If I am not mistaken, the Western Riders (Equestrian) won a NC less that 5 years ago.

Ahhh, didn't know that it wasn't NCAA. Thanks for the clarification.

The Western Riders won a few NC's. The Women's Archery team has won a few too, but I'm not sure if the sport was fully recognized by then yet.

First men's NC in my lifetime, and I'm 62!
Wasn't on the planet yet in 1939.

Hope to see a few more before I go to the Maroon
Heaven where we always win the NC in everything!

Equestrian has won seven national team titles and archery won one every year we had them.

This is the first NCAA title since since softball in the 80's and the first men's national title since the 1939 football one.

No disrespect to equestrian or archery but how many teams are there in the NCAA? I throw those sports into the bowling, crew, wrestling, gymnastics group - no disrespect to them at all but there are only so many schools even fielding teams.

This is the first NC we have won in a LONG time in a sport where most major schools field teams.

...which is one of the main reasons why such a big deal is made over the golf title. Many more teams compete, people understand the sport, and it is an actual NCAA Championship.

Equestrian is an NCAA emerging sport. There'a real possibility they get full championship status sooner rather than later.

They have to obey NCAA rules regarding just about everything, but the NCAA just doesn't hold a championship.

quote:

---

No disrespect to equestrian or archery but how many teams are there in the NCAA? I throw those sports into the bowling, crew, wrestling, gymnastics group - no disrespect to them at all but there are only so many schools even fielding teams.

---

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. If you're saying it matters more to the everyday person, then yeah, it probably does. If you're saying the sport itself is less credible or something, I disagree.


There are well over 80 wrestling schools in D-I. That's plenty.

I know less schools sponsor it than even football and many of those schools aren't known in football or basketball, but that does not mean winning the title is any easier or anything of the sort.

quote:

---

There are well over 80 wrestling schools in D-I. That's plenty. I know less schools sponsor it than even football and many of those schools aren't known in football or basketball, but that does not mean winning the title is any easier or anything of the sort.

---

I have my own definition of what "sport" is, and I won't enter into a debate on that because it's a matter of perspective and opinion, but for the record I think that sports like wrestling and gymnastics are very legitimate.

That said, if you think it is just as hard to win a wrestling NC (where there are 80 schools with small budgets) as it is to win a NC in football, where every major university has a team and spends ridiculous amounts of money on it, then there is a lot more than perspective separating your opinion and reality.

Is wrestling as a sport just as hard as football? For sure. Is winning a national championship in wrestling anywhere near as hard as winning one in football? Not even in the same galaxy.

P.s. - that's what I meant by "no disrespect". I meant that I think that those are legitimate sports and that winning a NC in any of them is a great (and very difficult) accomplishment, but nowhere near as difficult as a sport in which most schools field teams and in which major $ is spent and that includes golf.

If you look at how many American kids (and kids worldwide) play golf as opposed to wrestling - the popularity of the sport, the money spent on it and generated by it as a professional sport, and the prevalence of golf as a D1 sport vs. wrestling, I would say that winning a golf championship is more difficult than winning a wrestling championship.

[This message has been edited by Harry Dunne (edited 5/31/2009 7:40p).]

But if there's fewer athletes that wrestle, and there's also fewer teams, doesn't that mean that there should be the same number of quality athletes on each team? I mean, are there 80 relevant football programs? Not that all 80 wrestling teams are relevant...

Undecided about which side I agree with, just wanted to throw that in there.

So, if we expand the NCAA basketball tournament to 128 teams, does it suddnely make a huge jump in difficulty? Do teams like UConn and North Carolina and Duke and all of them suddenly cringe because there's now twice as many teams?

If we combine FBS and FCS football, do Florida, LSU, Ohio State, USC, Oklahoma, etc... all start to worry?


I'm willing to bet the answer is "They wouldn't really care." Why? The skill and talent it takes to win it all hasn't changed one iota.



I know what you're thinking and where you're trying to go, but I think you're on the wrong track.

