This article was in the Wall Street Journal

I think this is article is true. But I also think it (cutbacks) does not provide an equal opportunity for kids in "nonrevenue producing sports" the same chance for an education at the public college level. Which may be a more important issue.


Cutbacks in College Sports
Risk U.S. Olympic Future
By CHRISTOPHER RHOADS
August 25, 2008; Page A8
BEIJING -- The U.S. won more medals here than it has in any nonboycotted Olympics, but even with that haul, its days of dominance may be numbered.
That is in part because U.S. colleges, the primary breeding ground for the country's Olympians, have eliminated hundreds of teams in Olympic sports in recent years.


Getty Images
U.S. Olympic Committee chairman Peter Ueberroth says his organization is going to have to be "smarter and better funded" to properly groom Olympians.
"We used to have a lot of kids going for the Olympic dream," says Scott Barclay, coach of the men's gymnastics team at Arizona State University. "Without the carrot of a college scholarship, a lot of kids give up, or their parents won't support them as much," he says. Mr. Barclay took out a personal loan several years ago to build a private gym as a way to keep his team alive as a club sport after ASU cut the varsity program.
Rutgers University in New Jersey last year eliminated six teams in Olympic sports, including fencing and rowing, programs that over the years generated more than a score of Olympians. In 2006, James Madison University in Virginia eliminated 10 teams at once in a handful of Olympic sports, including swimming, gymnastics and wrestling.
The retreat stems from everything from the dominance of college football, according to some, to the implementation of a 1972 gender-equity law known as Title IX, according to others. All agree that budgets are tighter.
Some of the decline has been offset by the increase in women participating in Olympic sports, and winning medals, in recent decades. The genders split the U.S. medals won here, each with 53. Four were in mixed sports.
The U.S. Olympic Committee "is going to have to be smarter and better funded" to help subsidize prospective Olympians directly, says its chairman, Peter Ueberroth.
China leapfrogged the U.S. in gold medals, winning the most of any country here with 51, compared with the U.S.'s 36. The U.K., host of the 2012 Summer Games, poured resources into its Olympic program and jumped to fourth in gold medals this year, with 19. More countries are also getting onto the podium, with a record 86 countries having won medals in Beijing.
In the overall medal count, the U.S. finished ahead of China, 110 to 100. Russia was third with 72, the U.K. fourth with 47.
While the budgets of sports-governing bodies in the U.S. have increased in recent years because of more sponsorship money, opportunities to pursue sports that are less visible in non-Olympic years are declining.
Losing college-scholarship programs in these sports narrows the pool of athletes. To help fill the void, private clubs have emerged.
But while Chinese athletes rely on state sports schools, Mr. Barclay's gymnasts who train at his gym about 10 miles from ASU depend on their own fund-raising. "We were never going to let money stand in the way of doing the right thing," says Mr. Barclay, 51 years old.
Even so, he acknowledges that promising gymnasts in many cases opt for higher-visibility sports with scholarships, such as baseball and basketball.
In May, on the day Mr. Barclay and team supporters mailed a proposal to the ASU athletic director on reinstating the team, the university eliminated men's swimming, wrestling and tennis. Those teams were in or near the top 20 in the nation for years, producing a host of Olympians.
"It comes down to what the market wants," said Linda Love, the ASU athletic director, in her office, fronted by large windows overlooking ASU's football stadium, which seats 75,000.
The department cut the three teams because of unexpected increases in the past year in the costs of travel, including airfare, gasoline and hotels, she says.
The department chose those three Olympic sports because, unlike the football program, they don't generate much revenue. The department's $41 million budget depends on ticket sales, team souvenirs, event parking and other game-related revenue, about half of which comes from football.
The university saved $1 million a year by cutting the three sports.
But not only ASU football was off the table from the budget ax. All women's sports were as well, says Ms. Love, the ASU athletic director.
The reason is Title IX, a law that came to be used to make athletic opportunities at schools and colleges more equal between the sexes.
Title IX's success over the years in increasing female participation in sports is undeniable. The number of girls playing high-school sports has grown by nearly ninefold since the 1970s. The problem, according to critics, is how the law has been implemented in more recent years. Colleges now have to meet largely one criterion or be clearly heading toward it: The ratio of female-to-male athletes should reflect the ratio of female-to-male undergraduates.
But female student enrollment on average at Division I NCAA institutions now exceeds male enrollment, while female athletes at these institutions on average are still a smaller percentage of the total than male athletes. That means colleges still have a ways to go under the law.
And that inevitably makes men's teams more vulnerable when budgets tighten.
The Women's Sports Foundation, a lobbying group, rejects the notion. "The number, competitive level and quality of sports programs are individual institutional decisions, just as are academic programs," the foundation said in a statement.
The ASU men's swimming and wrestling teams were reinstated later in May, after wealthy donors emerged. Mr. Barclay doesn't count on any similar rescue for the men's gymnastics team.

