College wrestling’s most transformative rule-change period in decades stoked strong feelings upon arrival last summer. 

Some coaches celebrated sweeping changes, including the advent of the three-point takedown, while others grumbled over the disruption of the sport’s scoring system and other alterations to the rulebook. 

All together, the NCAA wrestling rules committee recommended 14 changes last April — 13 of which ultimately passed and were put into place for last season — and most initially sparked polarizing viewpoints. 

“We’re either going to be loved or hated or remembered as the worst or the best rules committee in history,” Rider coach and NCAA wresting rules committee chair John Hangey said on the day the committee’s recommendations were announced. “But we felt we were taking wrestling from where it is to where we want it to be.” 

Hangey looks back at the hard data a year later and feels the committee’s work was received much more on the warmly received side of the love-hate spectrum.  

“I was very pleasantly surprised and happy to see the results of the survey we put out after the season to coaches and administrators,” he said. “I think we were on the far end of the loved part. We’re maybe not the most loved part, but we made a pretty good impact and I think we made a true change for good in the sport.” 

Some of the highlights from this spring’s NCAA wrestling rules survey:

— 70 percent of D1 coaches who responded and 80 percent of college coaches who responded felt changing the points earned for a takedown from two points to three had a positive impact. 

— 78 percent of D1 coaches who responded felt eliminating the hand-touch takedown had a positive impact. 

— 95 percent of referees who responded felt eliminating the hand-touch takedown had a positive impact. 

— 90 percent of college coaches who responded felt adding a three-point near-fall for a three-count had a positive impact.  

— 75 percent of college coaches who responded felt expanding the mandatory five-count for the waist and ankle ride to include all situations in which the top-position wrestler grasps the bottom wrestler's ankle had a positive impact. 

— 87 percent of D1 coaches who responded felt the rule change to count the first medical forfeit as a loss had a positive impact. 

— 86 percent of D1 coaches who responded felt providing the referee with authority to confirm or overturn all calls or missed calls during a video review challenged sequence had a positive impact. 

— 67 percent of college coaches felt adding that the top-position wrestler must work toward obtaining near-fall points and/or a pin to avoid stalling had a positive impact. 

Takedown Talk 

The three-point takedown was perhaps the most divisive rule change passed last spring. Its proponents argued that it was more representative of the work required to score a takedown while its detractors contended that a change in the point value wouldn’t necessarily lead to an increase in risk-taking and activity. 

Here’s a sampling of how college coaches felt about the first year of the three-point takedown: 

Missouri coach Brian Smith: “I love it. At first, I wasn’t sure about it, but I said I’d be open-minded about it. As we started competing at the beginning of the year I just felt like it was better. … There were more majors, more tech falls, it made it more exciting for the fans seeing guys trying to score more, I felt.”

North Carolina coach Rob Koll: “I was a massive proponent of that. I pushed for that hard, so I feel like I’m slightly vindicated. It took a little bit of time and people didn’t like it initially and were bitching and moaning. Now the majority of people really like it. At least that’s been my feeling.” 

Maryland coach Alex Clemsen: “I like the three-point takedown, (but) I don’t think it did what they thought it was going to do. You saw some more gamesmanship at the end of matches, and we even coached it at times where it was like, ‘Hey, you’re up by three and you’ve got a stall point to give, so give it. You don’t need to put yourself at risk again.’”

Appalachian State coach JohnMark Bentley: “The takedown being three points, I don’t think it changed much. I didn’t sense that guys were taking more risk. If there was more points on the board, it was only because the takedown was worth one more point.” 

Rutgers coach Scott Goodale: “I loved the three-point takedown. I don’t know if it promoted more offense, I just think matches were being won by scoring and not just riding time or 1-1 rideouts and things like that. … I don’t know if the thought process was all about the scoring. I don’t know if that was the case, but I think there was a lot more action because of it. I thought it was a great rule and once you got halfway through the season you didn’t realize (the difference), it was just part of the sport.”

Iowa State coach Kevin Dresser: “I thought the three-point takedown, at the end of the day, the guys who got their hand raised and won NCAA titles, would you say that guy wouldn’t have won if we had two-point takedowns? I don’t think so.” 

