Mea Culpa

By | May 23, 2017

I’ve received a few comments over the last year asking if I might consider spending more time on stories that uplift.

And believe me when I say, nothing would please me more.

But our desire to read about wrestling’s glass being half full comes at the expense of knowing that it’s also half empty. We crave the feel-good; we want to know that our passion and belief in the sport is justified.

I would like that as well.

But I also realize, as much as some might not want to believe it, to take our next step forward, we have to also identify the ones that have been tripping us up.

As a case in point, in 2020, the NCAA has decided, unwisely; that our national championships will be held at the Brick House, the University of Minnesota’s domed football stadium. It seats almost 57,000 spectators. That’s just wonderful; can anyone say binoculars? But the largest point here is even if we attract an NCAA record crowd of 20,000 fans, the facility is still only a third full. That’s what our distractors will see. “Wrestling is a dying sport, they use to have sellout crowds,” they’ll say. “The sport had way more empty seats than ones being used.” But if there’s something that’s good about the Brick House, at least there won’t be a shortage of parking spaces.

And it doesn’t matter why we had empty seats; when anyone attends a play on Broadway or a bowl game on New Year’s Day and half the seats are empty, they don’t think how lucky they were to get a seat, they wonder what everyone else knew that they didn’t?

I can just hear administrators who are under pressure to get their finances in order, “why do we have wrestling, the sport can’t even fill half the seats at the biggest event they have every year!”

I’m sorry but this is a very big deal because administrators and every other non-revenue sport have an appreciation for self-preservation greater than their compassion for others. So when the time comes and someone has to go, everyone points out the weaknesses of the other guy? A football stadium, regardless of how you format it, is a terrible idea but it does help the NCAA with their bottom line. For those who might know, all profits are theirs to keep.

And it doesn’t help us that wrestling is mostly made up of hard working optimists, but having a few realists within our ranks doesn’t hurt. When an institution comes to the conclusion that they have to drop a sport or two, of course football and basketball are never mentioned, they look to members of their non-revenue family. Then the question becomes, who goes and who stays? It’s simple, those with the lowest scores and highest levels of political impotence disappear.

So during all this, what do you think the tennis, track and swimming coaches are saying; “pick me, pick me.” Heck no, instead they’re doing their best to highlight their positives while quietly pointing out the limitations of those around them, the ones they perceive to be weakest. It’s a dog eat dog world and no one understands that more or does it better than we do . . . but only within our own ranks. We wouldn’t think of positioning ourselves above others and that’s a moral strength wrestling has but politically it’s very foolish.

Regardless if we decide to do battle or not, we have to look at wrestling for what it’s not, and be aware of how those who wish to do us harm see the sport.

And why I write the way I do. Because I love rainbows as much as the next guy, but I’m also aware that they only exist because their parents are storm clouds.


The National High School Association that governs scholastic wrestling just approved an alternate uniform to compete with the singlet and it couldn’t have come at a better time; a two-piece form-fitting compression top paired with either compression shorts or a looser version similar to what the MMA community wears.

Was it something I said or is this coincidence? Maybe my writings have begun to reach those who decide. Whatever triggered this break from tradition doesn’t really matter; it’s most definitely a step in the right direction.

We are finally forcing our traditionalists to take a back seat to what has to be “new and improved” if we’re to ever rebound from the sports non-voluntary downsizing. If that means dragging the weak of vision kicking and screaming into the light, then so be it.

There’s no doubt that this uniform variation is going to take a few years to catch on but the sooner the better, especially at the elementary levels. I’m not so worried about our older athletes who have the physique to make a singlet look good. It’s all about the little Johnnies and Janies that concern me; especially the ones who decided not to give the sport a try in the first place.

How many Burroughs’ and Stieber’s have we lost; how many champions of life like Mike Novogratz, Abe Lincoln and Norm Schwarzkopf decided against the sport because of how they felt they would look in a singlet?

Or maybe not knowing is a blessing?

Heck, I bet Kyle Snyder didn’t look like the Kyle Snyder of today when he was 7 years old. Folks, this is a great move forward, it’s time we divorce the singlet; surrender the house, the car and a generous monthly stipend so we can move in with new appearance altering, body enhancing uniform option.

And if you think about it, what would be so wrong if we allowed the sport to become a fashion show for the human form; multi-colored fight shorts or tights, long or short legged singlets, various designs and materials of long or short sleeved compression tops; this could be so much fun, the men creating a look for themselves, the women doing the same. I get it, the traditionalists will hate this too but they would still come to matches. But what we’d gain is the attention of a new group of fans who’d want to see what all the hubbub is about?

