VakAttack

Not really; if one wrestler is attacking so much (like Hamiti last night, or Brooks against Romero as well) the other guy has no time to initiate their own attacks.

This rule is, by definition, amorphous and up to interpretation. Unless you have a vested interest in the party getting taken down, we should all want that Robb-Haines situation to be called a TD. I hate to side with the pastry, but his example is a solid one: if Robb grabs both ankles and Haines falls on his butt and they slide out of bounds, that would be called a TD. This is even more clear control than that. I clearly have no vested interest, I have no love for Penn State and half of my posts now are in response to some goof telling me I'm a dumb shit for saying Iowa is better than Nebraska as they have no beaten them by 28 in their head to head dual and 30 in this tournament. This is not a "bad rule, correct call" situation since the rule is, inherently, not bright line; it's subjective.

They just had Kemermer leave, who was very offfensive, and Desanto, maybe the most offensive wrestler in history (in terms of output). Kennedy is typically a high output wrestler (although I agree he wasn't against Hamiti last night). Then you have Siebrecht and Cass, who are two completely different types of wrestlers, but also offensive. They do tend to gravitate towards the brawler types, though.

Because the action is not as enjoyable to watch, and the rules either need to be enforced or changed to encourage action. Some wrestling podcast I was listening to earnestly described a 6-5 match as a shootout!

This you? So is that a no on the bet?

Care to make a wager? You're 0-2 on your predictions thus far re: Iowa-Nebraska, and you mysteriously disappeared after my last offer to place a wager.

Is this a bit? It feels like it's a bit at this point.

This TD has reaction time, it's not like the hand touch situation.

Never change, always have this insane energy on everything, lol. Iowa just beat Nebraska by 30 points. Which is SLIGHTLY more points than they won the dual by.

If I'm misremembering the first matchup in the dual, then I'll eat that one.

This is a good one, I thought Labs was clearly past 90 for significant portions of the scrambling

He could win it, but I think AOC is a pretty heavy favorite in my estimation. Just one man's opinion, but I just don't see any of the guys in the current crop beating him. Haines when he's had a few years to develop physically might be able to handle that level of physicality.

I would guess it goes 1. Nino 2. Elam 3. Allred 4. Sloan 5. Beard 6. Dean Maybe you mix 4-6 up, but i think 1-3 is relatively clear.

I would agree. Cass' path to victory is narrow, but there is one. I don't see how Cronin beats Glory, especially in a seminfinal where he'll be pretty big.

Is the RPI THAT heavily weighted?

Considering Cass has actually beaten Kerk multiple times, I disagree with your assessment, but I'm willing to chalk it up to a difference of opinions.

Why would Franek be above Haines? Both 1 loss, both conference champs, Haines just beat the only guy to beat Franek.

Well, Lee is at 125, so not a whole lot of guys moving into that weight. The one time there was a previous NCAA champ in the bracket, though, he did pin him (Tomasello).

My point is...he can't take Woods down and he can't get an escape. He very clearly should have chosen top, especially since he already had gotten two stall calls against Woods (whether I think they were questionable or not). But also, you can't depend on the refs to get you points to make it to the NCAA finals

...you think this bad compared to what was on themat.com? Son (or ma'am), this is tame.

...the match where Hardy didn't score any offensive points and chose neutral to avoid going on bottom? Yes, yes I can. Plus Hardy is going to be coming in as like 4 or 5 seed, which means he'll have to beat the 4 or the 5, plus Allirez to get to the finals. I think Alirez is a TERRIBLE matchup for Hardy, but we'll see. I don't consider a @jajensen09a douche. I think he's an insane person, and this thread is very clearly directed at him.

In the finals today, of the ones I've seen, I thought not calling stalling on RBY when he was on bottom was odd, but to be fair, Nagao seemed very content to just lose by a decision. Was Nagao called for stalling in neutral? He should have been. I thought the stalling calls against Woods at 141 were terrible and not in line with how stalling has been called, but I would be very happy if they wanted to start calling stalling as aggressively as that; I also thought the "no backpoint" call was wrong the first time, but right the second time. I thought the Robb non-TD call against Haines was wrong, that looked pretty clear to me, but *shrug*. I thought the Andonian TD should have actually been an O'Connor TD, but that's partially on the UNC staff for screwing up their challenge. I thought the first stall call against Parris was odd, but I'd like to rewatch it. My vote is for the Robb non-TD. I thought that was clearly going to be reversed.

For sure possible. Iowa has potential finalists of Lee (high probability), Woods (very good probability), Warner (low probability), and Cassioppi (low probability). Nebraska has possible finalists in Robb (decent probability, but I wouldn't pick it), Labriola (decent probability, but I'd probably pick Mekhi to reverse the previous result), and Allred (as good a shot as many of the guys at this wide open weight). If you want to argue Cronin or Hardy as possible finalists, that's fine, but I would put the probability as extremely low.

Spencer is 17-0 to Carr's 21-0. Carr has a 47.2% bonus percentage to Spencer's 88.24. If you want to argue toughness of the weight class, fine, but that's just one data point.

Just the one, though. #KeepinUpWithTheTimes