76 percent, the Big Ten sent 65 percent and the Eastern Wrestling League sent 50 percent. Keep in mind, this was essentially all predetermined before the season ever began, based on tournament results for the five previous years. (Can you imagine the uproar if teams were selected for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament in this way; that is, based on the success of each conference over the five previous years?)

Adding to that extraordinary inequity, the NCAA tournament structure prevents wrestlers from the same conference from competing against one another in the first round of the tournament. This policy thereby further increases the odds that wrestlers from disproportionately advantaged conferences will advance further into the tournament because they are not competing against wrestlers in their own conference until later in the championship.

Inequitable access: The primary concern regarding the current system is one of inequitable access to an NCAA championship for our student-athletes.

The current system is unique among NCAA-sponsored sports in that it awards berths in the NCAA national championship based on a respective conference’s past performances in the championship. With a system that predetermines AQ numbers that are unlikely to change significantly in the short term, conferences with high AQ numbers and their member institutions use the AQ system as a significant recruiting advantage — for both student-athletes and talented coaches. Obviously, this recruiting advantage helps perpetuate the status quo in terms of AQ numbers (that is, the rich get richer).

Reform: Based on this inequity alone, it is time to reform the NCAA wrestling automatic-qualifier system in a way that will help the disadvantaged conferences and institutions achieve a more equitable opportunity for all student-athletes to participate in this NCAA championship. That said, the serious issues created by the current system are not limited to student-athlete well-being alone.

Under the current system:

National growth in collegiate wrestling is stifled because of limited access to the NCAA championship.

Schools in disadvantaged conferences are less likely to add a wrestling program since they have little chance to succeed nationally.

Disadvantaged schools and conferences are unlikely to commit increased resources, salaries, facilities and efforts to build a wrestling program since there is inherently limited access and opportunity for national success.

Schools and conferences are unlikely to be able to significantly improve their national performance, especially in the short term.

Wrestling could be dropped at a number of institutions.

A limited number of conferences and schools will continue to dominate collegiate wrestling.

National recruiting is damaged and broad-based interest in the sport is lessened.

There are fewer attractive college coaching positions for talented and upwardly mobile coaches.

It is my hope that the NCAA and all collegiate wrestling stakeholders will join Maryland in our efforts to reform a system that creates such inequities for our student-athletes.

Lopsided score should be scolded, not celebrated

I was surprised and dismayed to read your Number Crunching feature on page 3 of the October 23 edition of your newspaper that highlighted a match in which 20 goals were scored. I haven’t been around the game for an extended period, but I have been coaching at the collegiate and secondary levels for the past 13 years. In that time I have been on both sides of lopsided matches such as the ones represented in this feature.

In terms of sportsmanship and quality of play, these types of matches with excessive scores are extremely detrimental to the spirit of true soccer. This type of play and "running up the score" does not represent collegiate athletics at its best. It brings out the worst in both teams and coaches.

I hope that in the future you will give this type of "highlight" a second look before publishing. My guess is that you would not publish the football teams that won games by 100 points or more and discuss it as an "accomplishment," nor would you highlight the baseball programs that have won games by 50 runs. (In the game of soccer, even a 6-0 match is a severe drumming.) Scoring and winning in double digits in soccer represents not only an extreme mismatch, but also a total lack of sportsmanship and judgment on the part of the "winning" coach.

Really there are no "winners" in contests such as these. It certainly doesn’t help the winning team bring out the best in their athletes, and for the losing teams it is simply degrading.

I’m proud to be a member of the NCAA at the Division III level. I believe in the quality and integrity of this Association. However, printing an article like this and choosing to promote teams and programs that "run up the score" is irresponsible and sends absolutely the wrong message to coaches, athletes and administrators.