And regardless of the outfit a team or individual selects, as long as it meets safety standards and a reasonable level of decorum, why not bring the fashion houses of Paris and Milan into the mix while curtailing one of the largest barriers to entry we have.

Traditionalists need to get a grip here; wrestling is a sport, it’s an entertainment source and it’s also a business. Actually, reversing the order is more precise. We’re a business first, an Entertainment source second and then a sport if we’re serious about developing into a media supported industry.

And as we saw at Boise State, when you think you’re only a sport . . . bad things happen.

Speaking of Boise State

Boise, ID — Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden today filed an enforcement action against Boise State University alleging that the University engaged in misconduct, fraudulent and unlawful practices against tens of thousands of Idahoans.

The suit alleges that BSU engaged in serious misconduct against tens of thousands of Idahoans that pay taxes with in the State of Idaho and should have been given due process of notification.

BSU haphazardly assembled its official decision. This deprived Idahoans of the ability to have their voice heard. Attorney General Wasden has action seeks to halt all actions in regards to the Elimination of the Boise State University Wrestling Program until the Tens of Thousands of voices within the State of Idaho, with 4 different classification levels of high school wrestling have their opportunity to be heard. As your Attorney General, I believe that everyone should have their Day in Court.

Consumers who believe they have been victims of this misconduct may submit a complain on-line:

This is great news . . . and I guess that makes me 2-0 now. Someone obviously received my memo regarding the need to be professional (along with the singlet) when doing battle with professionals. Boise is fighting an institutional decision with a judicial remedy. That’s the only way to get the attention of anyone who aims to do us harm.

Wrestling has never really defended the sport in this manner, at least at this level. Typically we like to confront problems of this nature with pitch forks, 4-letter words and t-shirt sales; all of which may feel good at some level but in the end guarantees not only the loss of the program we’re trying to save but probably others as well. It’s our lack of being combat ready that emboldens college administrators to select wrestling as a place to begin cutting when revenue is scarce. Every time we demonstrate how lowbrow we are and politically inept the sport can be; we become even larger targets.

At least going through the court system will get people’s attention and I applaud those who have their hands in this pie; maybe it’s a golden apple moment for us, a blueprint for future successes; even if it is reactive.

Now if only we could combine that with a proactive approach to survival we’d have something. Especially when we never have the resources of those who will do us harm. And if you think about it, there isn’t a military General that wouldn’t tell you if you’re attacked, without warning, and have the inferior force; the battle is over before it begins. That’s where wrestling has been for decades, and it’s reactively sad. We will always be that lesser foe. And administrators with very, very few exceptions have always won the battles they started with us because wrestling has never seen a need to be proactive.

Why do you think that is? Are we so used to getting kicked around that we’ve resigned ourselves to always knowing we’re going to lose? Could it be that our naivety is so blinding that we unconditionally trust our administrators up until the point when we take a torpedo amidships? Or might it be that we don’t like being proactive because it takes too much energy preparing for the worst while hoping for the best? And coaches, don’t count on your colleagues who compete in your conference lifting a helping hand. They can’t, it’s too difficult to do when they’re busy dialing the phone numbers of your best athletes.

Actually I happen to believe that wrestling knows there’s a battle going on; it’s just that we’re too busy being competitive with one another to see any threats outside of those the opposition poses.

The plight of wrestling is winnable, it really is, but we have to focus our energies on two fronts; being proactive and having available a nuclear option.

We must protect ourselves from outside attacks by developing the type of defense that North Korea has adopted. Basically acknowledge that any battle we undertake with administrators is going to end badly for us BUT it won’t be without both combatants getting hurt. Those who want to hurt us need to know that we won’t go gently into the good night. We need to have our artillery pointed at the administrator’s desk and make him or her aware that we have nukes; and we’ll use them if need be. The fear of mutual destruction is the key; administrators need to understand that it’s far better to tackle anyone of the other non-revenues than pick on us.

More on wrestling’s Star War Defense Shield in the next blog.

Attendance Says It All

The attendance numbers are in for the 2016-2017 collegiate wrestling season. The Top 20 Division I teams in America averaged not 15K, or 10K, or 5K fans per event, but a paltry 2,844; with the 20th best team in America drawing less than 1000 fans. These numbers include Penn State who continues to attract record numbers as are Iowa and Ohio State so you can imagine what the other institutions aren’t doing that makes this average so pitiful.

