Can somebody explain forfeits in wrestling?

PhilaPhans

Best Poster Ever!
Apr 23, 2005
11,667
4,287
113
Gibbstown, NJ
I'm watching NW vs. Minny, and there have been a few forfeits so far. Why? Do they really not have the depth to find someone to wrestle? Is it better or worse to send out a guy and try to save a single point instead of forfeiting it right away?
 

Abro1975

Hall of Famer
Nov 21, 2009
24,507
12,800
113
They don't want to burn red shirts. They were talking about this at the start of the match. Let's face, regular season in D1 wrestling takes a back seat to the post season NCAA tourny.
Originally posted by PhilaPhans:
I'm watching NW vs. Minny, and there have been a few forfeits so far. Why? Do they really not have the depth to find someone to wrestle? Is it better or worse to send out a guy and try to save a single point instead of forfeiting it right away?
 

otter97

Freshman
Mar 22, 2011
156
7
18
it really is bad for the sport though when teams in the big 10 can't field a complete team. sometimes its because some one didn't make weight, but sometimes its to dodge match ups to get better seeding come tourney time. having 3 forfeits in a match is moronic.
 

Jaroslav Hasek

Sophomore
Apr 30, 2014
491
281
63
i believe Northwestern is a special guess as they apparently are limited by their administration to 18 roster spots. word is that every sport has strict roster limits, tho unclear as to why. could be title IX but i don't know for sure. program has plenty of funding and they have excellent coaches and obviously recruit well, but if they redshirt guys and have injuries like they did this year then they have trouble fielding full team. still have 2 guys ranked #1 and a handful of other ranked guys.

not sure what happened with Minnesota at 125. they have like 8 guys listed at that weight on their roster and it was a home dual. something may have happened last minute.

its a bummer for fans but all that matters from a team perspective is the NCAA tourney in March, so there is no incentive to jeopardize the future for a dual meet in March, even to an inconference rival.
 

Knight177lb

Junior
Gold Member
Sep 3, 2014
754
615
93
The primary reason is Title IX. It is absolutely killing the sport of wrestling. Schools are dropping their wrestling programs left and right. In addition it is placing limits on the amount of wrestlers on the roster.
 

Racpack

Senior
Jan 21, 2012
1,168
702
113
No excuse for Big Ten and other top teams to forfeit matches. If a team forfeits more than two bouts in the course of a year, they should be penalized a seed for each additional forfeit during the national tournament. Hope RU does not forfeit any matches.
 

Knight177lb

Junior
Gold Member
Sep 3, 2014
754
615
93
Don't blame the teams for forfeiting, blame Title IX. The law that was supposed to create more opportunities for women, also has been used to provide less opportunities for men. The logic is that by punishing men, women will benefit. Rutgers has been forced to cut tennis, crew, and swimming for men. It doesn't really benefit women, but I guess it makes Title IX supporters feel better.
 

obrats

Senior
Mar 28, 2013
1,915
1,000
113
I think in Minnasotta's case we can blame the team. They were home and have 8 125 pounders on their rooster. We can't blame everything on Title IX.
 

brianoc

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 11, 2001
15,108
7,345
113
Mt. Laurel NJ
I love wrestling but Title IX is great legislation. I love college football but go to 5-10 less football scholarships and we have an even better college system and no real issue with Title IX.
 

Ole Cabbagehead

All American
Apr 21, 2011
8,077
6,218
113
TItle IX is incredibly simplistic, and not adequately designed to meet serve its purpose. It rests entirely on the false supposition that male and female participation should be equal. In reality, its goal should simply be to ensure equal opportunities for those who want to participate. By counting all sports, Title IX limits male participation in athletics, because sports that have no female counterpart are included in the computation. As a result, random men's team sports have to be cut in the name of Title IX compliance, because no school is going to cut football and its massive scholarship roster of males. The resulting cuts to non-revenue men's sports have done nothing to increase women's scholarships, and instead have diminished the opportunities afforded to male students.

Title IX would make far more sense if schools were required to field a female team for any sport that is offered for males, or in the alternative, the school would have to offer the same number of scholarships for all athletes. That would allow schools to use the current method, or, alternatively, to have large sports programs with football and wrestling not leading to random men's sports having to be cut. Stated differently, if a school offers a fully funded men's and women's team for all sports that have both, they should be exempt from the scholarship restriction.
 

PhilaPhans

Best Poster Ever!
Apr 23, 2005
11,667
4,287
113
Gibbstown, NJ
Old Cabbagehead,

Let's go on your premise and use this to analyze Rutgers sports offerings.

I assume baseball and softball should cancel each other out as sports. We have both teams for basketball, soccer, cross country, golf, lacrosse, and track and field.

We would need to add men's gymnastics, tennis, swimming & diving, volleyball, and crew program to equal out.

