The coaches may say they want more stalling... BUT not when it's their guy.... Therefore, the result it that there are MORE and MORE bizarre stalemates being called. If the coaches could live with more stall calls (against their own guys) ... we'd probably see some of these Stalemates turned into stall calls... or even better... the wrestlers would voluntarily improve their position. Or bottom man just get off the bottom. It's a little perplexing to me that people familiar with folkstyle wrestling think the bottom man should be rewarded with a restart or even a stall call for letting the legs come in and laying on his belly.
  21. [Agreed. Wrestlers are very cannabalistic towards the accomplishments of others when they feel their guy or team is overshadowed or not getting the appropriate accolades - even when another team or individual is simply better. Not wrestlers. Wrestling fans.
  22. Tirapell - Absolutely. There have been many good changes to the sport over the years, and there are certainly many positive changes yet to be made. Discussion about possible changes is great.
  23. Actually, why not just ****can "potentially dangerous"? If a wrestler has allowed himself to get to a bad position, why bail him out? Make him wrestle his way out of it or bail. Potentially dangerous kills a ton of scoring opportunities.
×
×
  • Create New...