And even though I’m unaware of the exact numbers for the other 55 Division I schools, it’s fair to say as a group they don’t average 500 fans per event; with a majority of those schools not even charging admission fees given the cost for ticket sellers, takers, parking attendants and security guards would be greater than any revenue generated.

Attendance numbers for Division II (61 programs) and Division III (101 programs) are even more sobering. There are a few divisional leaders with programs in states like Ohio, Minnesota and Iowa but their numbers aren’t worthy of publication either.

So say what you want, but until wrestling addresses our excitement and entertainment issues, administrators will continue to forget that their wrestling team had several All-American’s and finished well in their conference meet as they drop the program.

Revenue talks . . . loudly, deafeningly so and a team that hasn‘t won a dual meet in 25 years or had any athletic or academic AA’s will never become a causality if they’re revenue neutral. Money talks and, well, you know the rest of that adage.

Excitement and Entertainment, the two E’s of survival, pride, power, influence, bragging rights and as a reminder to my coaching friends; mid six figure salaries.

Putting all this in perspective, and why administrators are looking for ways to make difficult cuts, there are only 20 athletic departments in the entire country where income exceeds expenditures. And these numbers are getting worse as income grows at an annual rate of 3% while expenditures are increasing 3 times as fast.

That’s the bad news. The good news for wrestling is society is becoming more and more sedentary with the exponential explosion of technology. Everyone’s life has been made easier in one respect and at times more difficult in others. But either way, American’s are looking for more and more convenient ways of being entertained; either for the purpose of reducing stress or filling a void in daily routines.

And it doesn’t matter why that is; this is a huge opportunity for wrestling, the likes of which we’ve never seen before. Whatever sport or source of entertainment adapts the quickest to the needs of the consumer, they will be the ones who receive the lion’s share of a very large pot of gold.

Sports like the NHL and UFC are rolling in dough for that very reason. Commercial free shows on Hulu and Netflix are booming because they adapted with technology as has Amazon, Uber and Airbnb. They all have leaders like Elon Musk from Tesla; individuals who think out of the box and don’t change with the times, they make the times.

But not wrestling, we do whatever we can to stay the same as the revenue gap between those who get it and those who don’t widens.

We can do better and I will always believe we have the right vehicle.

The only difference between wrestling and the UFC is leadership and vision. Our sport has the possibility of being terribly exciting and very entertaining if we let it. But we’ve grown so accustomed to sub-standard levels of action that what we believe to be our most exciting and entertaining bouts are really average. We’ve just gotten so used to the bar being so low for so long that we mistakenly accept ho-hum for yippee.

If we ever expect to survive we have to think differently.

Why not make Zane Rutherford our poster child for what’s average in wrestling and go from there? Crazy, maybe not.

Remember all the great wrestlers America had in the 1950’s and 60’s? Every one of them knew, beyond any doubt, that their training methods and level of conditioning was beyond reproach, clearly they were all 10’s on a scale of 1 to 10. No one could possibly work any harder or get in better shape. Then came along a guy named Gable and it became apparent that what was considered a 10 was actuality a 6 on Dan’s scale.

So is it possible that Rutherford is a 6, could we be doing better? We won’t know unless we look at other ways of creating excitement.

Up until 1954 it was believed that the human body was simply not capable of running a 4-minute mile. Folklore had it that someone even released a group of bulls behind a bunch of runners to increase the incentive to do the impossible. But within a year of Roger Bannister breaking the 4-minute mile, 24 others did it as well. All it took was someone who could create a certainty in himself, even without seeing any proof that it was possible. Today high-schoolers now run sub 4-minute miles on a regular basis so maybe Zane is a 6 . . . I happen to believe we have so much more to offer than we’re currently doing.

But it begins with a willingness to see what’s currently not visible.

Thought for the Day

It’s not actually a thought, probably more of a “what do you think?”

Given that most everyone agrees that forfeits aren’t good for the sport, and given that too many of them occur as a result of one team having a very good wrestler facing off against an opponent who is far less accomplished, maybe the rules committee should consider the following:

Anytime a team forfeits a weight class, the wrestler who receives the forfeit may move up a weight class and compete there should he and his coach choose to; in essence receiving two opportunities to score points for his team but actually only wrestling once.

Is this perfect, no. Does it eliminate all forfeits, not even close. But it does move the needle in the right direction. Too many times teams will forfeit to superior athletes for no other reason than to keep them off the mat. And when that happens the sport is knowingly cheating our fans out of matches they drove a distance to see and bought tickets to enjoy only to be disappointed.

If there’s one thing I believe we can all agree on it’s the sport has to showcase its stars. There is no reason, short of a medical emergency that should keep the best of our best on the sidelines. Of course that’s if we want to see the sport continue.

