For a stretch this spring, college wrestling coaches, administrators and fans pondered the possibility of a radical change to one of the sport’s longtime scoring pillars. 

In April, the NCAA wrestling rules committee proposed raising the bar for a riding time point. Instead of just needing a minute or more of advantage time, the group pushed forward a rule that would’ve also required a wrestler to score near-fall points — a proposal that became known by some as “the turning point.” 

In the end, it was the only one of 14 rule change proposals that didn’t get approved for next season. The rule change process includes a two-week feedback period for coaches and administrators to weigh in on committee proposals before the NCAA’s Playing Rules Oversight Panel decides whether to give the final stamp of approval. Ultimately, the riding time change never made it to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel. 

The feedback period became a turning point in sinking the turning point. The rules committee pulled it off the table after an estimated 65 percent of respondents opposed the proposal, according to Rider coach and committee chair John Hangey. 

“It opened our eyes and it was a lot of traditionalist thought — and that’s OK and that’s good because we have a great sport and we want to preserve it,” Hangey said. “But at the same time, the job of the committee is to take that feedback and decipher it and analyze it and make the proper decision for the sport. And we did just that. 

“We threw it around. We played both sides against the middle to play devil’s advocate on both ends. At the end of the day, we felt that if we kept (the turning point) it was going to shift wrestling to more of a neutral (position) sport than keeping it a three-position sport.”

'We Needed To Figure Something Out' 

The NCAA wrestling rules committee gets one opportunity every two years to institute rule changes. Spurred this spring by declining scoring numbers — match points are down 19 percent at the NCAA Championships since 2019 — the committee set out to incentivize risk-taking and increase action without reshaping the three-position framework of the sport. 

One of the group’s missions was to cut down on top-position tactics that are geared more toward accruing riding time rather than producing near-fall points. North Carolina coach Coleman Scott, another member of the rules committee, said the group was driven to create a “work to turn” environment rather than “work to hold.”  

“Top wrestling has become more riding than turning in general, and I think that’s really hurting our sport in the sense of viewership and watching,” Scott said in April when the committee gathered at the NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis. “We needed to figure something out with how to create more points, more action and guys to be excited to go score more points. 

“We’re tired of watching boring wrestling for six minutes and me just laying on top of you to win 2-1. … We’re going to take that away. That was sort of the mindset. That stall ride, the hustle ride, I’m going to figure out how to hold on to get my minute and win 2-1, we want to eliminate that.” 

In addition to the turning point proposal, the rules committee also redefined the requirement for a top-position wrestler. In the past, the wrestler on top was required by rule to “aggressively work to break down” an opponent. Next season the wrestler on top must work for near-fall points and/or a pin. 

But the turning point proposal combined with two other rule changes that were passed this year — the new top-position language and increasing the value of a takedown from two points to three — was viewed by some coaches as a radical shift from a three-position sport to more neutral-centric. 

“I’m a little concerned with the mat wrestling,” North Carolina State coach Pat Popolizio said in April after the release of the rule change proposals.  “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.” 

'We're Making It Too Complicated'

The turning point faced resistance on a couple of fronts. There were the purists who didn’t want to see a diminished emphasis on mat wrestling and others who looked at the turning point as a complicated way of solving a problem that could be fixed by just eliminating riding time from the college game. 

A riding time point went on the board in 325 of the 640 matches at the Division I NCAA Championships in March. Only 23 of those bouts were determined by or sent into overtime by a riding time point. Of those 23, none of the wrestlers who registered riding time points also scored near-fall points.  

“I think we’re now making it a little too complicated,” American University coach Jason Borrelli said in April after the turning point was proposed. “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 (caused by) riding time (issues). 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.”

Ultimately, though, the turning point didn’t have enough support for the rules committee to forge ahead and give it a shot. 

“We never wanted to take away one of the aspects of wrestling,” Hangey said. “We initially thought it was going to help (college wrestling). But after reading (all of the feedback) and thinking about it all, it was like, ‘OK, Wait a second, it might just go the opposite direction.’ We had too much reservation about it, so we just pulled it off the table.”