Kent State coach Jim Andrassy: “I’m an old traditionalist, so I’m not fully bought into the three-point takedown. I don’t know if it changed things at the national tournament. Did it change things in some dual meets? I think maybe some kids went out there and tried to score more points and get the match over, so I think that did help with some excitement. But now if you score a takedown in the first period of the NCAA semifinals, you can do even less than you’ve done in the past, where I think the point of it was trying to get kids to score more, so I don’t know if it’s really changed a whole lot at the top level. I definitely feel that if you have two schools that are wrestling each other and someone feels they have an opportunity to tech fall, they’ll go out and do a little more. But when it comes to tournament time, I don’t know. I think the idea to try to get more points scored when everything is on television, and I don’t know if it really helped.”

Coaches Weigh In On Other Changes 

Clemsen: “I think having a two-, three- and four-count (for two-, three- and four-point near-falls) makes sense for the lay wrestling person. You swipe two times and you get two points, you swipe five times and get three and people are like, ‘What the hell is that?’ It was good for two to four and then people were like, ‘Wait, you don’t get three for three?’ I think it makes sense and when we can simplify the rules for the layperson and try to make it so we can grow our fan base, that’s good. While we’re on that topic, we should have a dual meet championship and we should put it on TV and have a playoff format and try to create some revenue for our sport as we’re seeing how important revenue is.” 

Bentley: “I thought sometimes stalling was called a little bit too easily on the top man. I know the burden is on them to turn ‘em, but it’s hard to turn in college.”

Goodale: “The two-hour weigh-in (was an) absolutely great rule. Probably the best rule they could’ve put in. Now from a coach’s standpoint, you’re waiting around a lot. But from an athlete standpoint, I thought we saw such better wrestling. Very few matches were won or lost on the scale, which is important. When you bring fans into an arena, like we do at our place, you want to see the best possible wrestling and I think you saw that quite a bit because of the two-hour weigh-in. And if we’re going to do that at the Big Tens and nationals, that’s the way it should be. I thought that was probably the most impactful rule (change). I don’t know how many coaches would say that, but that’s probably the best rule nobody talks about.” 

Clemsen: “I think the drop-down rule in its essence is really good. I think how it’s implemented and how we saw some of the gamesmanship at times needs to be maybe taken out, but I’ll say this: Anytime we move away from subjectivity in our rule set and we put more objectivity into it, I’m all for it, with the exception of a pushout. I do not want to see a pushout because I don’t want to move collegiate wrestling to freestyle. I love folkstyle wrestling. It’s America’s version of wrestling. There are places around the world that have their own native version of wresting and this is ours and I think we should never give that up.”

A Review Of Video Review 

The NCAA wrestling rules committee will have another opportunity to adjust the rule set again next spring. Video review is one segment of the rulebook that seems to be top of mind for many coaches going into next season. 

Dresser: “I think the one thing they’ve got to get figured out — the one thing that’s a buzzkill that we talked about during our Big 12 call, and it’s not poking at anybody or blaming anybody — the review system is just ridiculous. There were some four-, five-, six-, 10- and 12-minute reviews. I think that’s got to be figured out. It takes longer to review a (call) in Division I wrestling than it does in the Super Bowl. That’s ridiculous. We’ve got to figure out what we’re doing.” 

Koll: “I’m all for getting rid of it. I’m extreme with that. I think people make mistakes and that’s part of life. I think you get rid of it. You have two refs. … I’m telling you, get rid of it. Would you have bad calls? Yes. Would it change the sport?  Yes, it would make it better.”

Bentley: “The video review thing has got to be re-evaluated. I saw two matches where coaches used the challenge brick to get their guy out of vulnerable positions and the guy ended up getting a fresh start and ended up winning — and it was purposefully a brick thrown for just a random challenge, something crazy and their guy got off his belly our out of turk or something like that with time running out and got a fresh start and won. There’s things like that where people are now finding out how to abuse the bricks. And I’m not sure it’s great for growing the sport if you’re watching at home or it’s making it any more attractive to the common fan.” 

Goodale: “The constant challenging of calls — especially at the Big Tens — matches took forever. … The biggest negative was the length of video reviews and then not being punished for (lost challenges) is something needs to be put in. … Something needs to be done where (video reviews) can be done right away, and I don’t think we’ll ever get to that point.” 

Clemsen: “I don’t think you can take it away now. I think if you did it would be bad. I think we have to find a way to make it faster. I think we have to invest in our technology. We probably need to have more third-party reviewers that have it right at their fingertips and can quickly evaluate it. And then I also think we’ve got to remember that if it’s not clear that the call should be changed, then leave it. If you have to watch something for three minutes to (determine whether the call was right), that’s not clear. If you’ve got to go through 13 angles and slow it down, that’s not clear, so the call on the mat stands. I think we probably need to tweak some of that verbiage so that the refs have a little more direction.”