ADVERTISEMENT

2021-2023 Transfer Portal news

Status
Not open for further replies.
With the portal closed now, who are the biggest surprises of wrestlers who did not hit the portal?

Im surprised one of TJ Stewart, Andy Smith, or Hunter Catka. With the additions of Mullen and Sasso coming in, the overweights at Virginia Tech are getting pretty crowded

Cooper Flynn- backup to Ventreska

Cullen Shriever- thought he could start at numerous programs only for Iowa to bring in Teske as well as talks of other 33’s.

Mike Caliendo- figured he would follow Kish out to Oklahoma

Wittlake- is blocked at 74 by plott which seems to be his most natural weight. Figured a change of scenery may help him
 
You can still transfer if you are a grad transfer and what are the other rules??
 
Maybe if the rest of the students were getting part of the tuition paid we’d be on an even playing field. Quit your sport and you can come and go as you please. Not trying to start an argument, but the money does count for something. Even Many scholarship students have more stringent requirements than other students.
Well, if we're talking money counts for something... to use Penn State as an example, just shy of 1/3rd of all the student-athletes are getting no money (You can dredge the numbers from PSU's last NCAA Report HERE). There are 861 varsity Penn State student-athletes. Only 155 of those 861 student-athletes are on full-rides. Another 445 student athletes are getting partial scholarships (they're splitting a total of 208 full schollies so are averaging less than 50% each). Then there are 261 student-athletes who are getting nothing - no money, no books, nothing. Yet they are subject to the same draconian NCAA rules - including transfer rules. I'd be happy if the NCAA at least started down your road and let those kids who get nothing come and go just like regular students, but they don't. And if the money really does count for something then shouldn't those on less than full schollies get more visits, contacts, transfers, etc? As for regular academic scholarship students having more stringent requirements than other students, I've known a few academic scholarship students - the only more stringent requirements I've ever heard from them were academically-based ones (GPA and scholarly production). I've not known one who was told they couldn't visit other schools at any time, or talk to other colleges, deans, professors, etc. In fact, collaboration is usually encouraged. It'd be like Drew Allar heading down to get pointers from Nick Saban. Thanks! :)
 
Last edited:
With the portal closed now, who are the biggest surprises of wrestlers who did not hit the portal?

Im surprised one of TJ Stewart, Andy Smith, or Hunter Catka. With the additions of Mullen and Sasso coming in, the overweights at Virginia Tech are getting pretty crowded

Cooper Flynn- backup to Ventreska

Cullen Shriever- thought he could start at numerous programs only for Iowa to bring in Teske as well as talks of other 33’s.

Mike Caliendo- figured he would follow Kish out to Oklahoma

Wittlake- is blocked at 74 by plott which seems to be his most natural weight. Figured a change of scenery may help him
Catka staying is not surprising at all. Sasso is going 197 and Mullin is likely not a threat as long as he's on the football team.

Did Stephen Buchanan re-portal after Rosselli got the boot?
 
Speaking of Rosselli, I’m surprised he hasn’t popped back up anywhere yet. Talented coach with nationwide connections, you’d have to imagine he’d be attracting a great deal of attention from programs looking for a shot in the arm.
 
Well, if we're talking money counts for something... to use Penn State as an example, just shy of 1/3rd of all the student-athletes are getting no money (You can dredge the numbers from PSU's last NCAA Report HERE). There are 861 varsity Penn State student-athletes. Only 155 of those 861 student-athletes are on full-rides. Another 445 student athletes are getting partial scholarships (they're splitting a total of 208 full schollies so are averaging less than 50% each). Then there are 261 student-athletes who are getting nothing - no money, no books, nothing. Yet they are subject to the same draconian NCAA rules - including transfer rules. I'd be happy if the NCAA at least started down your road and let those kids who get nothing come and go just like regular students, but they don't. And if the money really does count for something then shouldn't those on less than full schollies get more visits, contacts, transfers, etc? As for regular academic scholarship students having more stringent requirements than other students, I've known a few academic scholarship students - the only more stringent requirements I've ever heard from them were academically-based ones (GPA and scholarly production). I've not known one who was told they couldn't visit other schools at any time, or talk to other colleges, deans, professors, etc. In fact, collaboration is usually encouraged. It'd be like Drew Allar heading down to get pointers from Nick Saban. Thanks! :)
Do you know how many of the 155 full rides are on the football team? Over half I would think. Does anyone on the wrestling team get a full ride? I know many are great students so they get some academic aid as well which helps a ton. 9.9 does not go far on a team as stacked as PSU
 
