VakAttack

Ahhh, yes, now the forum is for real where Iowa gets attacked very quickly in an unrelated thread. Now we're cooking with gas. Seems like Iowa just lost two high profile matches without incident.

$10 trillion.

I disagree. By and large, it goes to the most dominat wrestler. For example, Retherford won it as a junior and senior, and there were more accomplished guys in the field. I think you're relying mostly on Dieringer winning it over Retherford (total supposition on my part, I know) but Dieringer was also dominant and a senior, with a bunch of bonus. Neither Brooks nor RBy no Starocci are big bonus guys against even low AA type guys on the regular, with Brooks ebing most likely there. O'Toole is going to have better numbers then them this season and is a prior champ. Unless one of those guys makes a bonus jump, I think we'll just have to wait and see.

Rating Lee an A+ and Brooks an A for top wrestling is...well, it's something. Brooks is a B on top. The only current PSU guy who is a stud on top (not counting the new guys who we don't have enough data on) is Max Dean. The other guys ride to ride (and this is a problem in all of collegiate wrestling, not limited to the PSU guys). The PSU guys will hook that ankle and sit on it, accruing riding time but not making any effort to turn. The Iowa guys who stall on top (Murin, Warner, Nelson Brands) primarily throw in a spiral ride and return the guy (or push them out) over and over again. The only Iowa guys I would qualify as studs on top are Lee (obviously) and Cassioppi.

And why is it you think RBY, Brooks, and Starocci would go over O'Toole?

Wait, who are you objecting to, O'Toole being over everyone other than a dominant Spencer Lee?

The committee has been giving weight to prior accomplishments, but again, RBY and Brooks have the same number of titles. I don't think RBY's prior 8th place finish is going to vault him over a guy with more dominant results. We'll see, I suppose.

You guys are acting like the only data point we have is Gomez beating Yianni. Rankings are not precluded from taking into account prior season's results.

Disagree. If Lee doesn't return, or is a shell of himself if he does, I would favor O'Toole...if he's undefeated. After that I would go Brooks next. O'Toole is going to put up more bonus than everybody other than Lee, plus his weight is better. Obviously predicated on O'Toole running the table. Brooks has the same number of NCAA titles as RBY, and has separated himself more clearly from the field. Not that I think anybody is beating RBY, but I'm talking about in individual matches. After Brooks it would probably go RBY and then Starocci, though.

Giving Brooks an A on top is rich. He stalls, riding only for the purpose of riding. He's probably the best neutral wrestler from 174 up (with Gable not wrestling) and arguably in all of D1.

Dude, Cole Matthew's came out to Tracy Chapman, and I'm immediately in.

Not even close. Great performance.

What a monster.

Crisp. As. Hell. Still doesn't do anything from top, but you don't have to if you can demolish your top competition from neutral.

Brooks crisp as hell from neutral. Keckeisen's only shot is for Brooks to gas, which doesn't seem likely. Plus, Brooks might be in front by too much to care.

Iowa guys been on the road for a week. They looked flat as hell.

Bummer results for Iowa, but both matches are winnable. They were always loseable, which both Iowa guys did today. Elam and Kerk just outwrestled them today.

No. Why?

I'm not depressed at all. I have no idea if he's that guy. I can confirm that Iowa does not have their next stud at either 157 or 174, though. For example, Kennedy looks fantastic, but I'm not going to pretend I think he's a future multitime champ or something. We need to see him against elite level guys.

LOL. Yes, thank you, we definitely do judge a wrestler based on their results, thanks for keeping up. Yianni just lost to Gomez, but I'm pretty sure most would pick Yianni to win if they wrestled tomorrow. And Henson would be an underdog to Sasso, despite the win.

"THE ONLY WAY I CAN BE WRONG IS 5 YEARS FROM NOW!" is a fun way to debate.

The point is your spiraling wildly off of results against nobody whose a relevant NCAA All-American wrestler. The best wrestler he's faced is Johnny Lovett, who he beat 5-3. Lovett's best result is, I believe, 2-2 at the NCAA tournament. So when you view Van Ness' results (and your statement was made well before even the Lovett match) of beating the crap out of non-D1 All American types and proclaim things like "I'll take him over anybody buy Yianni". Then, when it's followed by decreasing levels of dominance once the competition steps up slightly (because, again, Lovett is a tough solid wrestler, but hasn't come close to AAing as of yet, and Van Ness just beat him 5-3) and you stick with it with lines like "I can see him losing to a Gomez or Sasso in their first meeting" as if the only way those two very high level wrestlers can beat Van Ness is because it's his first time getting a look at him, it's objectively hilarious. Nobody is saying Van Ness can't AA or improve, even dramatically, by the end of the season. Not being a national title threat at the beginning of your freshman year is not an insult. The Van Ness we've seen so far is a solid underdog against Yianni, Gomez, Sasso, etc.

"Man discusses wrestling on wrestling forum....news at 11!"

Where have I made any claims about Murin's greatness? You're the one who said Van Ness would beat anybody but Yianni. If you don't actually believe that, that's fine. BTW, 5-3 over Johnny Lovett. Love my Florida wrestlers, but.... not exactly evidence of forthcoming domnlinance.

Well, you picked him over anybody but Yianni, so how many points are you giving me?