The NCAA rules committee proposed a set of changes that could lead to perhaps the most transformative period in college wrestling history. 

With that has come one of the hottest periods of social media debate in the sport. 

Do the rules strike the right balance to inject more excitement and entertainment into the sport? Are the changes too drastic? Did they not go far enough? 

Opinions have landed all over the spectrum. 

To get a sense of how coaches feel, we reached out to the leaders of more than a dozen Division I programs. Below is a sampling of their responses. 

Overall Thoughts 

American coach Jason Borrelli 

“Overall, I’m happy we’re trying — you know, at least we have people in positions who are looking at the sport through the lens of trying to improve it and trying to increase action. I like that. Our sport, we’re hesitant to change a lot, so anytime we try to make changes we’re fought with some resistance. I think it’s good that we’ve got people in positions that can make change that are thinking about the long-term future of the sport. Trying to increase action and make things more exciting is a good thing. I was OK from that perspective. Now do I agree with every rule change or every proposal? No, but I certainly see where it’s coming from, so that’s good.” 

Appalachian State coach JohnMark Bentley 

“I’m not a huge fan of a lot of them, to be honest. I think the new rules obviously favor a better athlete for sure. You take mat wrestling out of the equation, you take a lot of the conditioning factor out of the equation, it’s not going to be advantageous for wrestlers who are less talented. I kind of like conditioning and things like that being a part of it, and with mat wrestling being limited, I don’t know how much conditioning is going to be a factor. I like how folkstyle wrestling makes you be well-rounded in all three positions and I’m not a huge fan of losing that. Personally, if those are the rules — and I’m not against all of them, there’s some things I can live with — I feel if you’re moving in that direction and that’s what you want to see and want to take mat wrestling out of the equation, then I would just be in favor of transitioning completely to freestyle.”

Iowa State coach Kevin Dresser 

“We’re kind of in digestion mode here and it’s all really new and just seeing whether this is going to help our sport. I know the traditional people don’t like it, but sometimes change is good.” 

Little Rock coach Neil Erisman

“I think all of these can be summed up with great intention, we’ll see if it lines out to good actions.” 

Missouri coach Brian Smith

“Are we focused on the ground level, or should we be focused on a 30,000-foot view? The bigger picture is why the decline in viewership and attendance and fans not liking the action or whatever the problem on the mat is? When you go out to 30,000 feet, what have other sports done? The last 3-5 years football, baseball, all these sports have found ways to shorten their events and they’re trying to get closer to a two-hour window. Some are longer than two hours, but the object is to reduce it so fans will stay attentive to the event. Wrestling right now, we wrestle one to two tournaments in the regular season as a team and the rest are all duals, which can be confusing to a fan. The tournaments are what’s going to matter, but duals don’t really have a big purpose in our sport, whereas in college football and basketball the regular season game has a purpose. We’re even seeing the purpose of these tournaments don’t matter now, where it’s getting a minimal amount of matches to compete in the tournaments that come at the end. Could this be the issue of why we’re losing fans? Duals on major broadcasts — ESPN, ACC, Big Ten Network, Flo — we’re seeing great excitement to watch some of these matchups. 

"Duals have seen great increases in growing our viewership. Is it because it’s easier to watch because it’s two hours, team versus team? Is it less confusing and easier for the on-the-fence fan? The average fan who’s on the fence is not going to sit and watch for eight hours for two or three days when they don’t know when their wrestler is coming up. Are we missing the boat and should we be changing to a dual championship?

"Are we trying to change the rules within the sport when we need to change how our season and championship is run? That doesn’t mean taking away the crown jewel, the individual tournament. That can still be had. There should always be the national tournament for individual accomplishments and national champions and All-Americans. But we would be adding or expanding our playoffs — as sports have been doing with increasing numbers — and adding a dual championship for a way for fans to jump on board.” 

