Jump to content
treep2000

NCAA Eligibility - WHY does this Concept Exist

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, treep2000 said:

But... for the guy/gal that is individually wealthy, good enough to keep it going, and wants to stay in school forever and a day, then who are we to say they can't compete? 

The only "We" here are the member schools (Iowa State, UTEP, NC State, etc) who are members of the Association (NCAA).  And they have the power to say because it is their association and their teams.

Any slot taken by one student-athlete displaces another student-athlete.  Schools look out for themselves which includes their own community stakeholders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pinnum said:

It applies the same reason professional league player associations push for minimum salaries based on years of service.  The point of these policies is to get more athlete the opportunity to compete.

College freshmen have traditionally not been ready to compete.  For the longest time college freshmen couldn't even compete at the varsity level.  These rules get more people engaged in college athletics.  It serves more people and it fits in with the whole college mission.

Without a doubt, it would make college sports look bad to have someone playing for ten years.

To answer your question of why it exists: Because no one wants it to go away.  There's no one that has a problem with it.  Great athletes move on to professional opportunities.  There are tons of opportunities for people.  College is great but people recognize that it is limited and frankly even those who are loving their time don't want to be in that state long term. 

There is no one pushing for a change. 

(Note: When I say "no one" I don't mean that you can't find a single person.  You can find someone to support any policy issue no matter how crazy it might be.  But there is no measurable faction of stakeholders that have ever shown an interest in taking up the issue.) 

So it's kinda like the Matrix... where everyone's a plugged in battery and no one knows the wiser... or... it's kinda like working at a company for 35 years, and not pushing for innovation, because "that's the way it's always been done".  

There are rules/laws, like these... that no one bothers to question, but are on the books, and are downright dumb/silly/unecessary:  https://www.bncjlaw.com/Blog/2014/May/Strange-Arizona-Laws.html

Same goes for the eligibility rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

The only "We" here are the member schools (Iowa State, UTEP, NC State, etc) who are members of the Association (NCAA).  And they have the power to say because it is their association and their teams.

Any slot taken by one student-athlete displaces another student-athlete.  Schools look out for themselves which includes their own community stakeholders.

i know "who" makes the rules... i'm questioning the rule itself, it's grounding, and it's overall need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrDream said:

Just when I didn't think the topics could get any weirdererererer.......

 

Here we are......

You haven't been on this board very long then.. they get MUCH weirderererererer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, treep2000 said:

i know "who" makes the rules... i'm questioning the rule itself, it's grounding, and it's overall need.

Treep it seems that you are pretty dead set on getting this changed. 

Why stop there? What makes a "Cadet" a "Cadet"....who cares if they aren't 15, if a 28 year old can still compete with them, let them. 

1). I don't think the point of the higher education system is to be a haven for athletes looking to win 15 NCAA titles.....especially when they are over 24....Heck 24 is too old for guys to be competing. 

2). What would "college" wrestling turn into then? Guys who are 24-34 who aren't good enough to wrestle at the Olympic/International level who just want to keep wrestling? Seems very weird. 

3). I don't think there would be a huge audience. Most guys who want to keep wrestling after college will try it and realize pretty quick if they are good enough to compete at that level. Most who aren't hang around longer due the fact that they took up coaching and are in a room every day, so heck why not train when I'm in there. Most guys who aren't coaches that compete at the Senior level are fully sponsored high end wrestling athletes. Or guys who enjoy making minimal money while still engaging in a game. 

Again...this who concept is all very weird to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zebra said:

Treep, if you're going to add a link about dumb laws male it the right one. 

 

http://www.dumblaws.com/

 

Some real doozies on this website.  Check out Oklahoma, 6 down on the list. 

Awesome!

There are some dumb laws out there, but I think nearly all of the Colorado laws listed are reasonable (or invalidated)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, treep2000 said:

So it's kinda like the Matrix... where everyone's a plugged in battery and no one knows the wiser... or... it's kinda like working at a company for 35 years, and not pushing for innovation, because "that's the way it's always been done".  

 

No.  Not even a little bit.

Clearly this thread isn't going anywhere... If you want to lobby your cause, you can do so.  But I have a feeling you'll find that there isn't any support of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

 

No.  Not even a little bit.

Clearly this thread isn't going anywhere... If you want to lobby your cause, you can do so.  But I have a feeling you'll find that there isn't any support of your position.

But if you are connected to the matrix you would not know it therefore not understand the complexities of nor extent of the mind control the Architect is imposing upon you. Your rational could therefore be flawed. Remember "There is no spoon." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 10:12 AM, TobusRex said:

When I was 26-27 I was eviscerating 18 and 19 year olds on the mat, and that was after 7 or 8 years of not wrestling at all. Men get stronger as they age (and more savvy), until they hit their mid-30s. That's why Baumgartner was able to hang around for so long internationally (and winning consistently).  I'd say any man in their mid twenties, or older, has a gigantic edge on the kids. That edge isn't gone until he loses his physical edge, which may be a long, LONG time if he takes care of himself. Hell, Andre Metzger at the age of 50ish won a few matches trying to make the National Team a few years ago. Sure, he ain't what he was at 25, but he's a helluva a lot better than nearly every guy in his weight in this country anyway.

