Through the years, OU and OSU have had great wrestling teams. If they join a conference like the SEC, do they drop wrestling? OSU had two champions this past year.

(06-14-2014 06:48 AM)Hawkeye Fan Wrote:  Through the years, OU and OSU have had great wrestling teams. If they join a conference like the SEC, do they drop wrestling? OSU had two champions this past year.

My guess is no. They would move wrestling to the MAC like Mizzu did.

The SEC and Big 12 have a basketball scheduling alliance and Sugar Bowl alliance longterm including co ownership. Neither side is doing anything to destabilize the other. More importantly neither OU or OSU have any desire to leave the conference they are in. The entire question is moot.

Oh, both the Buckeyes and the Bobcats would be welcome to wrestle in the MAC. Heck, the MAC allowed Big12 school Mizzou to join the MAC for wrestling when Mizzou joined the SEC, despite the fact that Mizzou (as could have been and probably was anticipated) has dominated the MAC championship in the two year since joining.

Big 12 wrestling is already in trouble being down to 4 teams and in danger or losing automatic qualifier status. There'll be movement with the wrestling programs long before anyone considers a full conference shift. The Big 12 and ACC have already had discussions about merging their wrestling leagues. The Big 12 could also look to bring on some affiliates. Missouri could be a possibility to return now that the SEC and Big 12 are on better terms. Northern Iowa would be another good candidate being one of the stronger MAC programs but only having affiliate status there. Failing those two options, then we might see the wrestling programs look for homes elsewhere. In any case, whatever happens with Big 12 wrestling and the individual programs will be unrelated to primary conference affiliation.

when West Virginia joined the Big 12 they moved their men's soccer program to the MAC. OSU or OU could definitely do the same with their wrestling.

(06-14-2014 02:54 PM)prp Wrote:  Big 12 wrestling is already in trouble being down to 4 teams and in danger or losing automatic qualifier status. There'll be movement with the wrestling programs long before anyone considers a full conference shift. The Big 12 and ACC have already had discussions about merging their wrestling leagues. The Big 12 could also look to bring on some affiliates. Missouri could be a possibility to return now that the SEC and Big 12 are on better terms. Northern Iowa would be another good candidate being one of the stronger MAC programs but only having affiliate status there. Failing those two options, then we might see the wrestling programs look for homes elsewhere. In any case, whatever happens with Big 12 wrestling and the individual programs will be unrelated to primary conference affiliation.

There was already an article from one of the coaches from either OU or OSU saying that they should join the MAC in wrestling. The MAC is already probably top 3 in wrestling and adding those two probably puts them at a strong number 2.

I think OSU would definitely consider a SEC invite. And like I said before they are interesting for the SEC because they get the conference into a new state while also expanding the presence in DFW.

If that happened they'd just join another conference for wrestling

Several SEC schools are in other conferences for sports not sponsored like men's soccer

(06-14-2014 08:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think OSU would definitely consider a SEC invite. And like I said before they are interesting for the SEC because they get the conference into a new state while also expanding the presence in DFW.

If that happened they'd just join another conference for wrestling

Several SEC schools are in other conferences for sports not sponsored like men's soccer

Ive always found it interesting that the SEC doesnt have wrestling. Just seems like a no-brainer.

1. as mentioned above the more realistic scenario would be if the NCAA has enough with the b12s four team wrestling setup. this is a legitimate problem but it most likely will be triggered by the NCAA not conference realignment.

2. it is not like we had a scenario exactly like the one above. oh wait? we did? you don't say?
#missouri
#MAC wrestling

(06-14-2014 10:05 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think OSU would definitely consider a SEC invite. And like I said before they are interesting for the SEC because they get the conference into a new state while also expanding the presence in DFW.

If that happened they'd just join another conference for wrestling

Several SEC schools are in other conferences for sports not sponsored like men's soccer

Ive always found it interesting that the SEC doesnt have wrestling. Just seems like a no-brainer.

Wrestling just isn't big in the south. Some of these states didn't even have it as a high school sport until a couple of years ago. There seems to be neither the interest nor the talent level to support it. Lacrosse has grown tremendously in Ga, SC and Tenn. It is Title IX friendly. I could see that coming as the next SEC sport.

(06-15-2014 05:51 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 10:05 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think OSU would definitely consider a SEC invite. And like I said before they are interesting for the SEC because they get the conference into a new state while also expanding the presence in DFW.

If that happened they'd just join another conference for wrestling

Several SEC schools are in other conferences for sports not sponsored like men's soccer

Ive always found it interesting that the SEC doesnt have wrestling. Just seems like a no-brainer.

