Iowa Conspiracy Theory - Nelson Brands

[JeanGuy]

8 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

The amount of wishcasting and stretching some of you have to do to get to your fantasies about Iowa falling off a cliff are insane.

As to PK having a higher ceiling than Brands...based on what?  I've said this multiple times and in multiple places:  They've each been to two NCAA tournaments.  Brands took 5th once and went 1-2 once.  Kennedy made the bloodround once and made the R16 once.  Kennedy has one single bonus point in his two trips, over a clearly injured Phil Conigliaro, Brands has no bonus wins.

If you look at the list of their wins, and try to decide who has better wins, it's not even close.  Kennedy's best wins, by far, are over Edmond Ruth and Cam Amine (which was reversed at NCAAs).  Brands has wins over Dustin Plott (twice), Chris Foca, Peyton Mocco,  Edmond Ruth, and Ethan Smith.  It's pretty clear that Nelson has had the better career and if reasonably healthy is the better choice.

Do you think they have any concern over allocations?

[VakAttack]

Just now, JeanGuy said:

Do you think they have any concern over allocations?

I do not at 174.  I think that may have been the thought process at 141, but I think they expect either guy at 174 to qualify.

[JeanGuy]

4 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I do not at 174.  I think that may have been the thought process at 141, but I think they expect either guy at 174 to qualify.

I would tend to agree. can't imagine either Brands or Kennedy wouldn't, but if say if Brands went and would miss he probably doesn't have a good case for an at-large.

[VakAttack]

Just now, JeanGuy said:

I would tend to agree. can't imagine either Brands or Kennedy wouldn't, but if say if Brands went and would miss he probably doesn't have a good case for an at-large.

I would assume zero shot Brands gets an at large if he misses the qualifying spot.

[jchapman]

2 hours ago, SocraTease said:

Aren't twins (the Brands) almost by  (biological) definition a conspiracy of sorts since they shared the same breath in the womb and probably will continue to do so (in a broad sense) until the tomb?

Conspire: literally "to breathe together," from com/con "with, together" + spirare "to breathe"

You don't breath in utero.

[VakAttack]

Just now, jchapman said:

You don't breath in utero.

Not with that attitude.

[SocraTease]

21 minutes ago, jchapman said:

You don't breath in utero.

They don't breathe (not "breath", which is the word you use) like humans outside of utero, but they do take in oxygen-rich blood from the mother's placenta through the umbilical chord.  I would say that counts as a practical form of breathing unless we want to parse and define words narrowly. 

Fish also breathe, but not like us either.

Same with scuba divers and astronauts, who are not breathing on their own but with the aid of a prosthetic device. 

PS:  Since you want to get technical, I said they "shared the same breath in the womb".  The breath came from their mother.  I didn't say they breathed. 

Edited 6 hours ago by SocraTease

[Hammerlock3]

22 minutes ago, SocraTease said:

They don't breathe (not "breath", which is the word you use) like humans outside of utero, but they do take in oxygen-rich blood from the mother's placenta through the umbilical chord.  I would say that counts as a practical form of breathing unless we want to parse and define words narrowly. 

Fish also breathe, but not like us either.

Same with scuba divers and astronauts, who are not breathing on their own but with the aid of a prosthetic device. 

PS:  Since you want to get technical, I said they "shared the same breath in the womb".  The breath came from their mother.  I didn't say they breathed. 

the definition of breathe is to take air into the lungs and expel it. @jchapman was correct.

[Idaho]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

The idea that Brands was out there just to save the major might hold more water if we hadn't seen Kennedy wrestle Hamiti twice and keep it to a decision both times.  It's pretty clear to me they're trying to get as much data about Nelson as they can before they have to decide.

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

7.  Brands is out for most of the season; Kennedy wrestles well against lesser competition;  Gabe does pretty well at 184, but not lights out.

8.  Kennedy meets some of the tougher guys, and the results start to dry up; Brands is cleared, and is coming back.

Kennedy and Hamiti wrestled two years ago...those results are very outdated 

Kennedy has lost to 2 Haines 5 Pinto, and 10 Karchla ... Beaten 14 Wask 17 Ogun 23 whiting 24 Braunagel 33 Harkins

Brands lost to 3 Hamiti and 4 Norman and no wins over any top 33 guys (obviously he has been out)

So, with all the data in.... who do you actually go with at the NCAA? Both have lost to top 10 guys - but Kennedy has wins over 5 guys in the top 33, but Brands would have probably beat the same guys as well. So,   Is there a 2 of 3 wrestle off in the room? 

[Hammerlock3]

1 hour ago, Idaho said:

Kennedy and Hamiti wrestled two years ago...those results are very outdated 

Kennedy has lost to 2 Haines 5 Pinto, and 10 Karchla ... Beaten 14 Wask 17 Ogun 23 whiting 24 Braunagel 33 Harkins

Brands lost to 3 Hamiti and 4 Norman and no wins over any top 33 guys (obviously he has been out)

So, with all the data in.... who do you actually go with at the NCAA? Both have lost to top 10 guys - but Kennedy has wins over 5 guys in the top 33, but Brands would have probably beat the same guys as well. So,   Is there a 2 of 3 wrestle off in the room? 

I feel like kennedy at least in theory has enough offense to pull a few upsets, Brands seems very average to me, solid, but he's not outstanding anywhere. I think he was in last night because he is big an physical enough to slow down hamiti. 

[VakAttack]

33 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

I feel like kennedy at least in theory has enough offense to pull a few upsets, Brands seems very average to me, solid, but he's not outstanding anywhere. I think he was in last night because he is big an physical enough to slow down hamiti. 

The problem with this logic is that the results of both guys don't back it up. 

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

The problem with this logic is that the results of both guys don't back it up. 

so you think brands is going to AA?

[VakAttack]

2 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

so you think brands is going to AA?

I don't think either will AA, but if Nelson is reasonably healthy, I would pick him as more likely.  I'll defer to the coaches, they have more info.

[Hammerlock3]

11 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I don't think either will AA, but if Nelson is reasonably healthy, I would pick him as more likely.  I'll defer to the coaches, they have more info.

well if you're not a prisoner to previous results I'll decline also.

[PortaJohn]

13 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I don't think either will AA, but if Nelson is reasonably healthy, I would pick him as more likely.  I'll defer to the coaches, they have more info.

He looked really bad.  Old Nelson wrestles that to a close decision loss.  I don't know  how far one more week will get him.  I'd go Kennedy.  

Edited 58 minutes ago by PortaJohn

[CHROMEBIRD]

12 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I don't think either will AA, but if Nelson is reasonably healthy, I would pick him as more likely.  I'll defer to the coaches, they have more info.

For both guys, much of the variability lies in their draw. But all things being equal, do you slot in a 70% healthy Nelson or a 90% healthy Kennedy? I'm making up the numbers but imagine they're somewhere in that ballpark.

[VakAttack]

11 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

For both guys, much of the variability lies in their draw. But all things being equal, do you slot in a 70% healthy Nelson or a 90% healthy Kennedy? I'm making up the numbers but imagine they're somewhere in that ballpark.

Like if I was the one making the decision?  At that point, I'd have them do a private 2 of 3 wrestleoff with a neutral official.