Do you know how many of the 155 full rides are on the football team? Over half I would think. Does anyone on the wrestling team get a full ride? I know many are great students so they get some academic aid as well which helps a ton. 9.9 does not go far on a team as stacked as PSU
I believe football and basketball are all full rides, but not 100% positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hlstone and zzs006
Do you know how many of the 155 full rides are on the football team? Over half I would think. Does anyone on the wrestling team get a full ride? I know many are great students so they get some academic aid as well which helps a ton. 9.9 does not go far on a team as stacked as PSU
Football is allowed 85 full scholarships, they have to be full scholarships. Basketball is also full scholarships, not sure of the number per team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zzs006
Football is allowed 85 full scholarships, they have to be full scholarships. Basketball is also full scholarships, not sure of the number per team.
85 full rides. So over half of all full rides are on the football team. I think only like 50-60 guys actually suit up on game day and probably less than 40 of them actually play so more than half of those guys on full rides never even see the field. While on the wrestling team there are national champions on partial scholarship. Crazy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski
Do you know how many of the 155 full rides are on the football team? Over half I would think. Does anyone on the wrestling team get a full ride? I know many are great students so they get some academic aid as well which helps a ton. 9.9 does not go far on a team as stacked as PSU
Yes, I do know -- 85 of those 155 full rides are on the foosball team. (And I apologize for my NCAA link above, it didn't work initially, but I edited it and it's working now. For timesaving, HERE it is again). As for "Does anyone on the wrestling team get a full ride?", we don't know. The report tells us that Cael divided up 9.9 scholarships among 17 wrestlers, meaning the average wrestler received .58 of a scholarship. It is possible one or more received a full ride, and others received much less, but the report doesn't break it out that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zzs006
Gymnastics and tennis? That’s surprising. I knew basketball and volleyball for women and would have guessed soccer before with of those. Interesting!
 
85 full rides. So over half of all full rides are on the football team. I think only like 50-60 guys actually suit up on game day and probably less than 40 of them actually play so more than half of those guys on full rides never even see the field. While on the wrestling team there are national champions on partial scholarship. Crazy
Yes, you are correct. And not that anyone asked, but the report shows Penn State had 125 guys on the football team. 85 of those were on full scholarship. So, almost one-third of the football team is made up of guys getting exactly $0 athletic scholarship money. At home games Penn State is one of the better (for "walk-ons") programs out there -- Franklin tends to dress a lot of guys. Well more than 50-60. Closer to 100. For away games Big Ten rules limit travel squad size to 74 guys. It used to be 70 but was bumped up in 2018 - and doesn't apply to championship or bowl games. That's the bonus for "walk-ons", they get to travel to bowl games! Anyway, Franklin usually takes the full allowed contingent to away games. And lastly, yes, although we don't know for sure, it's possible that there are national champions on the wrestling team on partial scholarship.
 
on A side note, season tickets ought to be easier to get now…
If this is the case I just may buy a few to leave empty. Wouldn't it be fun if all their tickets were sold but no one showed up..for an entire season?
 
85 full rides. So over half of all full rides are on the football team. I think only like 50-60 guys actually suit up on game day and probably less than 40 of them actually play so more than half of those guys on full rides never even see the field. While on the wrestling team there are national champions on partial scholarship. Crazy
Complete nonsense. 100+ suit up for home games at major programs. Road games is less (way more than 60) limited to conference rules.

PSU played 53 guys vs Ohio State which was the fewest last year. Most games is 70+. It is incredibly rare for a guy on a full ride to “never see the field”. Even redshirts now see the field.

And the disparity in numbers isn’t “crazy”. College wrestling scholarships wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for college football. PSU wrestling loses money. Football pays the bills for the entire athletics department.
 
Complete nonsense. 100+ suit up for home games at major programs. Road games is less (way more than 60) limited to conference rules.

PSU played 53 guys vs Ohio State which was the fewest last year. Most games is 70+. It is incredibly rare for a guy on a full ride to “never see the field”. Even redshirts now see the field.

And the disparity in numbers isn’t “crazy”. College wrestling scholarships wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for college football. PSU wrestling loses money. Football pays the bills for the entire athletics department.
There are full ride guys that don’t even suit up according to your numbers. Pretty sure previous poster said it’s in the 70’s for road games and there are 85 full rides. I understand that football is where the $ is and they bank roll everyone else but it is crazy that national champions aren’t on a full ride while other full ride athletes don’t even see the field
 
  • Like
Reactions: NittanyLion84
Sounds like you don’t understand that football is where the $ is. Most wrestling programs total ticket revenue for the entire season wouldn’t pay for more than a scholarship or two.
 