Something the writer doesn't touch on but bothers me is, how many of those foreign athletes, particularly those from third world countries, were educated and trained in American colleges and universities? It seems like in track and field for instance, that every athlete has attended a university here in the U.S..

What bothers me is that it is obvious that our US Sports "Machine" is broken but people like Greg want to blame other things other than the root cause...the tax paid for school systems continually leveling the playing field by holding or even pushing the top down instead of pulling the bottom up. The machine is broken and if changes are not allowed to happen in a more expediant fashion then we will get our red, white, and blue butts kicked in 2012. It is a good thing that the USSR broke up or it would be REALLY ugly.

The big problem is, nobody cares about international sports anymore. Not that international wrestling was ever that big of a deal in comparison to other sports, but even us diehard wrestling fans have given up on it for the most part. I say put our time, money and energy into our youth, high school and college wrestling.

For the most part, I agree with this post. I think it is great for individuals to pursue the Olympic dream if they have that goal. I definitely agree with you though that it is best to put our time, money and energy into youth, high school and college wrestling. I do support some ideas for changes in college folkstyle wrestling that I have seen advocated by Cael Sanderson that would bring some aspects of freestyle into folkstyle to increase the scoring and action. These changes would also help young college wrestlers progress into international wrestling success if that is their goal. As far as investing the time, energy and money into youth, high school and college wrestling that is what I personally do and I am hoping that the NWCA soon starts a National College Wrestling Endowment fund to help start future programs and help sustain current ones. I also know that Cael Sanderson supports this concept of a National College Endowment fund.

Here are the changes that I saw Cael Sanderson advocate on his website in his Ask the Professor question section:

4/10/2008
Bill(Des Moines, IA): As a long time fan of wrestling I constantly bring friends to meets to try and turn them into wrestling fans. I've thought for a while that our sport needs to make some changes to make it easier to follow. I'm interested in your opinion and any suggestions you have?
Cael: "Bill, I agree that we need to make some changes. It really blows my mind that a regular season college basketball game gets more viewers then an event like the Big 12 Wrestling Finals. If it didn't our Big 12 Finals would be on tv live instead of the game. That's reality and we need to fight to step up our sport.
I frequently ask myself why and what can we learn from more popular sports. It seems simple, the games that are easy to play and easy to follow are usually the most popular. We all want more media coverage, but we must give the media something they want to cover. It's a business.

However, opportunities to watch wrestling are continuously growing. Growing up in Utah, my brothers and I were only able to see a couple college wrestling matches. BYU was 35 minutes from my hometown so we saw them compete a few times. Other then that, the only college wrestling we watched was from my dad recording the NCAA finals at 2 or 3 in the morning several weeks after the actual tournament. Consider the differences now--it's awesome. ESPN now airs the quarterfinals, semi-finals, placement matches and finals. Wrestling fans nationwide can see matches on the Big 10 Network, CSTV, and probably other stations as well. With the internet and live streaming, a wrestling fan can watch most colleges matches. Internet sites like youtube and flowrestling are also excellent means to watch matches that we simply couldn't, not too long ago. What a great time it is for wrestling.

