Jump to content

Jaroslav Hasek

Members
  • Content Count

    5,798
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    86

Everything posted by Jaroslav Hasek

  1. ok, valid fears, but what about the proposed changes are going to bastardize the tournament? also, why is the current system so perfect? to truly find the best wrestler, you wouldn't limit the tournament to one wrestler per team, or to only D1 wrestlers, or require that the athletes be enrolled in a school to begin with. no one is proposing we chuck the baby out with the bathwater. whats the legitimate worst scenario you can imagine should the changes take place?
  2. are people really worried that the popularity of the individual tournament is going to suffer because of the change in the way they award the team trophy? is the concern that the wrestlers will somehow suffer, or not preform as well? i dont get what the problem is. and the way you can trust that espn knows what they are doing is they are worth about, oh, lets say 50 billion dollars. they also pay a lot of people a lot of money to figure out ways to grow a 50 billion dollar business in a competitive marketplace. please, lets not worry so much about the precious, fragile, individual tournament. its not going anywhere. they will also have a tournament to find out who the best college wrestlers are.
  3. yeah, those are some good points as to why the olympics aren't the greatest showcase for athletics. but if sport idealism meant letting the best person win no matter what, then you wouldn't want to limit each country to just one wrestler. so FILA and the world championships really aren't much better than the IOC.
  4. exactly. go to the major sports websites, espn, cbssports, etc. college wrestling doesn't even show up as a category in "other" or "olympic" sports. but college baseball does. cycling does. lacrosse does. if wrestling can't keep pace with lacrosse, an expensive regional sport with comparatively low HS participation numbers, then it is going backwards. televised sports are exploding and wrestling needs to be part of that. espn, nbc sports, big 10 network, everyone wants more school v school programming in 2 hours blocks. they don't want the all day tournaments. not yet anyway. but grow the dual meet rivalries and team dual tournament and maybe soon they will. the model is there and other sports are taking advantage of it. wrestling isn't, to it's detriment. i know change is scary but wrestlers are tough folks. they can handle some minor alterations to their competition schedules.
  5. excellent post. thank you for sharing. and the the quote above is really all anyone should need to know. espn wants a product, and that product is two colleges competing for 1.5 to 2 hours. the wrestling community should help them deliver that product. no one is asking for drastic changes. there are no weight classes being removed and no changes to rule book. its an exciting time for college wrestling.
  6. i think this is a great idea too. trying new things is a good idea. its not like you dont get to keep the sports history. that never goes away (hence, "history"). anything that emphasizes the team is good. to find the right mix, i would do everything until the team is obviously over emphasized, then dial it back a bit to proper level. its not like wrestling will ever stop being an individual sport no matter how the formats are changes. not until they allow tag-teams anyway. if you think the current system it perfect, great, im glad you enjoyed all those years of perfection. now its time to change things up to see if we can grow the sport again.
  7. at the start of the thread, you couldn't if Gatsalov and Cormier ever wrestled each other. now you're saying that when they did wrestled it defined both their careers. so i guess that means you didn't know much about either wrestler until just now?
  8. you can only be trolled if you get upset. if youre having a good time then its just engaging in some silliness. but yes, its an obvious ATTEMPT at trolling.
  9. guys, i'm just saying that when Cael was 19 years old, and wrestling 184, its possible he could have lost to the best 197 pounders in the country. just a normal thing to say to start a fun conversation with wrestling pals.
  10. except the thread you started mentions a 3 year period, not sanderson's freshman year.
  11. this is important to remember. the NCAA serves at the behest of the school presidents. the presidents more or less keep things the way they are because it keeps the alumni money rolling in (and now TV money, but thats kind of a separate issue), and no one wants to rock the boat. im not defending the NCAA in the slightest, but if you disbanded it tomorrow, something similar would just take it's place. it goes alumni>presidents>NCAA, not the other way around.
  12. i think it has something to do with a high correlation between successful teams in the Big12 and successful wrestlers on those teams in the Big12. Just a guess tho.
  13. pre law isn't an actual major. most lawyers i know were history majors. whats the point of this thread?
  14. so who was the strongest...... smelling?
  15. right, but thats a tautological definition. how do you know when you've entered in an actual competition? if i play my friend after work with 20 bucks on the line (or just pride!) then we've entered into a competition. i understand you probably mean something like official tournaments or sanctioned competitions, but then who decides what tournaments are official or not? just FILA or the comparable body for squash? or do you expand that? either way, at some point you have to make an arbitrary distinction between what counts as competitive and non-competitive. my point is no matter where you draw the distinction, you'll have more squashers (do they call them that? I'd like to start even if they don't) than wrestlers. and the reason you've stated is a big part of it. you can squash (verb form ok?) much later in life than you can wrestle. case in point, i'll never wrestle again, but im pretty sure i'll squash or racquetball a couple few more times in my life. and again, thats doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. just that there are more squashers out there, so that's probably not the best argument to use for why wrestling should be in the olympics instead of squash.
  16. how do you play squash non competitively? practicing against the wall? at some point you have to make an arbitrary distinction about what is competitive and whats not, but no matter how you slice it, i think its safe to say there are more squash players out there than freestyle and greco wrestlers. that doesn't mean that given a choice between the two, squash and not wrestling should be in the olympics. just means more play play squash, just like more people bowl then either one of them. NBD.
  17. try explaining to one of the hundreds of millions of people in india, pakistan and bangladesh (and south africa, australia, new zealand and the west indies) who play and follow cricket why its not an olympic sport. the reason squash might have a leg up over everyone is its popularity in western europe, from whence so many IOC voters hail. it's not the USA controlling things. otherwise America's two most popular sports would be in and fencing and handball would be out.
×
×
  • Create New...