Sounds like you don’t understand that football is where the $ is. Most wrestling programs total ticket revenue for the entire season wouldn’t pay for more than a scholarship or two.
I don't think zz is saying it's crazy from an economics perspective. But if you think a national champion wrestler doesn't work as hard as a bench rider on the football team, for example, then you're the crazy one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zzs006 and mcpat
The report tells us that Cael divided up 9.9 scholarships among 17 wrestlers, meaning the average wrestler received .58 of a scholarship.
Don’t mean to nit-pick but if only 17 wrestlers received money, then (approx.) just as many didn’t see any money and the average therefore isn’t .58.
 
PSU played 53 guys vs Ohio State which was the fewest last year. Most games is 70+. It is incredibly rare for a guy on a full ride to “never see the field”. Even redshirts now see the field.
The redshirts who see the field are all (or nearly all) on scholarship.
 
I don't think zz is saying it's crazy from an economics perspective. But if you think a national champion wrestler doesn't work as hard as a bench rider on the football team, for example, then you're the crazy one.
There are almost no scholarship football players that are “bench riders”, unless you consider redshirts “bench riders”. In which case you have to label about half our national champions “bench riders” as freshman as well. It is no easier to crack the lineup as an underclassmen football player as for an underclassmen wrestler. Some can - many wait their turn.

And what world do you live in where “works as hard” means equal compensation? David Taylor probably works harder than Aaron Rogers these days. Probably has his whole life. But DT ain’t seeing NFL QB money. Wrestlers know they ain’t getting big bucks or full rides when they pursue wrestling - just like any professional choice you balance doing what you enjoy with the compensation you get for it and hope it works out. Life isn’t fair - doesn’t make it “crazy”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Anderson
There are almost no scholarship football players that are “bench riders”, unless you consider redshirts “bench riders”. In which case you have to label about half our national champions “bench riders” as freshman as well. It is no easier to crack the lineup as an underclassmen football player as for an underclassmen wrestler. Some can - many wait their turn.

And what world do you live in where “works as hard” means equal compensation? David Taylor probably works harder than Aaron Rogers these days. Probably has his whole life. But DT ain’t seeing NFL QB money. Wrestlers know they ain’t getting big bucks or full rides when they pursue wrestling - just like any professional choice you balance doing what you enjoy with the compensation you get for it and hope it works out. Life isn’t fair - doesn’t make it “crazy”.
Yup, I think zz and I are just marveling at the dedication our favorite sport takes—it’s not an economics-driven model for nearly all involved. To me, that’s appealing. Even if it’s also a smidge crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitchfork Rebel
Complete nonsense. 100+ suit up for home games at major programs. Road games is less (way more than 60) limited to conference rules.

PSU played 53 guys vs Ohio State which was the fewest last year. Most games is 70+. It is incredibly rare for a guy on a full ride to “never see the field”. Even redshirts now see the field.

And the disparity in numbers isn’t “crazy”. College wrestling scholarships wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for college football. PSU wrestling loses money. Football pays the bills for the entire athletics department.
Men's basketball. Might be because of Big10 TV revenue, but still.
 
the B1G only allows 74 players to travel to away games. It used to be 70.
 
@poorwrestler Was Jamison going to start for you guys this coming season? Seemed like he had really improved and was going to be good for you
Possibly. It was either him or Vance Vombaur at 141 or him and Drew Roberts at 149. It’s possible he wasn’t beating either but it’s a bad turn of events either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zzs006
Don’t mean to nit-pick but if only 17 wrestlers received money, then (approx.) just as many didn’t see any money and the average therefore isn’t .58.
Yes, you are correct. Bad phrasing on my part. What I meant to post was, "... meaning the average wrestler who received any scholarship money received .58 of a scholarship." Thanks.
 
Yes mens hoops is profitable. Not a lot, but definitely positive. They also have full teams of full scholarships.
I'm just responding here (I could have replied to a couple people in this thread) cuz you were right-to-the-point. A point that is technically correct, but is commonly misunderstood.

You can check the link to PSU's NCAA Report in one of my previous comments, but we should note that Penn State's men's basketball team is profitable only because of some creative accounting by Penn State. In the '21-'22 year covered by the report, men's shooty-hoops had total revenue of $10,913,782. It had total expenses of $8,295,784. So yes, according to the report, men's hoops made a "profit" of $2,617,998.

