Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. scramble


    There are some great matchups. How about I-Mar and Derringer. That is gonna be a great one.
  2. scramble

    Colleges a kid should wrestle at....

    Eagle, I don't disagree. That isnone reason I say it is important to be clear on the purpose when kids go to school. You are right, there are definitely kids out there that need money. Much of my work and research I do around my work is around low-socioeconimics and some around restorative justice that impacts poverty. So I completely agree fiancees are issues. Again that is where purpose comes in. There are NJCAA schools, D2 schools, and D1. I don't believe D3 gives athltic scholarships (but I could be wrong) NAIA is an option, but I have seen a lot of kids unfamiliar with the financial process not realize some if the loans in their "financial packages". Many of those schools can be quite costly. Part of the purpose why I thought about posting that list was informative. For example, D1 has a 9.9 max allocation that can be broke up. Unless you are a top recruit a person isn't getting. Full ride to PSU, tOSU, IA, or OSU. Even if you are a top recruit at those schools you probably aren't getting a full ride. A consistent top 10 school but not the top 5 may have a little more money to allocate to a blue Chip. However, a school not getting top recruits but with strong coaching (i.e. Wyoming, SDS, NDS, Oregon state) may be more inclined to give. Bluechip a good chunk or even a solid non-bluechip some money. With having to spread 9.9 scholarships (and many schools don't have that many to allocate) I think anlot of parents greatly over estimate just how much money is actually out there. However, there is also nothing wrong with a kid going juco and then on from there for financial reasons.
  3. scramble

    Colleges a kid should wrestle at....

    jchapman, yes that is what I am trying to say. You said it much more clearly though :-)
  4. scramble

    Colleges a kid should wrestle at....

    Klehner, That discussion has been had. Several times. College or trade. I don't push him at all. In fact, the only think I make him do is schedule breaks. To often kids take breaks once they are tired. The problem with that is once you realize you are tired and need a break, you are generally past the point where you should have already taken it. In the end kids burn out. Most kids only have so much fuel in the tank. Academics are first, however, the other pieces of time need to be productive. I don't care if it is band, drama, wrestling, or chess. He likes wrestling. That is his choice. I just support him and give insight in to options. It is up to him to think critically about it and then decide.
  5. scramble

    Colleges a kid should wrestle at....

    Not by them per-say, especially as a top 10. More so that outside of the top 5 I am surprised there isn't more mention of them when compared to many of the other programs that get mentioned. I will admit, seeing how many Missouri kids are in their starting line-up are from Missouri, and they still have that success was interesting. Seeing how many home state kids were in their line-up was a little surprising. I guess I would just think Missouri would be a bigger school of choice for more out of state kids not attending PSU, OSU, tOSU, Iowa, or without the grades for Cornell. So I guess it is surprising to me that Missouri doesn't seem to be in the discussion of recruits more than they. ASU, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, etc, seem to get more recruiting attention.
  6. scramble

    Colleges a kid should wrestle at....

    agree that people know if they follow wrestling. I was looking into the statistical side of it more out of curiosity. Anyone would note the top 4 or 5 teams. It is extremely obvious. What I found interesting was not the top teams, but the teams after that, and then the falloff after that. Me personally, I have a pretty extensive understanding of the college level and beyond, but for me personally, it is generally intriguing when actual numbers are put next to things.
  7. scramble

    Colleges a kid should wrestle at....

