True 71, if it even got to the discussion point there would be a sudden influx of money. Why those people with the money (not to mention the power) haven't ponied up yet is beyond me.
Seriously this is not about cutting wrestling. Whether any of us agree or not I think it's clearly about UNI (the President, the AD, the boosters) thinking that they ought to be able to compete at a higher level than they are. The problem wrestling has is one of a perception of the program versus the success of fb and bb over the past couple years. It's too bad though if he redshirted guys that may have made them more successful this year (at the expense of long term program success) only to get canned. Wrestling is one of the few sports where a coach can literally red shirt an entire successfully and have it really impact things the next year.
The problem with this theory is that though some of the redshirts were as good or better than the starters, not a one of them would have qualified for the NCAA tourney. It's a weak and silly argument.
I don't disagree. Honestly I don't have enough knowledge of the recruits to weigh in one way or the other. The problem I think from Penrith's perspective is that it wasn't just the NCAA tourney finish that went into the decision to fire him. It was also the loss of the regional title and the dual record, including the total distruction they took at the hands of several teams (granted very good teams). It's at least arguable that those would have been improved (even if they would have still lost but not lost as dramatically) had he not redshirted those kids. Again I don't know enough to agree or disagree but I think that's his point. But then again he mentioned it but really didn't advocate it hard so it makes me wonder how much he really thinks those redshirts would have changed the season's results.