But wait. (here's where PSU's creative accounting comes in!). In that year Penn State Athletics received $39,988,614 for "all revenue received for radio, television, internet, digital and e-commerce rights, including the portion of conference distributions related to media rights." So how did Penn State allocate that media revenue across almost 30 varsity sports? They gave $33,990,322 to football (85% of the total for foosball seems fair), and the rest -- $5,998,292 -- to men's basketball. WHAT?!?!?!

Look, I'm a slight outlier, but I'm not that far from the norm. In that '21-'22 season I watched a lot of PSU wrestling and men's hockey on TV or online. A bit of women's volleyball. And a bit of both men's and women's soccer. But here's what I know I did not watch a single minute of -- PSU men's shooty-hoops. Yet, wrestling got no media money (and I PAID the B1G for TV access to wrestling!). Hockey got no media money (and hockey is profitable by itself! - now that's a function of Terry's gift, but still). Volleyball, baseball, soccer, and on-and-on... not a single other sport got a single cent of TV/media revenue money!!

The point is -- everyone can decide how they think the 15% of media money that doesn't go to football should be split up, but I don't know anyone who thinks men's basketball should get all of it. At most -- at absolute most -- you could make a case they should get half of it (7.5%). Then you can split the rest among about ten other sports. And if you only give basketball half that money, their share drops down to $2,999,146. And that $2.6 million "profit" Penn State created disappears and PSU men's basketball is the money-loser that it really is. And will continue to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7brwnpsu
There are almost no scholarship football players that are “bench riders”, unless you consider redshirts “bench riders”. In which case you have to label about half our national champions “bench riders” as freshman as well. It is no easier to crack the lineup as an underclassmen football player as for an underclassmen wrestler. Some can - many wait their turn.

And what world do you live in where “works as hard” means equal compensation? David Taylor probably works harder than Aaron Rogers these days. Probably has his whole life. But DT ain’t seeing NFL QB money. Wrestlers know they ain’t getting big bucks or full rides when they pursue wrestling - just like any professional choice you balance doing what you enjoy with the compensation you get for it and hope it works out. Life isn’t fair - doesn’t make it “crazy”.
OK, we need to parse this just a bit: "There are almost no scholarship football players that are “bench riders”, unless you consider redshirts “bench riders”. I would suggest you have the cart in front of the horse. If you are on scholarship and you're not playing, then you are a "bench rider". If you haven't already burned a redshirt year, then yes, you will get a "redshirt" year for being a bench rider. But you're a bench rider first, and a redshirt after-the-fact. If you are good enough to play, you'll be playing and not riding the bench (and not taking a redshirt). I mean, you said it -- it's tough to crack the lineup.

As for the "almost no" scholarship players... at B1G away games only 74 guys can travel. If every one of them is on schollie there are 11 guys (13%) who not only qualify as "bench riders", but aren't even on the travel team. My belief is that 13% of the scholarship players is not "almost no." (Keep in mind that if even one "walk-on" travels, that percentage goes up).

And to take that one step further... here's a LINK to Penn State's 2022 football season participation chart. It shows that 89 guys saw the field for at least one play last season. But only 61 saw action in 7 or more games (slightly more than half the season). If we assume all 61 were scholarship players, then 28% of scholarship players were "bench riders" more than they weren't. More than a quarter of all scholarship players. Like I said, not "almost no" IMO. And again, any walk-ons in those numbers make those percentages higher.

Lastly, on the money thing -- yes, football raises the big bucks. Although at Penn State men's hockey is not only self-sufficient but it makes money for the athletic department (Again, a function of Terry's gift). But that's because the NCAA sets it up that way for football. Isn't it possible that there might be another sport that could raise similar money but the NCAA cuts its proverbial nuts off?

Soccer -- or what the rest of the world calls football (I mean, why do we call it football when it's often illegal for your foot to touch the ball?) -- can be played in stadiums of 100,000 people. In a lot of the rest of the world it's the most popular sport there is. Guys can make as much money or way more than NFL players. But the NCAA only allows men's soccer teams 9.9 scholarships. That's f**king ludicrous (Channeling Roy Kent).

Let's say the NCAA upped the scholarship limit for men's soccer to 37 and made them all full-rides. The same % of the starting lineup as football (I'm counting a long snapper, punter and kicker in football's starting lineup for a total of 25 guys). I can assure you there is at least one starter on Penn State's football team who is likely playing soccer if there were that many full rides. Then, interest in soccer grows exponentially (it's already big). And as outstanding young athletes migrate to soccer rather than football or other sports, the quality grows as well. More players get out onto the international stage, MLS gets better and better (many teams already play to packed houses in soccer-only stadiums -- hell, the NFL used one while waiting for SoFi), and the U.S. becomes a force in international competition. All feeding back to more people watching and paying (look at U.S. demographic shifts over the last 30 years).

