Wrestleknownothing

From 2015 to 2023 they couldn't even get 10 guys to the tournament.

Using 87% there is still a 62% chance that at least one does not AA. In the 33 seed era (last 5 years) 1-3 seeds AA'd 92.7% of the time. Using that you still get a 41% at least one does not AA.

Seems likely. Last year with four #1 seeds, two #2 seeds, a #6 seed, a #7 seed, an administratively under-seeded #9 seed, and a #10 seed, they still only managed 8 AA's. It turns out 10 AA's is really hard.

Fly is all our natty daddy.

He was very clear, concise and factual. People jumping to the wrong conclusion because of their own biased world view is the problem.

I kinda like. I think I will keep it for a while. SAVE CAMPBELL WRESTLING

The NCAA is on a serious losing streak.

Nico Megaludis, 2016

Until and unless Lilledahal, and at least one of Davis and Barr, improve their rank/seed, I put it at 7.5.

No argument. But debate team? Those were the nerds the nerds picked on.

Many years ago (2011) I read an article by a favorite author, Chuck Klosterman, saying The Wire, The Sopranos, Mad Men, and Breaking Bad were the four best TV shows of the past decade. It was so long ago that Breaking Bad and Mad Men were still airing. Breaking Bad was his favorite. It was mine too until Better Call Daul. How do you rank yours?

And I thought I was a nerd?

If you decide to break your embargo, that would be a good place to start.

Perhaps, but that means you also mis out on Breaking Bad.

@mspart don't get me wrong, though. I consider @ionel an internet friend. We just disagree on stuff on stuff like this.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. He's a quitter.

Oh, I am aware. I am also aware he has had that question answered. And I am aware that no matter how many times it is answered he will not stop asking it.

Using highest seed per wrestler across the three services = 4.8%. And if Lilledahl moves into the top 8 = 10.9%

yes

Wrestlestat = 0.5% chance Flo = 1.3% Intermat = 1.9% Using 12/16 and 12/17 rankings

My point was that Twitter and Tok Tok as "news" sources are absolute garbage. I know you want to turn that around and make it a mainstream media is not 100% accurate argument, but it does not change the reality of my statement that Twitter and TikTok are absolute garbage. Be that as it may, people want to pretend they are new sources when it suits their purpose, but then claim they are never meant to be news sources when THAT suits their purpose.

You can stop. You already made my point.

Thank you for making my point

It is about the Fed saying they will slow down future rate cuts because they cannot be certain what Trumps policies will be. Powell also was prepared with a copy the Fed's past study on tariffs and inflation. He stated they are still looking into possible effects, but that is hard to do until there is some certainty.

He didn't delete it. The guy who posted on Twitter deleted the tweet so it no longer links here. It is not responsible because the original tweet source is not reliable. It is ok to exercise discretion rather than just re-tweet, re-post something as quick as possible, especially when it meets a couple of criteria: 1. it is awfully specific in the knowledge it claims (knowledge of the shooter, knowledge of the shooters psychological state, knowledge of the shooters medical treatments), 2. it came out waaaaay too fast to have any of that knowledge with any degree of certainty.