Wrestling just isn't big in the south. Some of these states didn't even have it as a high school sport until a couple of years ago. There seems to be neither the interest nor the talent level to support it. Lacrosse has grown tremendously in Ga, SC and Tenn. It is Title IX friendly. I could see that coming as the next SEC sport.

A long time ago 1960's - mid 1970's Auburn was an annual wrestling top 10. We weren't quite where Iowa and Oklahoma State were but we were close. There were other wrestling programs in the SEC. All were a victim of Title 9. We have numerous wrestling programs at the high school level, but most of them are located in large metropolitan areas. The set up for them is travel intensive so poorer kids opt for other sports. But overall I agree that the talent level isn't there in sufficient numbers to supply the 14 members of the SEC with talent in each discipline and weight class.

in my region football-wrestling-lacrosse were the three core sports among blue collar athletes.

(06-15-2014 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:51 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 10:05 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think OSU would definitely consider a SEC invite. And like I said before they are interesting for the SEC because they get the conference into a new state while also expanding the presence in DFW.

If that happened they'd just join another conference for wrestling

Several SEC schools are in other conferences for sports not sponsored like men's soccer

Ive always found it interesting that the SEC doesnt have wrestling. Just seems like a no-brainer.

Wrestling just isn't big in the south. Some of these states didn't even have it as a high school sport until a couple of years ago. There seems to be neither the interest nor the talent level to support it. Lacrosse has grown tremendously in Ga, SC and Tenn. It is Title IX friendly. I could see that coming as the next SEC sport.

A long time ago 1960's - mid 1970's Auburn was an annual wrestling top 10. We weren't quite where Iowa and Oklahoma State were but we were close. There were other wrestling programs in the SEC. All were a victim of Title 9. We have numerous wrestling programs at the high school level, but most of them are located in large metropolitan areas. The set up for them is travel intensive so poorer kids opt for other sports. But overall I agree that the talent level isn't there in sufficient numbers to supply the 14 members of the SEC with talent in each discipline and weight class.

It's ridiculous to suggest that SEC schools are hindered by Title IX.

Somehow half the MAC schools are able to sponsor more than the requisite 16 NCAA sports despite having less than 1/2 the revenue of the lowest SEC school. Somehow Ohio State is able to sponsor 39 sports despite having revenue only 10% higher than the top SEC schools (Florida and Alabama, which only sponsor 21 sports apiece).

Most SEC schools have made an institutional decision to spend every possible penny on their football programs. If they could get away with cutting every other sport except men's basketball and baseball, most SEC schools would do so (except Tennessee, who would also keep WBB). Other sports be damned.

(06-16-2014 04:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:51 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 10:05 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think OSU would definitely consider a SEC invite. And like I said before they are interesting for the SEC because they get the conference into a new state while also expanding the presence in DFW.

If that happened they'd just join another conference for wrestling

Several SEC schools are in other conferences for sports not sponsored like men's soccer

Ive always found it interesting that the SEC doesnt have wrestling. Just seems like a no-brainer.

Wrestling just isn't big in the south. Some of these states didn't even have it as a high school sport until a couple of years ago. There seems to be neither the interest nor the talent level to support it. Lacrosse has grown tremendously in Ga, SC and Tenn. It is Title IX friendly. I could see that coming as the next SEC sport.

A long time ago 1960's - mid 1970's Auburn was an annual wrestling top 10. We weren't quite where Iowa and Oklahoma State were but we were close. There were other wrestling programs in the SEC. All were a victim of Title 9. We have numerous wrestling programs at the high school level, but most of them are located in large metropolitan areas. The set up for them is travel intensive so poorer kids opt for other sports. But overall I agree that the talent level isn't there in sufficient numbers to supply the 14 members of the SEC with talent in each discipline and weight class.

It's ridiculous to suggest that SEC schools are hindered by Title IX.

Somehow half the MAC schools are able to sponsor more than the requisite 16 NCAA sports despite having less than 1/2 the revenue of the lowest SEC school. Somehow Ohio State is able to sponsor 39 sports despite having revenue only 10% higher than the top SEC schools (Florida and Alabama, which only sponsor 21 sports apiece).

Most SEC schools have made an institutional decision to spend every possible penny on their football programs. If they could get away with cutting every other sport except men's basketball and baseball, most SEC schools would do so (except Tennessee, who would also keep WBB). Other sports be damned.