Point is - yes, as the beloved (hack, hack) King/Emperor Emmert has said a thousand times - "If you like other college sports buy college football tickets" is true. But it's only true because that's the way the NCAA sets it up.

Anyway, just trying to add a small bit of context to your statement. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: zzs006
Agreed. We ran the west coast from Eureka, CA to Port Angelas, WA, basically Seattle. The Oregon coast is spectacular, like no place I’ve ever seen. Lots of egress to the beaches. Washington, eh. You have to work to get close to the water. But, all in all the Oregon Coast is something every person should be so privileged to have experience in their lifetime. One of my top tens.
Just saw your posts here. I’ll give you a real challenge if you’re willing to take it on. Try to find a BAD place to eat on the Oregon coast! I’ll never forget Winchester Bay. Best cioppino I’ve ever had anywhere.
 
OK, we need to parse this just a bit: "There are almost no scholarship football players that are “bench riders”, unless you consider redshirts “bench riders”. I would suggest you have the cart in front of the horse. If you are on scholarship and you're not playing, then you are a "bench rider". If you haven't already burned a redshirt year, then yes, you will get a "redshirt" year for being a bench rider. But you're a bench rider first, and a redshirt after-the-fact. If you are good enough to play, you'll be playing and not riding the bench (and not taking a redshirt). I mean, you said it -- it's tough to crack the lineup.

As for the "almost no" scholarship players... at B1G away games only 74 guys can travel. If every one of them is on schollie there are 11 guys (13%) who not only qualify as "bench riders", but aren't even on the travel team. My belief is that 13% of the scholarship players is not "almost no." (Keep in mind that if even one "walk-on" travels, that percentage goes up).

And to take that one step further... here's a LINK to Penn State's 2022 football season participation chart. It shows that 89 guys saw the field for at least one play last season. But only 61 saw action in 7 or more games (slightly more than half the season). If we assume all 61 were scholarship players, then 28% of scholarship players were "bench riders" more than they weren't. More than a quarter of all scholarship players. Like I said, not "almost no" IMO. And again, any walk-ons in those numbers make those percentages higher.

Lastly, on the money thing -- yes, football raises the big bucks. Although at Penn State men's hockey is not only self-sufficient but it makes money for the athletic department (Again, a function of Terry's gift). But that's because the NCAA sets it up that way for football. Isn't it possible that there might be another sport that could raise similar money but the NCAA cuts its proverbial nuts off?

Soccer -- or what the rest of the world calls football (I mean, why do we call it football when it's often illegal for your foot to touch the ball?) -- can be played in stadiums of 100,000 people. In a lot of the rest of the world it's the most popular sport there is. Guys can make as much money or way more than NFL players. But the NCAA only allows men's soccer teams 9.9 scholarships. That's f**king ludicrous (Channeling Roy Kent).

Let's say the NCAA upped the scholarship limit for men's soccer to 37 and made them all full-rides. The same % of the starting lineup as football (I'm counting a long snapper, punter and kicker in football's starting lineup for a total of 25 guys). I can assure you there is at least one starter on Penn State's football team who is likely playing soccer if there were that many full rides. Then, interest in soccer grows exponentially (it's already big). And as outstanding young athletes migrate to soccer rather than football or other sports, the quality grows as well. More players get out onto the international stage, MLS gets better and better (many teams already play to packed houses in soccer-only stadiums -- hell, the NFL used one while waiting for SoFi), and the U.S. becomes a force in international competition. All feeding back to more people watching and paying (look at U.S. demographic shifts over the last 30 years).

Point is - yes, as the beloved (hack, hack) King/Emperor Emmert has said a thousand times - "If you like other college sports buy college football tickets" is true. But it's only true because that's the way the NCAA sets it up.

Anyway, just trying to add a small bit of context to your statement. Thanks!

Adding 27 scholarships to men's soccer sounds like a good plan to kill more college wrestling teams. That pesky little thing called Title IX.
 