Bill, you're not the only one looking for change. There are a lot of people talking right now about how we can make wrestling more exciting and more fan friendly. I believe by making a few changes we could accomplish this and take a big step in the right direction. This in return would help us develop a bigger fan base.

People don't watch what they don't understand. These are some thoughts and suggestions that I have given to the NCAA Rules Committee. The NCAA Rules Committee has a very tough job and obviously as a coach I really appreciate the time and effort they put into our great sport.

Here are my thoughts:

#1- We need to change the season of college wrestling. Right now our conference and NCAA tournament compete with arguably the biggest sporting event of the year--March Madness Basketball. Actually, I wouldn't say we compete--we share the left over scraps. My suggestion is to start the season Jan. 1 and have the NCAA tourney in April. Maybe allow open tournaments in December. Right now our season covers all three of our school's student breaks--Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Spring Break. That is tough on the student-athletes academically. This isn't a new idea, it's been floating around for awhile but I believe it would be great for the sport.

#2- Rule changes: Wrestling is a tough sport to officiate. There are so many judgment calls. The two most inconsistent calls in my opinion are "stalling" and "fleeing." Basically each referee calls both differently then every other referee. This is frustrating for coaches and athletes but more importantly it makes it difficult for fans to follow. Both rules are difficult to enforce so here are my suggestions and thoughts:

A) Eliminate riding time. Here's why: right now we encourage wrestlers in the top position to hold their opponent down for one minute to get an extra point. This is boring. By eliminating riding time we eliminate the main reason to hold an opponent down. Back points are enough encouragement for a wrestler to try and put their opponent on their back. The hypocritical part of the riding point is that riding an opponent just to hold them down is stalling. So essentially we are rewarding stalling with riding time, and therefore, encouraging it.

B) Eliminate the escape point. There are positives and negatives here but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. By eliminating the escape point, we eliminate the need to hold someone down and that would encourage takedowns. In theory, a takedown would now be worth more if you consider the escape making a takedown worth 1. The negative side is that the escape point does bring some excitement to the sport in the last seconds of the periods and mat wrestling would decline. However, there would be more wrestling on the feet and more attempts at takedowns. Plus, we would better prepare our wrestlers to make the transition to freestyle. Right now it is very difficult for our college wrestlers to step out of folkstyle and make the adjustment to international wrestling.

C) Eliminate ride out overtime procedures and make the winner get a takedown. I don't know anyone who likes the :30 ride out overtime procedure. When regulation time ends, start the two wrestlers on their feet in the middle of the mat and let them decide who the winner will be with a takedown. The concern might be the uncertain length of the overtime. Big deal! Uncertainty is fun. However, wrestlers would be a lot more willing to take risks at a takedown if they know it's the only way to win. One big problem I have with the ride out overtime procedure is the same problem I have with the riding point. We reward a wrestler for holding their opponent down. However, holding an opponent down with no intent to turn them to their back is considered stalling, right? Again, in a way we are rewarding the wrestler who does a better job stalling. Put them in the center and let them wrestle to a takedown. That makes conditioning more of factor as well which is something wrestlers and fans pride themselves on.

D)- Have a push out/ step out be worth one point. That would simplify the rules for the fans and make the sport more exciting. Right now the two most inconsistent and tough calls for refs are stalling and fleeing. Adding the push out rule would almost eliminate those two calls, or at least make them much easier to call. The push out would only be worth one point. No way should someone stepping out of bounds be worth as much as an actual takedown. This would also better prepare our wrestlers for international competition. We would have to decide how the push out rule applies in the top/ bottom position. I feel the pushout would only apply in the neutral position.

E)- Don't allow wrestlers to lay on their backs without being penalized back points. The object in wrestling is to put your opponent on their back. The sport has evolved. Wrestlers are very good at countering takedowns and reversals by rolling around and creating stalemates. Some of the time, putting their own back on the mat to do it. I think wrestlers should get a scramble grace period of a few seconds but after that, the referee should start counting back points. This would make it easier for the officials and make it less confusing for spectators. At no time in wrestling should a wrestler be allowed to expose their own back for an extended time and not be penalized for it.

