A couple more comments from Bryan Van Kley's column in the April 4, 2008 issue of WIN-Magazine (quotes are directly from the column):

> How takedowns are being called: "I'm not calling for any drastic overhaul, but something needs to be done about the lack of offense in Division I from the neutral position. I heard many wrestling lovers comment on how boring many of these 2-1 and 3-2 matches are. Top-level kids are just getting so good at their defense from their feet."

"One modification would be to change the rules slightly sot hat a takedown is awarded when a wrestler is in on a double and controlling an opponent's legs on the mat... This takedown is not currently being called and whent he defensive wrestler has a tight lock around his opponent's waist or legs. YOu'll see this takedown called at the edge of the mat but in the middle the refs will let them wrestle. Most of the time, this ends up in a stalemate. This needs to be two points to create more action and scoring. Riding time has gotten to be way too big a factor in wrestling because of the decrease in takedowns."

Head-and-arm ride: "Another big warning sign of what could be a negative trend played itself out in the 184 lb final. Did you notice how Ohio State's Mike Pucillo was able to ride out Iowa State's Jake Varner in OT? He simply locked up Varner's head and arm and hung on for 30 seconds. I'm not at all faulting Pucillo for it. It was a smart, strategical move that was well within the rules..."

"Wrestlers used to choose down in overtime because they were certain they could get out. Now many are starting to find loopholes in the rules or in ref's interpretations and they're taking advantage of them. If this head-and-arm ride becomes prevalent as a way to win tiebreakers, it will be bad for wrestling."

Whadya think?