Bingo.  As a 27-28 year old, run of the mill D1 national qualifiers were a joke to "roll around" with but as a 22 year old I had to be at peak ability to just barely beat (and lose to).

Plus, isn't the intent of going to college is to get a degree?

I wish we had the same problem as football and basketball and a draft.  Imagine Fix and a greater extent Yianni leaving NCAA wrestling for greener pastures.  Imagine if Snyder quit after his sophomore year.

Meanwhile certain state schools are trying to make 25 year old "college" wrestlers normal.

Just when things are improving for our sport, we have a strange way of making ourselves stranger with public perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule can’t be to prevent an age advantage... it does not do that. Delayed enrollment, military, etc. can allow for college athletes to be any age. Plus I think most are exaggerating the advantage a few years in your 20s plays anyway. Look at all the freshman NCAA champs and how well our young guys do in the Senior Circuit. I believe it is an important rule because many athletes at that age do not see the big picture and would delay their graduation to achieve their athletic goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MrDream said:

Treep it seems that you are pretty dead set on getting this changed. 

Why stop there? What makes a "Cadet" a "Cadet"....who cares if they aren't 15, if a 28 year old can still compete with them, let them. 

1). I don't think the point of the higher education system is to be a haven for athletes looking to win 15 NCAA titles.....especially when they are over 24....Heck 24 is too old for guys to be competing. 

2). What would "college" wrestling turn into then? Guys who are 24-34 who aren't good enough to wrestle at the Olympic/International level who just want to keep wrestling? Seems very weird. 

3). I don't think there would be a huge audience. Most guys who want to keep wrestling after college will try it and realize pretty quick if they are good enough to compete at that level. Most who aren't hang around longer due the fact that they took up coaching and are in a room every day, so heck why not train when I'm in there. Most guys who aren't coaches that compete at the Senior level are fully sponsored high end wrestling athletes. Or guys who enjoy making minimal money while still engaging in a game. 

Again...this who concept is all very weird to me. 

The bolded statement above is the key here.  

In all of the justifications that i've seen thus far, I'm desperately wanting to, and still failing to see, the root of "why" this rule exists.  

Age is relative - As other posters have stated, we have 18 year old true freshman winning NCAA (and World) championships.  

Degree is the intention - Couldn't agree more.  My use-case is all about that student athlete that wishes to pursue continued education, OUTSIDE of scholarship monies, on their own dime. 

Why is it frowned upon that older men (i.e. 30+) shouldn't wrestle?  This is absolutely baffling to me.  This is probably one of the bigger reasons why the sport is destined to stay a tiny, small, niche sport in high schools, college, and why MMA is stealing the futures of the wrestler away.  The Ageism is profound, and unless you're a coach, you shouldn't compete?  Really?  Masters Tournaments are USA Wrestling sanctioned events, and the age brackets go up to 65+.  

Clearly the indoctrination and "how things have always been" is simply too strong.  

Do I have enough energy to continue the argument.  Nope.  It doesn't affect me.  More than anything, I wanted to prompt some thoughtful discussion, and ask some "tougher" questions about "why"...  and instead, we're faced with putting Brawndo on Plants, because it has electrolytes, and its what plants crave.  Why not water?  Because... they never used water before... and it doesn't have electrolytes.  

Why not allow wrestling beyond the current eligibility rules?  Because someone in an association said so, with very little reason, and we accept it fully because we were told that its how things should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, treep2000 said:

The bolded statement above is the key here.  

In all of the justifications that i've seen thus far, I'm desperately wanting to, and still failing to see, the root of "why" this rule exists.  

Age is relative - As other posters have stated, we have 18 year old true freshman winning NCAA (and World) championships.  

Degree is the intention - Couldn't agree more.  My use-case is all about that student athlete that wishes to pursue continued education, OUTSIDE of scholarship monies, on their own dime. 

Why is it frowned upon that older men (i.e. 30+) shouldn't wrestle?  This is absolutely baffling to me.  This is probably one of the bigger reasons why the sport is destined to stay a tiny, small, niche sport in high schools, college, and why MMA is stealing the futures of the wrestler away.  The Ageism is profound, and unless you're a coach, you shouldn't compete?  Really?  Masters Tournaments are USA Wrestling sanctioned events, and the age brackets go up to 65+.  

Clearly the indoctrination and "how things have always been" is simply too strong.  

Do I have enough energy to continue the argument.  Nope.  It doesn't affect me.  More than anything, I wanted to prompt some thoughtful discussion, and ask some "tougher" questions about "why"...  and instead, we're faced with putting Brawndo on Plants, because it has electrolytes, and its what plants crave.  Why not water?  Because... they never used water before... and it doesn't have electrolytes.  