The decision on wrestling happened at the end of the 1975 season. It wasn't about the money back then and the SEC wasn't flush when it had to make the decisions. Women's soccer, basketball, track & field (indoor and outdoor), swimming and diving, tennis, golf, and softball all came into existence. Since then Equestrian and Volleyball have been added. Now that the media money is coming in other men's sports can be added back if there is enough interest.

Your post interjected opinions that would not have been reflective of the situation in 1975. In 1975 Title 9 was a burden that led to some drastic decisions. Football revenue was nothing then like it is now. In 1975 a season ticket book for football was $100 today it aprx. $500. In 1975 a donation to the Athletic Fund was not required to buy season books, today the minimum contribution for the privilege of buying a pair of books is $600 for end zone, $800 for upper deck, and $1200 and up for regular sideline seating in addition to the $1,000 for the pair of season books. In 1975 student tickets were $2. The lucrativeness of football money in the SEC is only about three decades old and yes it is one of three money making sports with basketball and baseball being the other two. Most SEC schools offer 20 or more varsity sports, but 18 are required.

Once again a poster on this board is out of touch with the reality of events as they were lived out. You can't foist today's situations on the past and get an accurate understanding of why decisions were made. Once the sports were cut in 1975 it would be extremely difficult to add them back as the school would lose its history with that sport during the years before athletic departments would become economic juggernauts.

In that regard it's like getting a youngster to understand the real implications of Jim Crow, or to understand what it was actually like being at a civil rights march, or a Veitnam war protest, or a part of a military family during those years, or to understand the depth of emotion that Americans felt when Nixon lied to them on TV. Most of today's generation doesn't approach politics with the level of trust that Americans two generations ago did. Today you're a fool if you don't think they are lying. Sports everywhere were affected by Title 9. Today it just seems natural.

(06-16-2014 04:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:51 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 10:05 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think OSU would definitely consider a SEC invite. And like I said before they are interesting for the SEC because they get the conference into a new state while also expanding the presence in DFW.

If that happened they'd just join another conference for wrestling

Several SEC schools are in other conferences for sports not sponsored like men's soccer

Ive always found it interesting that the SEC doesnt have wrestling. Just seems like a no-brainer.

Wrestling just isn't big in the south. Some of these states didn't even have it as a high school sport until a couple of years ago. There seems to be neither the interest nor the talent level to support it. Lacrosse has grown tremendously in Ga, SC and Tenn. It is Title IX friendly. I could see that coming as the next SEC sport.

A long time ago 1960's - mid 1970's Auburn was an annual wrestling top 10. We weren't quite where Iowa and Oklahoma State were but we were close. There were other wrestling programs in the SEC. All were a victim of Title 9. We have numerous wrestling programs at the high school level, but most of them are located in large metropolitan areas. The set up for them is travel intensive so poorer kids opt for other sports. But overall I agree that the talent level isn't there in sufficient numbers to supply the 14 members of the SEC with talent in each discipline and weight class.

It's ridiculous to suggest that SEC schools are hindered by Title IX.

Somehow half the MAC schools are able to sponsor more than the requisite 16 NCAA sports despite having less than 1/2 the revenue of the lowest SEC school. Somehow Ohio State is able to sponsor 39 sports despite having revenue only 10% higher than the top SEC schools (Florida and Alabama, which only sponsor 21 sports apiece).

Most SEC schools have made an institutional decision to spend every possible penny on their football programs. If they could get away with cutting every other sport except men's basketball and baseball, most SEC schools would do so (except Tennessee, who would also keep WBB). Other sports be damned.

Exactly - for cash cows like Auburn, Title IX is a red herring to allow the schools to cut sports so they can pay their football coaches more.


Personally, I think a FBS program should have a 22 or 24 sport minimum - especially if they get an auto-berth into a power bowl.

Here is the thing.

A lot of those extra sports are regional niche sports that were not historically popular/important in the south.

Wrestling, ice hockey, field hockey, lacrosse, water polo, rowing etc

The only sport I'm surprised is not more prominent in the SEC is Rifle.

(06-16-2014 04:53 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 04:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:51 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 10:05 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Ive always found it interesting that the SEC doesnt have wrestling. Just seems like a no-brainer.

Wrestling just isn't big in the south. Some of these states didn't even have it as a high school sport until a couple of years ago. There seems to be neither the interest nor the talent level to support it. Lacrosse has grown tremendously in Ga, SC and Tenn. It is Title IX friendly. I could see that coming as the next SEC sport.