North Carolina State coach Pat Popolizio

“The rules are big enough changes that matches will look different. (They’re) going to have an impact. You see all the comments that it’s going to help grow the sport. I hope that is the case, but ultimately, dual meets are what’s going to grow the sport. That’s another topic.” 

Oregon State coach Chris Pendleton

“I was very excited just because we’ve been stuck in kind of a lull as far as evolving our sport and making it more fan friendly. I really applaud the committee for getting things done — definitive rules, no gray area (like) a five-second count. These are pretty straightforward rules, so I was excited about that. (But) I was a little disappointed because I don’t know if the rules are going to achieve what they’re hoping.”

Purdue coach Tony Ersland 

“Generally, I like the rule (change proposals). I generally do. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think there’s ways we can tweak some things or do things better. But I think an effort to increase scoring or action, however you want to think about it, is a positive one for wrestling. I do like that that’s what they tried to do and took some aggressive measures to do it.” 

Three-Point Takedown

Bentley 

“I don’t mind the three-point takedown in the sense that it incentives more risk-taking and hopefully it makes it advantageous and better for the fan who’s not a wrestling fan and comes in off the street and maybe more entertaining for them.”

Borrelli 

“If you’ve been around me for the last 15 or 16 years since I’ve started coaching,  I think anyone — especially coaches who have worked with me — knows I’ve been pushing and hoping for the three-point takedown. I’ve been championing for that cause for a long time, so I’m a fan of that. For me, when I look at it, takedowns are hard to get at the highest level, so the risk-reward is a little out of balance with the 2-1 exchange. … I think the risk-reward wasn’t high enough and now with the 3-1 tradeoff, I think you’ll see more action and guys will be more incentivized to go out and get aggressive because two takedowns could put them up 6-2 and that’s pretty significant, so I like that. I think there’s a big enough reward to be risky.” 

Dresser

“It’s interesting, but I can’t say that I’m there yet that it’s something that we need.” 

Ersland

“I like the three-point takedown. I know that might be the most controversial (proposal), but I think a guy who can score a takedown shouldn’t get beat by a guy who can ride you and collect riding time, where you can take a guy down and still lose when he has no takedown or be as close as some guys are. I do generally think that’s something positive.” 

Cornell coach Mike Grey

“I like the three-point takedown. I’m a fan of that. Obviously, these are all hypotheticals. You’re not sure if they’re going to go through or not, but I like that.

“It gives you encouragement to go out and score takedowns, for one. … I think ultimately it’s going to increase aggression and hopefully increase action just like the freestyle rules do. I think that’s going to hopefully increase action and make it a better product on the feet at least. And then the riding time piece will hopefully (improve) the product as well because you’ll either work to get a turn or you’ll cut the guy because if you cut the guy loose there’s still a two-point differential if there’s a three-point takedown. Not that it should be all on our feet. Personally, and with the way our sport is, it’s always going to be challenging to say let’s go freestyle in college because of the history and the knowledge of the collegiate fan and their desire to see folkstyle, so I think it’s always going to be hard to push (for freestyle). 

"That’s why I think it’s going to be hard to have an out-of-bounds rule in folkstyle because it’ll be fought tooth and nail in folkstyle. Because as soon as you do that, then it’s a slippery slope of it just becoming freestyle, right? I think the three-point takedown is a good middle ground because it does create the point differential that allows you to create more action and get after it because you know you have a bit of a cushion. If you have a chance to finish a period on top, situational riding is important and it still will be. But if I can finish a period on top and not give up an escape and I’m up 3-0 after the first period, that’s going to lend the leading wrestler to take even more risk because they’re up 3-0 now as opposed to 2-0.”

Stanford coach Rob Koll 

“I’m a big fan of a three-point takedown. … You give up a takedown to your back for four points at the end of the first period, the match is essentially over. You can’t catch up. I always compare it to freestyle — and maybe that’s not what we’re trying to do here — but you’re down by four or five points and that match is still going. You feel like you have a shot. But with that (two-) point takedown, you have to take him down five times. Who the heck is going to do that against anybody good? The match is over. It gives a person a chance to get back in the match.” 

