Dynasty question.
- Thread starter Roar More
- Start date
PSU Fan: Harder now
Iowa Fan: Harder then
Ok St Fan: hard both eras
Goofer Fan: hard both eras
Pitt/Rutgers Fan: No idea
Iowa Fan: Harder then
Ok St Fan: hard both eras
Goofer Fan: hard both eras
Pitt/Rutgers Fan: No idea
It’s definitely harder when you don’t have twice as many wrestlers on full scholarship as the NCAA allows. 
gAbLe tOoK BaD wReStLeRs aNd MaDe ThEM gUd!It’s definitely harder when you don’t have twice as many wrestlers on full scholarship as the NCAA allows.
Implicit in your question is the assumption that it was in fact more difficult to maintain a dynasty with more teams competing (balanced by the lack of any scholarship cap), but that assumption only holds water if the top recruit pool was similarly dispersed over 200 schools instead of 80. But the top recruits went to a similarly small range of top schools, even if those school have changed.
It wouldn't be a definitive test but my suggestion is probably borne out if you compared the, say, 70th through 200th best schools in that era to the 70th through 80th best schools today. No threats to the team race there, maybe a handful caught a single win at NCAAs. With respect to factors that determine dynasties at the top, what happens at the bottom doesn't contribute much to that discussion.
Pulled kids from the corn fields into the wrestling room and won titles with them
I assumed nothing. It is a questioned I have pondered. On the one hand, there were more schools and those schools could give out more scholarships before Title IX. It may have been easier to win dual meets with a few good wrestlers, but come tournament time, the national cream would rise to the top. What Okie State accomplished was amazing.
On the other hand, there are a lot more high school wrestlers now and they are funneled to fewer schools with less money to dispense. That makes post Title IX dynasties hard to achieve.
I have gone back and forth on this in my mind and was wondering what others thought.
Your premise (more colleges equals dilution of talent pool) is a statistical assumption but I'm suggesting that if you drill into the statistics the premise likely falls apart, because what's true at the top of the bell curve is going to remain relatively constant no matter how the wide the bell gets.
The top recruits, both then and now, only realistically consider a small handful of elite schools, whose numbers were the same then as they are now.
Rico Chapperelli was just minding his business detasseling corn outside Baltimore City when Gable came by in his farm truck and offered him a lift to Iowa to try out this wrestling thing.
You guys need another beer, dont you realize its thirsty thursday and you are making WAY too much sense
I did not see any assumption in the question.
OP literally asked which do we think is harder, A or B.
The so-called “assumption” is merely the basis for one obvious argument in favor of B. There are obvious arguments in favor of A, too. So, are all elements of all obvious arguments for A or for B “assumptions”?
The word assumption does not work that way.
]
Just any lift? Gable had 2.1 extra lifts a year. Wonder what else Iowa was giving away in those 16 or so years Gable was Cheating.
Last edited:
The assumption is implicit in the question--he's not questioning whether the existence of more colleges dilutes the talent pool, he's using that as the starting premise in an either/or proposition. Conversely, if he's not assuming as much, the question makes no sense as an either/or proposition, since it's easily ascertainable that the factor of fewer scholarships makes it harder.
And this is the thanks I get for defending your Nazi aesthetic logo critique.Nope. You’re wrong.
This isn't accurate. In 1971, according to the NFHS surveys, there were 265,039 high school boys participating in wrestling. That number has fluctuated, but largely remained flat over the years. In the 2017-18 survey, 245,564 high school boys participated in wrestling.
Thanks again for that! Every time I see the Flightless-Cinderblock-Turkey logo, I confirm that we were right.
I payed it forward. Now Roar More owes you!
You’re still the best, Tikk!
Dynasty:
Marry: Heather Locklear
F%$##: Linda Evans
Kill: Joan Collins
Oops, wrong forum?
Wrestling: The tipping point for the past being easier was the ability to stockpile AA level talent (unless of course we buy the premise that Gable just drug guys out from behind plows and turned them into Nat Champs).
Marry: Heather Locklear
F%$##: Linda Evans
Kill: Joan Collins
Oops, wrong forum?
Wrestling: The tipping point for the past being easier was the ability to stockpile AA level talent (unless of course we buy the premise that Gable just drug guys out from behind plows and turned them into Nat Champs).
More likely shucking oysters outside his family's restaurant, at which I have eaten.
Different eras, different situations. It's not a question of easier or more difficult for any college team in any college sport to be a dynasty during different eras, at least for me.
When the conditions are right, one could say "the perfect storm", a dynasty might happen. We have seen it in other sports too, and the wrestling comparisons between Gable and Sanderson were inevitable. Both arrived at the perfect time in history, with the perfect administration support, the perfect location at the time, with the perfect plan, with the perfect drive, that altogether created the perfect environment for success.
When the conditions are right, one could say "the perfect storm", a dynasty might happen. We have seen it in other sports too, and the wrestling comparisons between Gable and Sanderson were inevitable. Both arrived at the perfect time in history, with the perfect administration support, the perfect location at the time, with the perfect plan, with the perfect drive, that altogether created the perfect environment for success.
I detasselled a whole summer in Jersey Shore and let me tell you it all sucks
Similar threads