Why not allow wrestling beyond the current eligibility rules?  Because someone in an association said so, with very little reason, and we accept it fully because we were told that its how things should be.

So....I'm still confused.....

Who would utilize this? Guys that can compete at the international level still would. Guys who would want to keep competing but aren't good enough have a outlet in college (by your proposal) but would have to enroll at the University to be eligible....that's a tough sell. 

Forget what the rule is now, when people create policy, they should always (I say should) create the policy because they see there's a need....I personally don't believe there is a huge need. I think they could change the rule and it wouldn't affect many people....meaning not a lot of wrestlers would stay in college longer than needed to chase a title.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MrDream said:

So....I'm still confused.....

Who would utilize this? Guys that can compete at the international level still would. Guys who would want to keep competing but aren't good enough have a outlet in college (by your proposal) but would have to enroll at the University to be eligible....that's a tough sell. 

Forget what the rule is now, when people create policy, they should always (I say should) create the policy because they see there's a need....I personally don't believe there is a huge need. I think they could change the rule and it wouldn't affect many people....meaning not a lot of wrestlers would stay in college longer than needed to chase a title.....

You're absolutely right.  The take rate on this is probably in single digits percentages.  This begs the question of why have a rule that hurts <10%, and the other 90% are ambivalent to.  No one "is harmed" by allowing infinite eligibility, so long as they are a full time student and have already exhausted whatever financial incentives were awarded.  If I pay my own way, am a student, but am 29 years old, I should be able to keep wrestling if I CHOOSE.  It's the restriction of choice that I am against, especially when it's a victimless situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 10:43 AM, TobusRex said:

I believe the religious "mission" exemption should be eliminated. It's abused routinely. BYU has football players 25 years old on the field, for example. Matt Brown was 25 or 26 before he exhausted his eligibility.  Military service exemption I'm good with because we may be at war and need the manpower (WW2, for example). Peace Corps exemption: never knew there was one, but I'm opposed to that one.

Yep, and as a result you see BYU ranked in the top 5 year after year after year.

Two years off the mat is not an advantage. You may heal up but not drilling moves for two years is a killer for a top wrestler. Brown was the first mormon (even though not supposed to use that word now - per the "prophet" using it is a victory for Satan) Returned Missionary to win an NCAA wrestling title. Most RM's I know and have met understand they have lost something over two years even as they have matured a bit physically.

Military and Peace Corps, one can still work out. Mission - pretty much impossible unless one spends time they should be studying "gospel" in exercise and working out. 

The NCAA has eligibility rules. With Universities now often telling students to plan 5 years for a degree I can see a 5 year window for competing but doubt that will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 9:43 AM, TobusRex said:

I believe the religious "mission" exemption should be eliminated. It's abused routinely. BYU has football players 25 years old on the field, for example. Matt Brown was 25 or 26 before he exhausted his eligibility.  Military service exemption I'm good with because we may be at war and need the manpower (WW2, for example). Peace Corps exemption: never knew there was one, but I'm opposed to that one.

I'm not Mormon but I would like to hear how is it "abused" routinely. Are guys training in college rooms and OTC while they are on a mission?  Are they somehow getting an unfair advantage while on their mission?  Seems to NOT be working for the BYU football team - haha. Is Matt Brown the only example you can find? If so, how is that abuse? How is it any different than guys who actually compete for 6 years because they get extra years because of injury (Cassar) ? They were actually training when they were injured while kids on missions were not. So how is it "abused"? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Mormon mission is taken prior to starting college as it usually seems to be why is it even being discussed?  If any wrestler decided not to go to college for 2 years after high school for any reason and his "clock" never started he could enter college at 20 or 21 and start with the 5 years to compete 4 that anyone gets.  I think people are discussing this because a lot of these kids that go on missions are making commitments to schools for wrestling.  That has no effect on starting their D1 "clock" . That starts once they start school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lu1979 said:

If the Mormon mission is taken prior to starting college as it usually seems to be why is it even being discussed?  If any wrestler decided not to go to college for 2 years after high school for any reason and his "clock" never started he could enter college at 20 or 21 and start with the 5 years to compete 4 that anyone gets.  I think people are discussing this because a lot of these kids that go on missions are making commitments to schools for wrestling.  That has no effect on starting their D1 "clock" . That starts once they start school.

Bingo! +1 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be frank: anybody who says that 2 years more physical maturity are meaningless in college doesn't know what he is talking about or is simply in denial. Why do you think so many of the NCAA champs were upperclassmen when they first won a title? If there was no edge to physical maturity then FR would account for as many NCAA titles as SRs do.

Pandering to religious groups needs to end, pronto. Religious missionaries are getting a HUGE advantage in not starting until they are 20-21 years old whether you guys want to admit it or not. Matt Brown should've never won an NCAA title, and wouldn't have, if he'd have not gotten that Mormon mission, and he's just the most convenient guy to mention on the topic. I'm sure there are many others.

Regarding the guy who said "uh, BYU is a POWERHOUSE"....BYU hasn't had a wrestling program for a long, long time.

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...