Page 1 of 2
Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:50 am
by mookie
The kid is a pinner and assuming he stays at 125 lbs. could be a factor nationally. Whatever weights he and Paetzell settle on they're a pretty good one/two punch to start a dual with.
Re: Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:43 am
by jdalu75
I assumed that he outgrew 125 last season (spent all of 2018-19 at that weight), but maybe it was just a case of avoiding Paetzell. He didn't look huge against Pitt.
Re: Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:06 am
by Richb-3
Ditto, or ibid or something ale that means agreed
I guess his eligibility status is a little confusing. I would imagine he could get back the year he wrestled in one or two opens, then got a season ending dual in his first bout at west beach duals(?)
Re: Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:38 am
by jdalu75
His status is uncertain due to two duals his true freshman year. He should be eligible for a hardship waiver because that was early in the season (Steve Cassidy, Bill Closson got these). And this year doesn't count, by NCAA edict. So he could have three years eligibility remaining, after this year. That would be six years in college, so it depends on what his other plans are.
Farro could have wrestled this year and next, but chose to move on. Scholarship money spread too thin undoubtedly is going to play a role in these decisions.
Re: Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:48 am
by LU in the Hub
jdalu75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:38 am
His status is uncertain due to two duals his true freshman year. He should be eligible for a hardship waiver because that was early in the season (Steve Cassidy, Bill Closson got these). And this year doesn't count, by NCAA edict. So he could have three years eligibility remaining, after this year. That would be six years in college, so it depends on what his other plans are.
Farro could have wrestled this year and next, but chose to move on. Scholarship money spread too thin undoubtedly is going to play a role in these decisions.
Beginning to approach the Senator Blutarsky level...
Seven years of college...
Re: Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:52 pm
by lu_alum
jdalu75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:38 am
...
Scholarship money spread too thin undoubtedly is going to play a role in these decisions.
Evidently. The FRL episode referenced on another thread suggested that (a lack of) scholarship money lead to Wood sitting out this season.
It will be very interesting to see how major programs spread the money across talent over the next couple years if they have a number of studs taking advantage of a "free year" of eligibility. Point of emphasis on free eligibility, not free tuition.
Re: Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:05 pm
by gimpeltf
I believe that next year only the NCAA will allow some flexibility in exceeding 9.9 if it involves returners.
Re: Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:50 pm
by jdalu75
gimpeltf wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:05 pm
I believe that next year only the NCAA will allow some flexibility in exceeding 9.9 if it involves returners.
If they allow exceeding 9.9, that's only part of the issue. Then the schools need to come up with the additional funds.
Re: Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:51 pm
by lu_alum
jdalu75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:50 pm
gimpeltf wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:05 pm
I believe that next year only the NCAA will allow some flexibility in exceeding 9.9 if it involves returners.
If they allow exceeding 9.9, that's only part of the issue. Then the schools need to come up with the additional funds.
My point exactly. Which will particularly challenging when athletic departments are already budget constrained due to the impact of Covid-19.
Re: Jaret Lane
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:55 pm
by gimpeltf
jdalu75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:50 pm
gimpeltf wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:05 pm
I believe that next year only the NCAA will allow some flexibility in exceeding 9.9 if it involves returners.
If they allow exceeding 9.9, that's only part of the issue. Then the schools need to come up with the additional funds.
Did you think I didn't know that? That's why I phrased it that way.