OK, we need to parse this just a bit: "There are almost no scholarship football players that are “bench riders”, unless you consider redshirts “bench riders”. I would suggest you have the cart in front of the horse. If you are on scholarship and you're not playing, then you are a "bench rider". If you haven't already burned a redshirt year, then yes, you will get a "redshirt" year for being a bench rider. But you're a bench rider first, and a redshirt after-the-fact. If you are good enough to play, you'll be playing and not riding the bench (and not taking a redshirt). I mean, you said it -- it's tough to crack the lineup.

As for the "almost no" scholarship players... at B1G away games only 74 guys can travel. If every one of them is on schollie there are 11 guys (13%) who not only qualify as "bench riders", but aren't even on the travel team. My belief is that 13% of the scholarship players is not "almost no." (Keep in mind that if even one "walk-on" travels, that percentage goes up).

And to take that one step further... here's a LINK to Penn State's 2022 football season participation chart. It shows that 89 guys saw the field for at least one play last season. But only 61 saw action in 7 or more games (slightly more than half the season). If we assume all 61 were scholarship players, then 28% of scholarship players were "bench riders" more than they weren't. More than a quarter of all scholarship players. Like I said, not "almost no" IMO. And again, any walk-ons in those numbers make those percentages higher.

Lastly, on the money thing -- yes, football raises the big bucks. Although at Penn State men's hockey is not only self-sufficient but it makes money for the athletic department (Again, a function of Terry's gift). But that's because the NCAA sets it up that way for football. Isn't it possible that there might be another sport that could raise similar money but the NCAA cuts its proverbial nuts off?

Soccer -- or what the rest of the world calls football (I mean, why do we call it football when it's often illegal for your foot to touch the ball?) -- can be played in stadiums of 100,000 people. In a lot of the rest of the world it's the most popular sport there is. Guys can make as much money or way more than NFL players. But the NCAA only allows men's soccer teams 9.9 scholarships. That's f**king ludicrous (Channeling Roy Kent).

Let's say the NCAA upped the scholarship limit for men's soccer to 37 and made them all full-rides. The same % of the starting lineup as football (I'm counting a long snapper, punter and kicker in football's starting lineup for a total of 25 guys). I can assure you there is at least one starter on Penn State's football team who is likely playing soccer if there were that many full rides. Then, interest in soccer grows exponentially (it's already big). And as outstanding young athletes migrate to soccer rather than football or other sports, the quality grows as well. More players get out onto the international stage, MLS gets better and better (many teams already play to packed houses in soccer-only stadiums -- hell, the NFL used one while waiting for SoFi), and the U.S. becomes a force in international competition. All feeding back to more people watching and paying (look at U.S. demographic shifts over the last 30 years).

Point is - yes, as the beloved (hack, hack) King/Emperor Emmert has said a thousand times - "If you like other college sports buy college football tickets" is true. But it's only true because that's the way the NCAA sets it up.

Anyway, just trying to add a small bit of context to your statement. Thanks!
Ok… let’s parse this a little bit. Nah … let’s not because it is preposterous.

You actually believe that adding scholarships to soccer will somehow transform NCAA soccer into the EPL and all of the sudden make big bucks?

You want PSU and other college teams to pretend hockey is “profitable” because as long as you take $130 million off the top it kinda breaks even?

Slice it any way you want but 90% of college athletic programs operate in the red. And the only thing keeping them even remotely viable is football driven revenue. Washington State just this week issued a mandate to its entire athletic department to stop all non-essential expense: why? Because they are totally screwed by the TV contract impact occurring because USC and UCLA are joining the BIG.

You think that 9.9 schollies for wrestling is unfair because 25% of schollie football players don’t see the field until they are sophomores or juniors… fact is many wrestling programs can’t even afford 9.9 scholarships. Why? Because those schools don’t have 100k strong football attendance and a massive TV contract to pay their bills.

There are only 10 wrestling programs that average over 2500 fans per meet. Even at 2500 fans, the entire ticket revenue (not profit, just pure ticket sales) for an entire season wouldn’t pay for 2 schollies. But wrestling deserves more scholarships?

Financially (if it wasn’t for the financial impact of the incredible marketing and brand loyalty and alumni connection that sports brings) schools would actually be better served to cut all scholarships for wrestling and almost every other sport and give them out as academic scholarships. A math scholarship carries no additional cost - no extra coaches, facilities, insurance, etc.

Any wrestler or any other scholarship athlete outside of football/hoops is getting an enormous and largely unearned (by profit/loss math) gift.

Pretending otherwise is just ignoring the reality of sports economics in the US. You can think that an incredibly gifted classical concert pianist works as hard and is as talented and as entertaining as Taylor Swift, so should get paid the same. But it isn’t reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT