Yes, they had a fire on the 3rd floor. Its closed for a few months. Not much elese there restaurant wise. If you are up for a little drive the Library in Olean is very good. My x-wife's family lives in Eldred so it was not a far drive from there. Eldred has a great WWII museum.
AS THE BIRD TURNS (IOWA STUFF)
- Thread starter Lyco1990
- Start date
- Status
TnT were inculcated at Iowa under Coach Dan Gable in the heyday of the B10 extra scholarship scheme.
Think of all the positives that era may have produced in our current times, like Iowa's continued:
- focus on in state Iowa talent;
- emphasis on attitude over physical attributes;
- emphasis on training, so the Iowa wrestler is always the best conditioned athlete on the mat;
- push for more scholarship athletes vs fewer much more talented scholarship athletes;
- reticence to push the limits of compliance.
Anyways, I like to say, it's better to look forward to good times than dwell on past bad times. Or as Elsa sang, "Let it go!"
Last edited:
If I am not mistaken, Ironbird was the compliance officer back then. It explains a lot.
Your last point is key - the success helped by these extra schollies built the brand and paid dividends after they were slapped on the wrist (undercutting 98lbs point re: success after the wrist slapping). It’s like PED dopers benefiting from the Dianobol, HGH, etc years after they stop doping.
Are you saying that having more in state Iowa wrestlers on scholarship, which is the only way to generate the delta between out of state and in state scholarships to have any extras, gave Iowa a significant advantage at the B10 and NCAA Championships (despite their losing NCAAs 87-90)?
Other B10 schools did it, but not as aggressively. The reasons could simply be that they didn't fill all 11 scholarships or sought more out of state talent.
With Iowa's relatively low population, when comparing Iowa against Iowa State and UNI, I would agree it provided some advantage. To a Pennsylvanian in Pennsylvania, I would disagree when comparing Iowa to Penn State, Pitt, or Lehigh. The national stage is not the Iowa stage.
The bottom line is the NCAA didn't vacate any B10 school's NCAA Championships in any sport. I can only conclude from this that the NCAA also did not believe any violation provided a huge advantage on the national stage.
The report is mostly a rebuke of the B10 conference leadership and it's communications follow up (or lack there of) with its member schools. I don't see it as a rebuke of individual schools, their sports, or their coaches.
Extra scholarships were not the key to the Gable-built brand of Iowa wrestling. Dan Gable, the wrestler and coach, was. I understand my holding this belief could put me in the minority here. That's fine.
It seems to me no different than PSU today. Cael is key. Claims of promised RTC residency opportunities or alumni arranged pre-NIL wrestling camp payments as exorbitant are surely within the letter of compliance. Dare I say, Vodka might have been onto something.
With that I hope to be done blaspheming for the day.
Last edited:
That happened in 1993 after the scholarship scheme had already been laid to rest.
I think you continue to discount:
1) the impact of having 67% more scholarships than everyone else
2) How good Iowa high school wrestling was in the 70s and 80s
3) The part of the report that talked about schools repeatedly questioning the policy and some big ten schools not doing it
4) only 7 schools in the country did it. No other conference had the non-compliant rule.
5) of the 7 schools in the country doing it, no one did it more than Iowa wrestling (largely due to how good Iowa high school wrestling was at the time)
Last edited:
The “delta” was valuable to a state like Iowa that had the best high school wrestling. Much like it would be in PA.
It doesn’t help a school where the high school wrestling wasn’t as good or a school where the in state vs out of state tuition isn’t as great.
Having 18.39 scholarships to everyone else’s 11 certainly helped get the wrestlers needed to build the brand / style of wrestling they became known for.
Last edited:
Did the report really say this?
I thought it said however these 3 schools calculated scholarships, the total grant-in-aid amount it didn't rise above the limit set in the NCAA rules. From this kind of wording, I believe their AD practice could've been not to award the full 11 scholarships or the simply could've had more out of state athletes on scholarship.
Different schools have different in state and out of state tuition amounts. The closer the two values, the less ability to efficiently use the scheme. That's just math.
Additionally, different schools have different tuition costs. A scholarship to one school already has a different $ value than a scholarship to another school. So when it comes to treating the scholarship award as its equivalent in dollars (of the time, if that's what a student athlete is truly weighting important), there has always been an uneven playing field.
A lot of factors seem to be in play here. These could further explain why no NCAA titles were vacated.
Last edited:
I really can’t believe you continue to defend and discount it.
Yes (mostly), I don’t think these were the primary factors to Iowa's rise to wrestling dominance when Gable took over.
I haven't researched Iowa HS wrestling of the Gable years thru 1990, so I am not necessarily discounting quality.
I am on record that Iowa State should have much bigger beef about it. Let them take the lead. Calling on @stalemates!!! Here's the idea for your next video. Going to have to post a link to their YouTube.
Last edited:
If Rich Lorenzo had 18.39 scholarships instead of 11 from 1979-1990 to give out to PA high schoolers, how much better would have Penn State been under him?
Believe it. Besides getting the scholarship amount wrong in the beginning, I am very comfortable with my reasoning.
On the other hand, I can understand your belief and promotion of a narrative that emphasizes the scholarships over Dan Gable's ability.
To me, there's little difference between this and GIA posters saying Cael's success is due to a recruiting advantage from having the RTC and associated funds. I think my take is pretty consistent between the two. I'm comfortable with it.
It said Big Ten members had repeatedly questioned the formula and that only 7 of the 10 schools used it. Ohio State, Mich State and Northwestern didn’t.
Except one was investigated and found by the NCAA to be against NCAA rules and one wasn’t.
Very much better, especially considering it was pre-portal and NIL. But the most elite wrestlers want to start, so extra scholarships will only take a team so far. Back then scholarship athletes transferring wasn't so easy.
BTW - College tuition was much less expensive from 1979 to 1990.
Now we have much more expensive tuitions, NIL, and the NCAA rules have adjusted the portal rules to only one free transfer without sitting out a year. I'd say we're about to revisit the equivalent of extra scholarship era. But now the playing field will be level. 😉
Last edited:
No disagreement here. The violation then was the equivalent to Marijuana possession today. Different times. I live in current times.
Did the report say any of the 3 'innocent' schools reported the suspected NCAA violation directly to the NCAA, given they may have had all this dialog with B10 leadership and were being materially disadvantaged?
If not, might they be complicit in what some attribute as the cause of the rise of Iowa wrestling under Dan Gable?
Or maybe they didn't believe they were being materially disadvantaged, or wanted to keep the option in reserve, or think snitches get stiches.
I guess I have to read the entire report.
It did not say this.
The report states "Three universities (Michigan State University, Northwestern University, and Ohio State University) either did not utilize the conference rule or did not make any overawards."
This 'or' wording means they could've used the conference rule, but any use of it did not result in overawards.
Last edited:
For the record, Iowa's "(7) Wrestling -- 7.39" is the amount of grant-in-aid scholarship reduction over a four year period as B10 had proposed restitution. The number follows "... reduce future grants-in-aid by a similar amount over a four-year period ... The exact reductions in financial grants-in-aids associated with the proposed penalties are as follows:"
It is is not how many scholarships Iowa over awarded per year using the B10 formula. Taken on face value, 7.39 scholarship reduction (to be taken over 4) is equivalent to 1.85 per year over that period (despite data collected for the full "1979_80 through the 1990_91 academic years" the rule was in effect for teams that participated in NCAA championships) the scheme (assuming uniformity. 1.85 is 16.8% of 11 scholarship allowance. These numbers are far less than the 67% touted in this thread as fact (and also less than 20%).
Or are my reading and calculations off (again)?
It's ok to admit a mistake. I did.
*Edited to reflect current consensus understanding.
It is is not how many scholarships Iowa over awarded per year using the B10 formula. Taken on face value, 7.39 scholarship reduction (to be taken over 4) is equivalent to 1.85 per year over that period (despite data collected for the full "1979_80 through the 1990_91 academic years" the rule was in effect for teams that participated in NCAA championships) the scheme (assuming uniformity. 1.85 is 16.8% of 11 scholarship allowance. These numbers are far less than the 67% touted in this thread as fact (and also less than 20%).
Or are my reading and calculations off (again)?
It's ok to admit a mistake. I did.
*Edited to reflect current consensus understanding.
Last edited:
Using wrestling as an example, the AD awards sufficiently less than 11 scholarships. So when applying faulty B10 calculation to in state and out of state scholarship wrestlers, the total grant in aid without the faulty formula remains less than 11. It's just math.
Again, it's ok to admit a mistaken understanding.
And this could be used to demonstrate, for some, no competitive advantage on their part.
Do you have a more reasonable explanation of the purpose of the 'or' clause?
In my experience as a federal regulator, reports that are findings of fact are heavily vetted and edited to remove extraneous wording. So, yes, I've had some involvement.