Pendleton 

“I like that it values the takedown more and you won’t see people losing matches while getting the only takedown. However, I don’t know if this is going to promote scoring. My fear is that people once they get the first takedown are going to want to hold onto a lead a little bit earlier in matches.” 

Popolizio 

I do enjoy the takedown rule. I think that will be impactful in a couple different ways with creating more action for guys on their feet and really separating the dominant guy. I think we see a lot of matches where you can score two takedowns to one and be tied because of the escapes and depending on when you get the takedowns. I think that part is going to separate that. 

Smith

“I honestly don’t know. I talked to my guys and it was a mix right down the middle. You’re really changing the sport to more takedown oriented and folkstyle is about riding and pinning and turning. … It seems like they’re trying to cause more neutral wrestling, which folkstyle is known for being on the mat. I know there’s some good things to that. I’ve been to freestyle tournaments and you don’t see too many pins. You see tech falls, but a pin is much more exciting in a dual meet than a pin. A tech fall gets the crowd excited, but it’s a much different thing than when a guy pins a guy.” 

The Riding Time Change 

Borrelli 

“That’s the one that doesn’t excite me. Backing up a little bit, I, as a wrestler, loved riding time. I wasn’t in the category of elite college wrestlers, but top was one of my better positions and I really felt like that was an advantage for me if I could get there, so I come of the mindset that top wrestling is great — riding, trying to turn, working for pins. I put a lot of value in that as an athlete, so as a collegiate athlete I would’ve loved the four-point near-fall. That would’ve been great during my era because that was one of my better positions. 

“But that being said, I think it’s the one area for fans and spectators and when I watch as a fan going to events, I appreciate it because I understand how hard it is, but I think for new fans, for casual fans, for even some fans coming from high school because they’re not as familiar with it because they don’t see riding time, it’s just not an area that excites me. I felt like it went a little bit the wrong way. I think we’re now making it a little too complicated. If riding time was an issue and we thought riding was getting abused and we were just riding, I’d rather see them do away with the riding time point and go back to the high school model because it’s simpler and it solves a lot of issues. If you go to tournaments or dual meets, 75 percent of the clock issues or delays in matches are related to someone not running riding time or starting it late or challenging of riding time or the clock worker not knowing how to do riding time and it went the wrong way and now we need to go back. It’s just a mess. I feel like if we wanted to help the sport and promote some growth, if it was an issue we could’ve just done away with it. I think we’re complicating it a little bit and adding another confusing thing that you have to explain to fans that they didn’t get a turn so they don’t get a point. It’s just a little wonky to me, but at the same time, it doesn’t mean I’m opposed to trying it because I could be wrong. It might be easy to explain and it might be good and increase action on top. But I don’t know that it does.” 

Ersland

“I do like the fact they’re trying to encourage turning and get a turn to collect riding time, because the sport was getting very stagnant, where it was just hang on and ride only, get them out of bounds, drop to a leg, get a return and never try to improve. I think that could have some positive effects.” 

Grey

“I like that you have to get a turn for your riding time point to go on the board when the match is over. … Hopefully it stops the pointless ankle riding that everybody’s been using to earn that point. Then if you don’t turn the person you don’t get that point anyway.” 

Koll

“If they added a one-count, I’d get rid of the riding time entirely. I think riding time is a problem. I love riding time. Problem is, it’s a pain in the ass. Just the logistics of having riding time in college, it’s 50 percent of the problems you have with scorekeeping. I don’t think it adds much to the sport, and I’m a purist with riding time. I’m a big top guy. Add a one-point control turn — 1, 2, 3, I don’t think you need 4 — and get rid of riding time.” 