F)- Coaches should be allowed to question the referee as many times as they feel is necessary. Coaches should not be limited to only a few opportunities at a tournament, and one at a dual meet, to fight for their student-athletes before they are deducted a team point. A coach should be able to fight for his athlete, now we can't. Of course the referee should be able to penalize a coach who is out of hand, but a coach should be able to question a ref. Let's face it, there are a ton of "judgment calls" in wrestling and refs do make mistakes. Coaches should be able to question judgment. Fans enjoy watching coaches "get after refs" almost as much if not more then actual wrestling so I believe it would be more fun for spectators. Coaches and ref disputes are a big part of sports. Why is it that in wrestling, arguably the sport with the most judgment calls, coaches can't do their job? Coaches and referee disputes are part of the fun.

#3- I think the NCAA should have a set and standard mat size. Right now there is a huge variety in mat size. I can't imagine any other sport that allows the host school to decide how big or small the playing surface is. I understand that very few schools could go out and buy a new mat but this is something that the NCAA could give the school 10 years to comply with. If you think of the difference in the square footage of the minimum and maximum mat size allowed--it's huge.

#4- Seed the individuals in the NCAA tournament to 16 instead of 12. That would seed the entire first round. There is a huge difference between the 13th ranked guy and the perceived 32nd ranked guy. It is more fair for the individuals competing and more fair for the team race to just seed to 16. Plus, it would not take much more work.

#5- Give wrestling fans the best seats at the NCAA tournament. Right now the best seats don't go to the loud fans representing their favorite teams. One side of the front bottom arena goes to different wrestling organizations to sell??.....I think. I'm not 100% sure who gets the seats but they aren't team fan sections. The other bottom front side goes to the host school. But at the NCAA tournament, especially when we use the same location again and again, the host team should not get all of the best seats. Right now, after the two best sides are given out, then they give the teams that do the best at the previous tournament the best corners. Please understand that I know little about the work and organization that goes into the tournament so I'm not trying to criticize. I am very appreciative of all the work that goes into our great sport.

However, the way we are forced to sell NCAA tickets to our fans makes it the opposite of fan friendly. Fans have to buy their tickets before Christmas. People who aren't die hard fans have little chance to jump on the bandwagon and become fans if their team starts doing well. If a team does well at their conference and the average sports fan from their university wants to go to the NCAA tournament, it's not going to happen. I'm not sure if we can correct this but it's something I have been thinking about that would help wrestling build more fans.

Thanks, Bill, good question.

I love wrestling!! There is no sport that compares to it!!

Cael "

Now that was one good post! Hearing a legend speak outside the circle is refreshing.

Awesome!! I hope most of Cael's suggestions take hold. I would argue to keep the escape point though. I think it gives the bottom buy some incentive to do something and it does not reward as much as the reversal. I actually like the struggle on the ground by both opponents. The lay there and don't get turned mentality of FS and GR bottom wrestling is very boring.

I think wrestling will continue to spread to new areas of the country at the kids level and High School level. I also believe the National Collegiate Wrestling Association will continue to grow (add teams) and become stronger as an organization.

The biggest question I have is the direction of the NCAA (include NAIA in here) programs. There are conflicting trends by division, conference, state and region.

Here are a few super broad possibilities that I see.

1. The NCAA realizes the trend, takes advantage, and begins to add wrestling programs.

2. The NCAA remains stagnant, dropping some programs and adding others.

3. The NCAA misses the boat and shrinks. In this case, the NCWA continues to grow as an organization and venue for all class collegiate wrestling and eventually becomes the premier place to wrestle and win.

If we want it to grow at the NCAA level, I really beleive we have to make events fun for fans... We need interactive events with fans, exciting announcers, press coverage, advertising sponsors, and rivalries.

If you're just reading this post, I encourage you to scroll back and read Cael Sanderson's suggestions.

Erik Hinckley