HS Recruiting News
- Thread starter DEWrestlingFan
- Start date
Holman, Hodgins and Romero are class of 27. There’s also a good chance we don’t see Holman until maybe 2029 or so since he is Mormon and will probably go on a missions trip.
Move Vega in with Panda. Panda knows how to cook & eat.
Norman is in Stillwater and been working with the team.
Agreed. IMO the ONLY way we see LRob move up (and it wont be this coming season) would be if he hits a growth spurt or if he jumps another level and knows he can win it at 165.
Jordyn could get 1 more year starting by wrestling 141 this year and then Olympic redshirt next year and regular redshirt the next year. Jaydyn could get another year starting if he started 133 this year with Jax going to 141. Obviously, both can't happen this year. However, we have a log jam that could cost us.
How long do we think that lasts before someone lawyers up and tries to reinstate them?
Like all those logjams that keep costing Penn State national championships?
I really see people like me, who held their child back, based on research and brain maturity. It is smarter to hold a child that has challenges sitting still and let them mature as far as you can before you send them out into the world.
So really, the NCAA is exhibiting some discrimination.
So really, the NCAA is exhibiting some discrimination.
1 year holdbacks aren't gonna be affected by this but 2 year ones will. My opinion if it's gonna benefit him/her in the real world later in life I would do it regardless. If the goal is being ready for the real world who cares if they get 4 or 5 years of competition
Well, maybe the millions of kids who had that path?
I guess they’d still get 4 years though, so whatever.
If they are eligible to choose to go under the old rules then this is still a thing until fall of 2027. I haven’t seen anything that says if an athlete chooses the old rules, they only get one shirt. Will still be eligible for Olympic shirt based off that.
Yes they still get 4 years the exact amount they thought they would get when that path started. And if 5 is what they want they've time and can recalssify
Division I adopts age-based eligibility model - NCAA.org - Official Athletics Website https://share.google/Smn19TlxD5SFE8nMc
No more waivers it says . Olympic RS are gone. You could go 4/5 and use the regular redshirt in 27/28 and train for the Olympics but taking an Olympic RS can't happen under these rules
This is the best explanation I have seen yet about the rules. It does says if you decide on 4/5 that no waivers will be given
NCAA Division I Age-Based Eligibility Rules: Eligibility 101 - NCAA.org - Official Athletics Website https://share.google/Ygu1mm3ENRUlqLG6L
Last edited:
I get it man! I just don’t agree with it. It is just more overreach by the NCAA that further distances the student and the athlete. If it wasn’t solely about sports, why aren’t academias forced into the same set of guidelines? Money! Schools need money from students, athletes need money from schools…it’s really that simple. Leave one alone to keep every instance of profit available and constrain the other that costs money with definite parameters. It’s gross to me.
Maybe it’ll be good? Maybe it won’t?
This was my argument too. Five for five is a full rejection of amateurism. Makes sense from a business perspective, kinda sad from a “college sports should be about amateurism and helping kids get degrees” perspective.
If u start at 20 I'm ok with that as well. I do like the 5 years maximum no matter what. Sticking around college campuses 7-8 years without being a Dr is ridiculous
Well, then we aren't in the same argument than are we...the rule is 19, not 20. Also, I believe this is America and the ability to prosper should be the underlying mindset in any rule change...and by prosper, I don't mean the big orgs making all the money and using that money to get the rules they want.
So, you're saying you are completely fine with a kid entering the workforce at 18-19 and deciding at 25 they want to be a teacher...which if this was a linear ruleset, that opportunity is long gone.
I agree that log jams is a great problem to have compared to not having a real good wrestler at every weight. But several posters including me have some concerns about losing the Raney's. There may not be any need to worry but losing the Raney's would be costly. I see the program has jumped levels but until we win 35 I will have questions, also the changes in eligibility rules leaves questions what will work. But we keep looking better and this year should be better than last year.
If we get this thing where we want it there is a really good chance we lose a lot of really good wrestlers in the process. We aren't going to catch PSU until we have tons of logjams.
You were saying holdbacks are being punished and my point was I'm ok with them moving it one year and making it 20 but I still like the 5 years maximum. You can go to college anytime you want you just have a period of time you are eligible to play sports. The NCAA saying when eligibility starts is nothing new theyve has rules on that for awhile. The only thing they did now was remove all waivers which in my opinion is a good thing the medical hardship waiver was being abused.
The announcement never actually says that Olympic redshirts go away for athletes who choose the old eligibility rules. It says the new age-based model gets rid of sport-specific redshirt rules, but it also says 2026-27 athletes can use either the old rules or the new model, whichever is more beneficial. It never says athletes who stay under the old rules lose the Olympic redshirt.
Read the last paragraph. No more waivers
Attachments
-
Screenshot_20260709-062846.png
Any news on Doucet? Not sure he would beat Ross, but heavyweights take time to develop generally.
I understand your concerns and I share them a little bit. But what we see in the line up that makes us scratch our heads, makes everyone scratch their heads. My point is, the Raneys understand the situation as well and they came anyway! Hes only been here two years but I can assure you while we would love number 35, David Taylor is OBSESSED with it! He'll figure it out.
I understand all of the "old" eligibility thing. My scenario was what "IF" students had the same rules? Also, why should a kid that has autism or ADHD or Aspergers or whatever developmental issue that causes being held back be punished with loss of athletic eligibility?
I am drawing a parallel to Academics and Athletics. The NCAA is absolutely generating even more disparity between sports and school.
"The NCAA exists to foster student-athlete well-being, ensure fair and inclusive competition, and create opportunities for academic and athletic achievement. We champion integrity, access and student success across all sports and divisions." *NCAA MISSION STATEMENT*
They are proving that they don't give a ripshit about the student part of their very own Mission Statement. They're mission statement should be re-written, and it shouldn't include a word about school.
Being an NCAA athlete is a privilege not a right. No one is saying you can't do it they're just saying your eligibility must be over at a certain age
Yes I posted something before we knew exactly that no way they're gonna let just the high school graduating class of 2026 have 6 years but no one else. Managing roster caps was a nightmare now it's straight forward