Wrestleknownothing

I already did the returning points that shows you the effect of this year's transfers on the schools losing wrestlers. We wont know the impact for those gaining the wrestlers until mid March. So there is no sense including this year with past years due to the incomplete data for this year.

This is the list of wrestlers from 2014 - 2024 who have NCAA qualified for more than one school (plus Kerkvliet, Mesenbrink, Spratley, and Jamison) aggregated by school with the points they took with they when they left, and the points they scored after they arrived. For the three three timers their points at school two go into the in and out column. Stanford has paid the heaviest price, losing 12 wrestlers and 90.5 points without gaining any wrestlers. Northwestern is not far behind with -8 and -64.5. On the flip side are the usual suspects, Iowa has brought in 10 wrestlers who have scored +116.5 points for them while losing 0 NCAA tournament qualifying wrestlers. Both those numbers will change significantly this year with all the ins and outs. Speaking of a school that will see significant changes, Arizona State has been a big beneficiary of the transfer portal, right up until they were not. They have gained +74 net points and 6 wrestlers. Penn State is number 2 on the gains list with one wrestler, Greg Kerkvliet contributing 69 of their net +96.5 points gained. Michigan is number 3 with 7 gained and 1 lost for +74.5 net points gained.

Thanks for Spratley and Jamison. Parco and Buchanan have not yet qualified for Iowa.

OK. Let's crowd source this thing, Intermat posters. I have a list of 86 wrestlers who have qualified for the NCAA tournament for at least two schools between 2014 and 2024. That does NOT include wrestlers in a couple categories: Transferred before wrestling for the first school. I know about Kerkvliet but who else qualifies? Transferred after redshirting at first school. I know about Mesenbrink, but who else qualifies? Did not qualify for the NCAA tournament at the first school. I got nobody. Help fill in the blanks. Edit: Bonus points if you can name the three wrestlers who qualified for three different teams during that time.

Funny you should mention that. I just started looking at it. I should have something this afternoon.

Mesenbrink is a straight up runner-up. But he appreciates your vote of confidence. I did this at the start of the season detailing returning points and their source. Since it is returning I only detail this year's transfers (so no Kerkvliet, Mesenbrink, Caliendo, etc.). And no Ferrari since he has not scored in a few years.

Who is that a question for and is it in reference to anything in particular?

Reece Witcraft and Kaleb Henson in the poll even though they do not technically qualify. Their last match was 12/19. The portal for naming starters closed 1/19. That's 31 days since they last wrestled. There is a requirement to have wrestled at least once in the last 30 days.

Missing from the poll due to the 8 bout minimum: Carson Kharchla #6 at 174 Andrew Alirez #2 at 141 Dylan Cedeno #20 at 141 Ryan Crookham #1 at 133 Gable Steveson #1 at 285

And right now he is losing that argument worse than offthemat

Fascinating

It was covered in the first quote. You are just choosing to ignore it. "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." There is a federal judge who agrees with me. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," Coughenour said of Trump's policy. "I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

Because Native Americans were always treated as "other" whose only path to citizenship was naturalization. They were one of one. All part of the troubled history with Native Americans.

The Supreme Court made it clear that the imigration status of the parents is irrelevant when it comes to birthright citizenship. But the real issue is not this at all. The real issue is whether a President can use an executive order to violate The Constitution. I would be shocked if the Supreme Court would hold that a President can change their decisions unilaterally. That is, and should remain, the province of dictators, not Presidents.

Forget about scholars. The exact words from the Supreme Court directly address this situation and Eastman is just plain wrong.

That is from 1898 when the question was settled definitively. The Court has had no reason to answer the question again that they had already answered.

pick almost any number. They are very volatile.

You need to be able to decipher whatever blockchain they are on to do that, so pretty much no.

I know I hurt your feelings by saying you were dumb. Sorry about that. But now you are acting like it is two weeks from now. Read beyond Eastman. Read original source material. For example, read the actual Supreme Court statements. "The Fourteen Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory . . . . The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate [while in the United States and] . . . 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;' and his child . . . 'is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'" And "To hold that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States." And "Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship." My logic is based on Supreme Court rulings.

The most concerning thing I heard was the original plan was to be thoughtful about who got a pardon (non-violent offenses) and who did not (violent offenses like the guy using a cattle prod on a cop or pepper spray), but it was decided that would be too much work.

But if it is the best team it is the hardest to walk on to. That said, I voted for the AA.

Ramos (125), Mendez (141), Henson (149), Kasak (157), Mesenbrink (165), O'Toole (174), and Kerkvliet (285) all unanimous. Ayala (133) likely had 6 first place and 8 second place votes. That is the lowest consensus. Starocci (184) and Buchanan (197) likely had 12 first place and 2 second place votes.

It was -5 in suburban Chicago on Tuesday without the wind chill, so yeah.

Funny story. Years ago my wife and I bought a cabin as a fixer upper project. We closed in February. There was a heavy snow the next day. On our way to the cabin we stopped and bought a couple of snow shovels. Mind you the driveway is 110 yards long, so my plan was to just shovel the end where the plows leave a mound and then take the four wheel drive SUV, build up a head of steam, and ram my way up the driveway. Well, about half way up there was a big drift and it was a wet snow. Long story short, my SUV wound up on top of the drift with all four wheels off the ground. Turns out four wheel drive is irrelevant with four wheels off the ground. So I decided to shovel under the SUV to lower the vehicle, but it also turns out that a snow shovel is particularly ill-suited to that purpose. The curve of the blade made it impossible to extend the shovel under something while also keeping the blade on the ground. Fortunately I found a coal shovel left behind in the garage by the previous owner. A shovel not unlike the one in Bassett's hand. 110 yards of shoveling later, about 5 of it on my knees, I cannot remember ever being as tired. So maybe they just got done shoveling under Brands' car?