Sure, you can put a lot of money forth in wrestling and make a quicker splash than you could versus trying to crack the well-established heirarchy in football...but, at some point, you've got to beat those same establish wrestling programs that you'd have to do in football.

As I said, I know where you're going, but when it comes to winning that last wrestling meet versus winning that bowl game...it's no different for the wrestling team than it is the football team.

You've still got to be the best wrestler in the country. Whether you beat 10 guys or 40 guys.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 5/31/2009 10:19p).]

We could go around in cirles forever. My point is:

There are infinitely more kids playing football than there are wrestling. In order to win a national championship in football you have to recruit EIGHTY FIVE of the top kids in the country and you have to compete with a bunch of major programs with great facilities.

In wrestling there are a handful of great kids being recruited and there are a handful of schools competing. Yes, I agree with the basketball comparison - adding 64 teams wouldn't make it much harder. What about giving 64 teams similar budgets and facilities to the top 10 teams? If you look at the 80ish wrestling teams competing, half of them are 2nd tier schools with inferior budgets and facilities. There are a handful of teams at the top competing for a handful of players. In football it is unlikely but not inconceivable that A&M (a team NOT in the top 50 the last few years) could win a national championship in the next 5 years. We have all of the infrastructure in place to do so - we're just missing the right moves (recruiting and coaching) by the coaching staff.

In wrestling, there is no way on earth that a team not in the top 50 is EVER going to win the national championship in the next 5 years. There is not the same kind of parity that there is in football.

I'll stop here - it's a matter of opinion and I have given mine. I'm not trying to knock wrestling at all, but it is behind a lot of sports in order of difficulty winning a NC and its behind not only football but golf, women's soccer, track & field, baseball, basketball, women's basketball, etc.

Just a note--there is no NCAA football championship in D-I. Of course, I'd rather A&M win one of those "non-existent" football championships than a golf championship.

No offense to the men's golf team--you did us proud, boys.

Don't forget about the bass fishing title we won last year!

What??? You say that wasn't an NCAA recognized sport?! I had no idea!

-Havoc '05

I'm not trying to sound condescinding and I understand your point, but I really do think that is shortsighted, Harry.

At some point, you've got to be the best wrestler in the country. Winning that championship match is no easier to do if you're on a team with 30 guys or on a team with 85+ guys. At some point, you've got to be the best. I don't care how many schools are competiting for the championship, you've still got to be the best.

(Wrestling has 9.9 scholarships to give out. They are often partial scholarships and their rosters typically have around 30 or more guys.)



BTW, what parity in football are you talking about? It's one of the most polarized sports in the NCAA. Financially, talent wise, etc...

Again, football is one of the most polarized sports in the NCAA.

There is certainly that group at the top of wrestling that dominates, but it's no worse than football with things such as OU and Texas-Austin in the Big 12, Ohio State in the Big Ten, USC in the Pac-10, etc...


Also, just because a school doesn't have any relavance in football doesn't mean jack squat with their other athletics. If so, NCAA baseball is all screwed up. Schools like Gonzaga have no business hanging around like they do in basketball, etc...

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 6/1/2009 3:07p).]

dp

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 6/1/2009 2:50p).]

quote:

---

Yes, I agree with the basketball comparison - adding 64 teams wouldn't make it much harder. What about giving 64 teams similar budgets and facilities to the top 10 teams?

---

That's ridiculous.

Of course, if we got out and give 64 teams the millions upon millions to get the top knotch facilities, the game would get a lot of harder.

But, that has nothing to do with what I said nor is that even close to being realistic.


On the realistic part:

There are 300+ teams in college basketball right now, and most of them will ever even think of having great facilities.

Just about every school has the facilities to match what they're financial capable of doing. If they don't have the capability now, they aren't going to have get a sudden jolt and start building their own Cox-McFerric Centers from adding 64 first round basketball games...



On the having to do with what I said:

If you take it realistically, how does adding one more round make it that much harder for North Carolina? Kentucky? Duke?

Sure, it adds some difficulty, but "much harder."



But, then you look at football's 12 game regular season and one time bowl games and you wonder...