Last edited:
I didn't skip over this. I directly asked why same member schools didn't report to the NCAA. Reasonable answers: They were complicit. They didn't see it as a material disadvantage. The trusted or were obligated to follow what the B10 told them, and may have been led to believe the B10 had confirmed with the NCAA.
Last edited:
Used to fish north of Roulette along Fishing Creek and Fisk Hollow Run. Nice trout! I miss Potter. Being the kind of expansive guy that I am …. I can say that I took my honeymoon in Potter. Got stuck in the mud along Fishing creek in my 62 Catalina. Local farmer pulled us out with a draft horse. Fond memories of Couty too!
This is pretty much ancient history which can be used as a foil to counter any derogatory historical PSU commentary from HR, but not of much use otherwise. It is both factual and absolutely directly related to wrestling, factors that can not be refuted.
If we think of this in a modern sense, it's pretty obvious to me that only 1-2 extra scholarships would have a profound effect on any program.
Does anyone doubt Truax and Nagao wouldn't have committed already if they were offered fulls to PSU? I don't.
PS - the whole Sandusky scandal was egregious. It has zero to do with wrestling in any way, and the university president and AD should have been fired, potentially charged criminally. Oh wait.. The students, the fans, the alums are all sickened and disgusted by the whole thing. None of us are capable of forgetting.
With out a doubt Iowa wrestling including Gable, the AD and compliance were cheats, knowingly or not they gained the maximum advantage with this scheme over every other program in the country including the other programs who were at fault. Those championships should have at least an asterisk designating 'cheated'. The whole state of Iowa has collective amnesia as if it never happened. Move along nothing to see here.
HR has one of the worst cases of 'projection' I have encountered with their claims of tampering, slush funds, excess scholys, over recruiting, and the list goes on... And that is modern day stuff.
If we think of this in a modern sense, it's pretty obvious to me that only 1-2 extra scholarships would have a profound effect on any program.
Does anyone doubt Truax and Nagao wouldn't have committed already if they were offered fulls to PSU? I don't.
PS - the whole Sandusky scandal was egregious. It has zero to do with wrestling in any way, and the university president and AD should have been fired, potentially charged criminally. Oh wait.. The students, the fans, the alums are all sickened and disgusted by the whole thing. None of us are capable of forgetting.
With out a doubt Iowa wrestling including Gable, the AD and compliance were cheats, knowingly or not they gained the maximum advantage with this scheme over every other program in the country including the other programs who were at fault. Those championships should have at least an asterisk designating 'cheated'. The whole state of Iowa has collective amnesia as if it never happened. Move along nothing to see here.
HR has one of the worst cases of 'projection' I have encountered with their claims of tampering, slush funds, excess scholys, over recruiting, and the list goes on... And that is modern day stuff.
Last edited:
Your understanding of the subject material is wrong.
No matter how good Gable was at his job, which was very good, he had a distinct advantage (20 % greater number of scholarships) over Penn State, ASU, Oklahoma St., ISU and every other fully funded program.
Penn State having a RTC, just like Iowa, Ohio State, Cornell, Penn and any other school who wants to fund one is nowhere near the same advantage as having 2 scholarships available to give out than every other program. If for no other reason than the PSU model is within the rules, Iowa's wasn't.
Generally your takes on multiple subjects is very thoughtful. On this one not so much.
I'm more concerned with your comfortability with your reasoning as opposed to just your reasoning. And by the way your opinion is not fact thereby has no serious roots in reason or logic just your perception just saying and that's my opinion lmfao
Maybe we just don't agree what the quoted 7.39 reduction of Iowa wrestling scholarship grants in aid over four years represents, regardless of the report's careful wording.
I'll keep my eyes and ears open for some actual report quotes with accompanying math.
No idea. Didn't know they had a kitchen actually. The Potter County Pub right up the street is good though.
My understanding is that it is not 7.39 per year, but 7.39 total, so almost 2 extra per year, which is still quite an advantage.
Right total over the period of infractions of 4 audited years to be lost over the future 4 years. No penalty for any prior years, despite having solicited some accounting. You and I agree.
So with 11 allowable scholarships over those 4 years, on average how many more in a given year?
No where near 67% and less than 20%, correct?
Closer to 16.8%, right?
Through more in state wrestlers, right?
Last edited:
Indeed. My understanding is 7.39 is the highest figure in the entire report. What does it map to? Iowa Wrestling.
Over 4 years, not 12 years. They only examined 4 years for the report, so I think the real answer is the 20%.
- Status
Similar threads