    Correct, here is what I told my son, 1) If you want to wrestle, then wrestle, period. Scholarships are great, but they are not as big or as big as people think; especially in non-revenue sports like wrestling. 2) If you base your decision on scholarship money, and you don't end up happy where your decision lands then you are likely to not do good in school, quit, come home, or all of the above. At that point, the scholarship money becomes irrelevant. 3) First, you have to decide if you want to wrestle. If you think you might want, then you need to continue doing things right between now an then so that you have the choice when the time comes. As long as you keep doing things how you are now, and maintain an upward trajectory, then you don't have to decide right now, but you have to prepare as if you are; especially in the classroom. 4) Then decide the purpose you want to wrestle. To be a national champ, an all-American, a varsity guy, to be part of a national championship, or just to wrestle for your favorite school. There is no wrong choice. Just the right choice for you and the right choice for others. 5) Once you know the purpose, find the schools that fulfil that. Then pick. Scholly money is irrelevant. That is my approach with him.
  8. My son asked me about wrestling in college so I did some digging. I found it interesting and decided to share I looked up the last 10 years of team wrestling stats for four categories to give an overview of schools when kids are considering where to go. I believe it is important that kids first decide what they want from wrestling in college first. The four categories I looked at were schools that produced individual national champions, and how many individual titles were earned. For example, Cornell had Kyle Dake. Therefore Dake would be 1 national champion, but responsible for 4 individual titles (1 person - 4 titles). I felt this helped keep a program who had two or 3 studs from inflating the development of individuals who earned the championships if that makes sense. The other categories were teams that earned a trophy (had a top 4 finish) as a team. I felt this was good for displaying the number of all-Americans produced. The last was top 10 finishes. I felt this indicated consistency and teams who have some balance between all-Americans, and national qualifiers. Obviously, it is not an exact science, but it gave an interesting snapshot. Top 5 teams: These teams were Top 5 in all four categories. Their order varied, but in each category the landed in the top 5. Individual champions: 1) Penn State -- 12 2-T) Cornell -- 7 2-T) Iowa - 7 4-T) tOSU- 5 4-T) OSU - Individual Titles 1) Penn State - 20 2) Cornell - 11 3) tOSU - 10 4) OSU - 9 5) Iowa - 8 Team Titles 1) Penn State - 7 2) Iowa - 2 3) tOSU -1 Everyone Else - 0 Trophies Earned (top 4) 1) Iowa - 9 2) Penn State - 7 3-T) tOSU -5 3-T) OSU - 5 5-T) Cornell - 3 5-T) Minnesota - 3 Top 10 Finishes 1-T) Cornell - 10 1-T) Iowa -10 3-T) Penn State - 9 3-T) OSU - 9 5) tOSU - 8 So... Cornell, Iowa, PSU, Ohio State, Ok-state hold down the top 5 in all 4 areas. The next 5 were a little more of a mix. However, the team that popped out to me, because you don't hear them talked about much is Missouri. Only Missouri and Minnesota show up in the top 10 in all four categories. People seem to talk about Minnesota with good programs, but there seems to be a lot of other programs out there that get mentioned before Missouri. However, Missouri shows up in the top 10 in all the other categories when no team but the ones already mentioned do. You seem to hear more about Arizona, Nebraska, Michigan, and even Virginia tech more. Individual Champions 6-T) Missouri - 4 6-T) Iowa State - 4 8-T) NC State - 3 8-T) Arizona - 3 10-T) Minnesota, Michigan, Oklahoma, Northwestern, Lehigh, Illinois - 2 Individual Titles 6) Missouri - 6 7) Iowa State - 5 8-T) NC State - 4 8-T) Illinois - 4 10-T) Arizona, Minnesota, Michigan - 3 Trophies Earned (Top 4) 7) Iowa State - 2 8-T) Missouri, NC State, Michigan, Nebraska, Edinboro, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech - 1 Top 10 finishes 6-T) Missouri - 7 6-T) Minnesota - 7 8) Virginia Tech - 6 9) Nebraska - 5 10) Illinois - 4 I find the top 10 finishes most interesting because it indicates consistency in a program. It seems to be a balance between being able to produce a national champion, consistently producing all-Americans, and getting a lot of guys to the NCAA tournament as qualifiers. With Dresser now at ISU, you could make a good case that V-techs stats could transfer to ISU potential if looking at colleges. Minnesota has faded some since the J-Rob incident, and a consideration of NC State and Michigan with the semi-recent to recent changes there. ISU stats are mostly the couple years after Cael (the back end of the 10 years) Michigan, NC State, and ASU stats are more recent. The upper half of the last decade Minnesota was the back end of the ten years also when J-Rob was there. Missouri was interesting because it is the most spread out, showing consistency over the last 10-years. ** As I said, Missouri was interesting because you hear a lot less about them than other teams. Also, in the midwest, you battle with recruits with OSU and IA regarding their in-state kids. You also hear about Ok and IA at the high school level some. Ohio is a strong HS state, and so is Pennsylvania. So I looked at Missouri a little closer. Yes, it is a pretty strong HS state, but not to the degree of some of the east coast teams, California, and probably not OK. Yet potentially 8 of the 10 starters for Missouri will be from Missouri and their preseason rank is 8th. All six of the ranked kids are Missouri kids, and if Junior World Champ Elam doesn't redshirt they could have 7 ranked kids on the team from Missouri high schools. So, 1) they do a very good job at keeping the best kids in the state home. 2) I find it surprising more high level, or blue chip kids don't look at Missouri harder. If they did, Missouri would very likely be a perennial top 5.
  9. scramble