Popolizio 

“I’m a little concerned with the mat wrestling. I’ve always been a fan of mat wrestling — top and bottom — and I feel like we’re going to now not reward or encourage guys to wrestle on top or be aggressive because if you take away the riding time or start enforcing more stalling on top, I think guys are going to elect to just keep it on the feet. But we’ll see in time if that’s the case. Wrestling was created back in the day for falls. You go back to the start of the sport and that’s how they ended matches, if I’m correct. Obviously, that’s not the case now. Everyone’s too good to do that to, but I think it’s exciting when you see a guy who’s really dominant on top, so I wonder if that’s going to change some of the techniques we see during matches.” 

Three-Point Near-Fall

Borrelli 

“I don’t know how I feel about the three-point near-fall coming back because at least there was a clear separation of whether you earned two or you earned four with the gap. It was pretty clear. Now I think with the two, three and four, there’s going to be a big debate … and I think it complicates it a little bit more. I can see a lot more challenges happening with near-fall whereas with two and four you didn’t see as many challenges because it was clear.” 

Ersland

“I’m a little skeptical — I’m not saying I’m not in favor of it — but if you look at the three-point near-fall, I get it that it’s rational to say, ‘Two count for two, four count for four, let’s just add three,’ but I wonder if this isn’t going to get really messy with the officials because of the arguing was it two or was it a three count? You don’t have that second in between where it was more clearly a two and not a four. Now your’e running into two, three and four and did the official start a swipe or not? So it’s a wait and see for me with the three-point near-fall.” 

Two-Hour Weigh-In 

Bentley

“One of the things we pride ourselves on is we do all the right things — cutting weight right, managing weight right, being disciplined. Anything that makes discipline and doing all the right things less of a factor I’m not for.” 

Borrelli 

“I’m conflicted. I mean, I do love it. You have somebody who values the preparation of weighing in and giving your guys some time to refuel and then warm up properly and not being rushed. During duals, spectators maybe don’t see this or feel it, but if you ask student-athletes and you talk to coaches, it’s kind of a race. … It’s always a mad rush. I think two hours would bring some calmness to the preparation part of getting ready for the actual dual. The negative side is it puts you at events even earlier for duals. As an athlete, you’ve got to get there another hour before you normally would, which means you’re there longer, so there’s some downside to it. But I think it probably will be good for teams and coaches long term.” 

Dresser

“I like the two-hour weigh-in. I think that’s a great rule. I don’t think it’s fair to those first guys out there. Lord have mercy, you literally get off the scale, get a drink and a bite of something — it’s not even a meal — and then you’ve gotta get ready for your match and get warmed up. Then the referee comes in and talks for five or 10 minutes and talks to you about what to expect for the day. It’s just a rush, rush thing. If you’re not cutting your weight correctly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s one hour or two hours.” 

Erisman

“Love it. Kids just don’t cut weight like they used to and nutrition is a much bigger piece to our sport than it ever was. Smart training, guys aren’t cutting a lot of weight, I see only positives coming from adding time to weigh-ins.” 

Grey

“I think the weigh-ins (adjustment). I think there should be uniformity. For duals, it’s an hour and and tournaments it’s two hours and I think that’s doing the kids a disservice. Let’s say you’re a ‘25-pounder and the dual is starting at 125. You make weight (for a dual) and 20 minutes later you’ve got to start warming up. I think it allows the kids to make weight, have some food, relax, maybe shower up, whatever your routine is, and then go out there and compete. I think uniformity is important.” 

Popolizio

“I’d rather stick with the one-hour weigh-in for duals, but that’s not really that impactful for anything other than just the time. I just think the guys who are cutting their weight the right way, that’s not going to really change anything, you’re just now going to allow guys more recovery time. I don’t know if that really helps much other than giving a guy another hour, and the more disciplined guys are going to be fine (without) that. It just makes for a longer day for athletes with dual meets now.” 

Smith

“I hope they change to all two-hour weigh-ins. That just simplifies the sport. … I hope that goes through. We’ve been trying to get that to go through for quite some time just to have consistency.”