What would happen in the cases of football, wrestling, field hockey? There is such a thing as women's wrestling, but the others aren't offered to both genders in collegiate athletics, I don't believe. Should you create new sports programs for the women? Does having field hockey balance out having wrestling? Football will always be the biggest scholarship program, so how do you level that out?
 

otter97

Freshman
Mar 22, 2011
156
7
18
Title IX should be adjusted for football, either include cheerleading/dance teams for women to balance it out, or just exclude the football numbers altogether. The roster is too damn big for a sport where only 11 players are on the field at a time.

Another thought, maybe title IX should be adjusted for number of starting positions for each sport, then football would be limited to 11 instead of 60. After all, its purpose was to allow equal opportunities for men and woman to participate. it could be argued that sitting on a bench is not participating, just practicing. If woman's soccer wanted, they could have a roster of 60 women as well, only 11 would play at anyone time though. each sport can be given enough scholarships for the starting positions (which most do currently), additional scholarships funded through donations or revenue from that sport (football would be able to fund their own additional scholarships directly) from ticket sales.
 

RU at the shore

All Conference
Dec 31, 2005
3,774
368
83
Originally posted by brianoc:
I love wrestling but Title IX is great legislation. I love college football but go to 5-10 less football scholarships and we have an even better college system and no real issue with Title IX.
Cutting 5 - 10 football scholarships would be great for the competitive balance of the sport.
 

PhilaPhans

Best Poster Ever!
Apr 23, 2005
11,667
4,287
113
Gibbstown, NJ
Can somebody explain why sports like wrestling have a 9.9 scholarship limit? How did they come upon a number like that, as opposed to football, with a billion scholarships per team (yes, I know the number of players is higher, but most people have full scholarships in that sport as opposed to wrestling, baseball, etc).
 

Jaroslav Hasek

Sophomore
Apr 30, 2014
491
281
63
not 100% sure but i think D1 wrestling used to have 11 scholarships until the NCAA cut all scholarships for all sports by 10%, leaving wrestling with 9.9. I think a lot of other non revenue sports also have scholly numbers with decimals as a result.

no idea why the cut was made or how the original limit of 11 was set though.
 

elessarcif

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2014
22
0
1
The craziest thing comes in the bidding wars. When one school offers 1/3 of a scholarship to a wrestler and another gives a full scholarship. The best programs can convince wrestlers to take less scholarships.

As to the forfeits, Minnesota has no excuse. The 125 pounder didnt make weight and they had noone else prepared that also wouldnt burn a red shirt. Honestly I am tired of our situation at 125. It could cost us at nationals. I fear we may not have the depth. Luckily our big guns are also big point makers. HWY is also starting to look better than I expected.
 

Ole Cabbagehead

All American
Apr 21, 2011
8,077
6,218
113
Originally posted by PhilaPhans:
Old Cabbagehead,

Let's go on your premise and use this to analyze Rutgers sports offerings.

I assume baseball and softball should cancel each other out as sports. We have both teams for basketball, soccer, cross country, golf, lacrosse, and track and field.

We would need to add men's gymnastics, tennis, swimming & diving, volleyball, and crew program to equal out.

What would happen in the cases of football, wrestling, field hockey? There is such a thing as women's wrestling, but the others aren't offered to both genders in collegiate athletics, I don't believe. Should you create new sports programs for the women? Does having field hockey balance out having wrestling? Football will always be the biggest scholarship program, so how do you level that out?
Part of my premise was that the women's sport would have to be a conference sanctioned sport. So, you could either offer the same number of total scholarshps, or you would meet Title IX by offering a fully funded women's team for every women's sport that is sanctioned.

All of that said, I am just going to back off my point because I do not know enough about it to really argue this other than to say that in my opinion if the only way schools can comply with Title IX is by cutting men's sports, it is not working. That should not be how they reach the goal. A system that results in schools offering less to men, as opposed to more to women, does not help anyone.
 

BoroKnight

All American
Mar 13, 2010
5,310
2,070
113
Title IX is NOT about sports; it's about education. How sports fits in appears to be "screw the men" but that is just not the case. For funding reasons, schools can't increase the number of women's teams, so they cut men's teams.

Providing equal numbers of scholarship opportunities is the point here. And as much as I hate to see any sport suffer -- and wrestling has suffered more than any other -- it's too damn bad. Equality has to be the rule here, and you just can't offer more men's scholarships than women's scholarships. You just can't.

Schools give out cheerleading scholarships to help balance the scales. They fund women's crew but not men's. You just can't argue against equal numbers of scholarships and have a legitimate case. You just can't.

It sucks, no doubt. But you just can't have more men's scholarships than women's because you want wrestling.
 

NickKnight 1

All American
Mar 22, 2003
6,626
1,482
113
" It has to be that way cutting men's sports and scholarships"
So your saying that if the wrestling has an attendance of 5000, and the women
basketball brings 500, too bad screw the men and limit their ships? I love liberal thinking.
This post was edited on 1/2 11:38 PM by NickKnight 1
 

Latest posts