A long time ago 1960's - mid 1970's Auburn was an annual wrestling top 10. We weren't quite where Iowa and Oklahoma State were but we were close. There were other wrestling programs in the SEC. All were a victim of Title 9. We have numerous wrestling programs at the high school level, but most of them are located in large metropolitan areas. The set up for them is travel intensive so poorer kids opt for other sports. But overall I agree that the talent level isn't there in sufficient numbers to supply the 14 members of the SEC with talent in each discipline and weight class.

It's ridiculous to suggest that SEC schools are hindered by Title IX.

Somehow half the MAC schools are able to sponsor more than the requisite 16 NCAA sports despite having less than 1/2 the revenue of the lowest SEC school. Somehow Ohio State is able to sponsor 39 sports despite having revenue only 10% higher than the top SEC schools (Florida and Alabama, which only sponsor 21 sports apiece).

Most SEC schools have made an institutional decision to spend every possible penny on their football programs. If they could get away with cutting every other sport except men's basketball and baseball, most SEC schools would do so (except Tennessee, who would also keep WBB). Other sports be damned.

Exactly - for cash cows like Auburn, Title IX is a red herring to allow the schools to cut sports so they can pay their football coaches more.


Personally, I think a FBS program should have a 22 or 24 sport minimum - especially if they get an auto-berth into a power bowl.

Another ignorant post totally taken out of the context of the times and totally misunderstood by a person of a different generation. There was no cash cow in football in 1975 anywhere in the SEC other than possibly Alabama and Tennessee and even those were nowhere near the levels attained today even with inflation accounted for.

(06-16-2014 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 04:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:51 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 10:05 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Ive always found it interesting that the SEC doesnt have wrestling. Just seems like a no-brainer.

Wrestling just isn't big in the south. Some of these states didn't even have it as a high school sport until a couple of years ago. There seems to be neither the interest nor the talent level to support it. Lacrosse has grown tremendously in Ga, SC and Tenn. It is Title IX friendly. I could see that coming as the next SEC sport.

A long time ago 1960's - mid 1970's Auburn was an annual wrestling top 10. We weren't quite where Iowa and Oklahoma State were but we were close. There were other wrestling programs in the SEC. All were a victim of Title 9. We have numerous wrestling programs at the high school level, but most of them are located in large metropolitan areas. The set up for them is travel intensive so poorer kids opt for other sports. But overall I agree that the talent level isn't there in sufficient numbers to supply the 14 members of the SEC with talent in each discipline and weight class.

It's ridiculous to suggest that SEC schools are hindered by Title IX.

Somehow half the MAC schools are able to sponsor more than the requisite 16 NCAA sports despite having less than 1/2 the revenue of the lowest SEC school. Somehow Ohio State is able to sponsor 39 sports despite having revenue only 10% higher than the top SEC schools (Florida and Alabama, which only sponsor 21 sports apiece).

Most SEC schools have made an institutional decision to spend every possible penny on their football programs. If they could get away with cutting every other sport except men's basketball and baseball, most SEC schools would do so (except Tennessee, who would also keep WBB). Other sports be damned.

The decision on wrestling happened at the end of the 1975 season. It wasn't about the money back then and the SEC wasn't flush when it had to make the decisions. Women's soccer, basketball, track & field (indoor and outdoor), swimming and diving, tennis, golf, and softball all came into existence. Since then Equestrian and Volleyball have been added. Now that the media money is coming in other men's sports can be added back if there is enough interest.

Your post interjected opinions that would not have been reflective of the situation in 1975. In 1975 Title 9 was a burden that led to some drastic decisions. Football revenue was nothing then like it is now. In 1975 a season ticket book for football was $100 today it aprx. $500. In 1975 a donation to the Athletic Fund was not required to buy season books, today the minimum contribution for the privilege of buying a pair of books is $600 for end zone, $800 for upper deck, and $1200 and up for regular sideline seating in addition to the $1,000 for the pair of season books. In 1975 student tickets were $2. The lucrativeness of football money in the SEC is only about three decades old and yes it is one of three money making sports with basketball and baseball being the other two. Most SEC schools offer 20 or more varsity sports, but 18 are required.

Are you suggesting that the MAC had similar budgets to the SEC in the 70s & 80s? Or that Ohio State had ticket prices/tv revenue that grew substantially less than the SEC over the last 30 years? I don't have the numbers, but I highly doubt that.

Even if those comparisons are invalid 30 years ago, startup costs for non-revenue sports are extremely low. It would have been easy to restart a program as revenues increased in the 90s-00s. Instead, SEC schools have chosen to build palaces for football players and have coaching budgets for football that are larger than the entire athletic budget at many D-1 schools.