Can you name any other sport that works as hard as we do at keeping our stars out of the heavens? I wonder why the UFC has 8 undercard bouts leading to a Main Event; why not just say tonight there is going to be 9 fights? Because it’s obvious, the last one is different; it’s the headliner that involves the best two fighters that are available. You never see one of the undercard competitors forfeiting his bout, ever!

Why does LeBron James play in at least 80% of each Cavalier game; and the entire game most of the time? So the fans will buy tickets and attend the game. If he wasn’t playing, does that help or hurt attendance?

What would happen to a Broadway play when people are paying big bucks to see Nathan Lane in the lead role and every night end up with his understudy?

When coaches forfeit to a superior athlete for no other reason than to keep him off the mat its consumer fraud; and it’s rather obvious how that would hurt any company, organization or sport that provides entertainment for a fee.

Heck, wrestling doesn’t even play the bait and switch game using my Broadway play as an example; we just bait and cheat.

This rule eliminates some of which ails us; except at heavyweight. Those athletes can’t move up a weight. But if we improve 90% of something that needs serious attention, why shouldn’t the sport “go for it?”

14 thoughts on “Mea Culpa

  1. Jack Moses

    Posted elsewhere, copied here as it applies to the general discussion:

    “From WIN Magazine (June 1), a strong viewpoint from Schalles on righting the wrestling ship. Some merit there. In a bit of comedic relief, in same issue, Innovator of the Year: Trackwrestling. Really? A ten year old website, resented by most coaches and with a zero footprint in the mobile space. Their chief achievement is the successful monopolization of the OPC database to the detriment of our sport and in cooperation with the National Wrestling Coaches Association which, ironically, carries the mantel of **helping** coaches. Fittingly, the same page on which WIN ludicrously touts Track as an innovator also contains a paid advertisement for a paper scorebook. Schalles article, which is good and powerful, stands in stark contrast to awarding Track innovator of the year which lacks credibility and, at best, lazy reporting or a full breakdown of the normal separation of editorial and publishing. In any case, kudos to WIN for the Schalles article who could’ve pointed to WIN’s Innovator award as an example in support of his thesis that wrestling is generally not making the progress required for survival.”

  2. dnowa

    Regarding the double-use of wrestlers receiving forfeits, I would rather see two things that could minimize forfeits (especially those that are the result of ducking): 1. Locked in line-ups, presented to the official 5 minutes prior to the dual (the fact that many duals are decided by who wins the coin toss and has to send first is absurd) and 2. Increasing forfeit to 7 points. Thanks again for thinking outside the box, and supporting the notion that coaches are often not the best sources of opinion when it comes to what is best for THE OVERALL GROWTH OF THE SPORT (as evident by the responses to many of the NCAA survey questions

    1. Wade Schalles

      As much as I wish you were right here, and I appreciate your input, you didn’t think these out. Locked in line-ups, what does that mean? So the coach gives the referee a line-up, so what happens if he says that his 165 pounder just got sick and can’t wrestle come match time?

      And as to 7 points, you’re assuming that the dual meet is close. Most aren’t. So what if you forfeit when the score is 27-3. What does it mean if you you lose another 7 points, you were going to lose anyway. But the sport loses regardless.

      How about you’re down 7 points before you start the next dual meet as a result of forfeiting in the previous dual. Forfeit’s are very, very bad and we have to find a way to handle them.

      Thanks for your effort here. Appreciated.

  3. Bob

    Wade. I really enjoy reading all your thoughts and think you are right on. Besides supporting wrestling in our local area, what can the average fan do to help get traction to your bigger and innovative ideas?

    1. Wade Schalles

      Bob, I wish I had an answer to your question. If every fan we had told the rules committee that they wanted something one way or another for this reason or another, no matter how obvious or rationale, the committee would tell the 1 million plus supporters that they didn’t understand the sport and that they were wrong.