    Dake = Dynamic

    I agree. Especially with Cox. He should beat World Gold medalist David Taylor in a couple of trial, and get a World and Olympic medal before he is considered a real threat at an Olymic weight. Oh wait. I think he already did. Dake and Cox are the best in the world at their weight class in the year 2018. ALL championships are an indication of where and athlete is at a given point in time. It is not necessarily longitudinal. Would have could have is a reference of potential. Potential is a position in the absence of action. To say get rid of weights because they are not Olympic weights does not make since necessarily. Sports should not be structured because of a once in four year tournament. Yes the Olympics is huge because you only get two shots in a decade in most cases. We shouldn't rewrite the weights because if it certainly does not diminish the ackomplishement. If you hold those.weoghts then you probably need to hold all weights the year after the Olympics since there are athletes that take off that year or retire and get replaced with a newrepresentative. Also if we say non-olympic weights lack depth then we could say that making them Olympic weights would water down the previous Olympic weights.
  10. scramble

    Next Olympics

    While it is possible that J'den goes back down to 86kg, it would not surprise me if he went up to 97kg. I don't think there is that much separation between him and Snyder personally. While it has been a while, Cox and Snyder have gone back and forth. Nevertheless, if he were to go down, I don't think there is a clear favorite for any of the three (Cox, Snyder, DT). DT vs. Cox- Cox advantages are size, strength, and freak athleticism. DT advantages- Gas tank, and toolbox size of technique. ; Cox vs. Snyder: Cox advantage Speed and freak athleticism. ; Snyder advantage- strength and freestyle savvy. These guys are all so close and the best in the world at their respective weights. Reasons I think J'den will go up. He is only going to get bigger in two years, not smaller. The 2016 cut to 86kg was a hard pull from what I remember. If he doesn't beat Snyder then the drop back to 92kg for the non-olympic worlds would be a pretty easy transition. As another poster said somewhere else, having the non-olympic weight worlds is still pretty special. I think this will help with the decision some athletes make. I definitely think Dake goes down to 74kg. If I hear correctly, he said in his interview after winning gold that he was 3kg under. During the battles of the past, I have always thought JB wins. However, in 2020 I think Dake prevails. Regardless, we I think we need both Dake and JB at this weight. Dake has had quite a few injuries the last couple of years. JB has dealt with some injuries the last couple of years. Having both of them here gives USA a buffer zone since it is not unreasonable that either of these wrestlers could sustain another injury. It seems like we see someone getting hurt before World Championship at some weight often. Hopefully whoever doesn't represent in the Olympics will go up to the non-olympic weight for the World portion. Other scenarios are If a miracle were to happen and they added Olympic weights, or if they adjust weights again prior to the Olympics. The weight adjustment doesn't seem completely out of the question.