(06-16-2014 05:05 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 04:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:51 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Wrestling just isn't big in the south. Some of these states didn't even have it as a high school sport until a couple of years ago. There seems to be neither the interest nor the talent level to support it. Lacrosse has grown tremendously in Ga, SC and Tenn. It is Title IX friendly. I could see that coming as the next SEC sport.

A long time ago 1960's - mid 1970's Auburn was an annual wrestling top 10. We weren't quite where Iowa and Oklahoma State were but we were close. There were other wrestling programs in the SEC. All were a victim of Title 9. We have numerous wrestling programs at the high school level, but most of them are located in large metropolitan areas. The set up for them is travel intensive so poorer kids opt for other sports. But overall I agree that the talent level isn't there in sufficient numbers to supply the 14 members of the SEC with talent in each discipline and weight class.

It's ridiculous to suggest that SEC schools are hindered by Title IX.

Somehow half the MAC schools are able to sponsor more than the requisite 16 NCAA sports despite having less than 1/2 the revenue of the lowest SEC school. Somehow Ohio State is able to sponsor 39 sports despite having revenue only 10% higher than the top SEC schools (Florida and Alabama, which only sponsor 21 sports apiece).

Most SEC schools have made an institutional decision to spend every possible penny on their football programs. If they could get away with cutting every other sport except men's basketball and baseball, most SEC schools would do so (except Tennessee, who would also keep WBB). Other sports be damned.

The decision on wrestling happened at the end of the 1975 season. It wasn't about the money back then and the SEC wasn't flush when it had to make the decisions. Women's soccer, basketball, track & field (indoor and outdoor), swimming and diving, tennis, golf, and softball all came into existence. Since then Equestrian and Volleyball have been added. Now that the media money is coming in other men's sports can be added back if there is enough interest.

Your post interjected opinions that would not have been reflective of the situation in 1975. In 1975 Title 9 was a burden that led to some drastic decisions. Football revenue was nothing then like it is now. In 1975 a season ticket book for football was $100 today it aprx. $500. In 1975 a donation to the Athletic Fund was not required to buy season books, today the minimum contribution for the privilege of buying a pair of books is $600 for end zone, $800 for upper deck, and $1200 and up for regular sideline seating in addition to the $1,000 for the pair of season books. In 1975 student tickets were $2. The lucrativeness of football money in the SEC is only about three decades old and yes it is one of three money making sports with basketball and baseball being the other two. Most SEC schools offer 20 or more varsity sports, but 18 are required.

Are you suggesting that the MAC had similar budgets to the SEC in the 70s & 80s? Or that Ohio State had ticket prices/tv revenue that grew substantially less than the SEC over the last 30 years? I don't have the numbers, but I highly doubt that.

Even if those comparisons are invalid 30 years ago, startup costs for non-revenue sports are extremely low. It would have been easy to restart a program as revenues increased in the 90s-00s. Instead, SEC schools have chosen to build palaces for football players and have coaching budgets for football that are larger than the entire athletic budget at many D-1 schools.

I am suggesting that it was the Georgia and Oklahoma case against the NCAA over TV rights that cut the floods of money loose on athletic departments and the torrent began to pour in about 1981 to 83 and has been increasing ever since. In 1975 Title IX hurt everybody, Ohio State, the MAC and others included. In the South where wrestling has never been as popular as other sports it was one of the first casualties of Title IX. Baseball was cut at some institutions in the North. Historically the Big 10 has always had more money to put into sports than the other conferences. The SEC's arrival as a top money earner began in the late 1980's. In the 1970's and early 80's business had not yet fled the North to get away from unions and populations shifts were not as discernible. You are trying to make an apples to apples comparison that simply didn't exist. In 1975 the SEC had only been integrated for 4 years and that not successfully. It was a conference of 10 Southern schools from predominantly poor states. Florida had not boomed in 1975. Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee were all poor states.

I'm just saying that you are trying to make 2014 comparisons for 1975 and claiming in a very misinformed way that the changes hit everyone in equal percentages, which simply wasn't so. I might also add that in the 1970's the MAC was probably at the peak of its athletic prominence and was quite competitive in many sports. The Big 10 was king. Comparing the SEC circa 1970's to the Big 10 is not the comparison it is today. The economic and political power of the South circa 1970's is nowhere near where it would stand today. When you've lived over 6 decades you know these things without having to be told. Hell in 1963 we had a beach home south of Panama City, Florida. It was 2 and a half miles to our nearest neighbor. Think about that?! By the 1980's that world was gone forever. More change has happened in the South since 1975 until today than happened from 1963 until the 1980's and those two decades saw oodles of change.