      I’m not sure we can do anything. I don’t have a goal here by writing, other than to have these thoughts chronicled so I can say I told you so in 5 or 10 years when they lose the sport. I know, that sounds petty but we’re fighting 3000 years of history and some very stubborn

  4. Chad Crow

    Wade, you’re correct about new (and different) images. Think about the change Charlie Finley brought to the Oakland A’s in the `70’s. For the first year or two, most of the other teams scoffed – then quickly followed suit with color, gimmicks and fun of their own. Our team and individual scoring desperately need to reward offensive attacks. Our technique is just fine, and our athletes will easily respond to an increased level of scoring when they know the rules protect and reward them for offensive activity.
    Re: Adding women’s wrestling. I’m all for it – but adding women’s wrestling is a temporary fix – Univ of North Dakota just dropped women’s hockey . . . AD’s still need to balance the budget – and men’s wrestling will be the easy, sacrificial lamb if we don’t take personal responsibility in attracting crowds!
    Chad Crow

    1. Wade Schalles

      I’m so pleased that someone else understands these very basic tenets. You’re so right. I just don’t get it, to me these things are as basic as black and white, as easily understood as A, B, C. Reward the attacker and the fans will reward the sport. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

  5. Tom

    I love the comments about Zain, 4 minute mile, etc. There are a few guys in the country that are very exciting to watch—-several from Penn State, incidentally. These guys are great for the sport. The guy who goes 40-0 and wins by 1-2 points most of the time is not. Sure, they are “winners” but it’s boring. If ESPN ever decided to showcase wrestling, guys like Nolf, Nickal, Zain would be stars. After teaching beginners and youth for many years, I can assure you that kids trying the sport for the first time want to learn cool and exciting moves and score lots of points. Of course you need a high c, but some coaches NEVER teach anything interesting or out of the norm. And we wonder why the best athletes choose lacrosse or football or baseball over wrestling. Anyway, great article as usual, Wade!

    1. Wade Schalles

      Tom . . . thank you for the kind words. I knew I’d get someone commenting over the use of Zane’s name. It would be hard to find anyone better at scoring points but he’s more of a Gable grinder. Nickal on the other hand is more fun to watch due to his unpredictability. Standing one moment, pinning his opponent the next. Defending a single leg and oops, the match is over. Both styles are crowd pleasers, they have something for everyone.

      And thank you Cael for either coaching them this way or letting them run.

      The only way out of this snooze style is by a point scored is a point earned rule. That changes everything but doesn’t put any wrestler at risk of losing any match they would win today. However it does change how coaches will coach. look to the right and drop down about 18 blogs to read about it.

  6. Mike Parrish

    The simplest way to fight program closures is for every collegiate men’s wrestling program to start a complementary women’s program.

    When was the last time a coed sport was dropped from a D1 school?

    1. Cuse

      It happens. Syracuse… whose men’s athletic offerings are pathetic… dropped mens & womens swimming in 2008 and added women’s ice hockey. (They don’t even have men’s ice hockey.)

      BTW, women’s wrestling isn’t recognized by the NCAA. Not that adding women’s club wrestling wouldn’t help… it would if there’s enough interest.

    2. Wade Schalles Post author

      Mike, I’m not sure that would help. If and when you start a women’s program, you effectively double the amount of revenue an AD has to find for the sport. Basically that doubles the cost of having wrestling. Then one of the sexes is going to have to practice 2 hours after the other one given there is only 1 wrestling room unless the school builds a second one . . . and if that happens, that’s more capital outlay.

      What I’m afraid you’d see is AD’s being tempted to drop the men’s team, keep the newly formed women’s program and help his Title IX numbers.

      What might work is to combine teams and have say 6 weights for the males and 6 for the females. Then you’d have protection BUT we’d have to surrender 4 collegiate weight classes to achieve this security. And as you can guess, that’s not going to fly very high.

      Thanks for writing . . . Wade

      1. Dale Murdock

        After the excitement generated by the style of wrestling shown by Penn State, maybe more coaches will be motivated to teach more than “beat on the head and win by one point”. All I heard after the NCAA Tournament from people who were there and watched on TV was “WOW”, can you believe the guys from Penn State!!!. As always the biggest challenge to our sport is the subject of stalling.

        1. Wade Schalles

          Dale . . . you’re right about stalling in that people always talk about it. But it’s the word stalling that needs to disappear from ALL rule books and out of our vocabulary. It doesn’t explain what we need to happen. The word we need to replace stalling with is activity. We should be against inactivity and coach activity. Turning your back to your opponent and running as fast as you can away from him is stalling but in this instance it’s desirable. Because it’s activity or action. We want action. When you chase your opponent the crowd will love it. We have never been able to fix stalling because it runs contrary to what we really want. Fans want action. Full backs don’t seek out the linebackers, they run away from them. That’s action and the crowd loves it. Tennis players don’t hit the ball to their opponent, they aren’t interested in engaging, they hit it away from him. Both instances if it were wrestling we would call them for stalling and it would be wrong. I need another 2000 words here to get my point across. I’m sorry. Maybe this should be another blog topic. Hope you’re doing well old friend.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.