Wrestleknownothing

I was hacked

Steveson really is not an exception anymore. Of the last 10 Hodge winners, half did not lead in pinfalls among the finalists. I chose 2012 as the starting point because that appears to be when the voting method changed. It went from a handful of people as part of a committee to a committee plus the vote of past Hodge winners. Ultimately, a fan vote was added to.

Steveson won with 1 pin. Pins have been de-emphasized for some time.

Bodybag as a verb? A+.

This is not without precedence. Martin Shkreli spent 4 years in prison for securities fraud even though no one lost money, and some investors made money. Sam Bankman-Fried has been convicted of fraud even though there may be a full recovery in the FTX bankruptcy. In short, it has never been the case that the lack of losses means there was no fraud. Yes, it is typical in cases of fraud that there are investors you can point to and say they lost money. But, if you are lucky enough to make money for investors despite your fraud, it does not negate the fraud. Never has. Never will. Luck is no defense. It is just a horrible idea to have an "investors must lose money" test to establish fraud.

There has been a #1 seed lose in the first round as recently as 2007, so......

There is no set criteria for seeding the B1G tournie. Instead it is based on a coaches' vote. So hard to say for sure which matters more. Also hard to say if they just consider conference results. If so, then the Smith win over Ramos would not matter as it was at CKLV. With Ramos 8-0 in conference I have to believe he is the top seed. But after that it gets messy. You have five guys with 2 conference losses (Ayala 5-2, Barnett 6-2, Davis 6-2, DeAugustino 5-2, McCrone 5-2) and two guys with three conference losses (McKee 4-3, Smith 4-3). But, both three loss guys have each beaten two loss guys and Ayala did not wrestle Barnett. Smith has beaten 2 two loss guys (Davis, DeAugustino) and lost to 2 two loss guys (Ayala, Barnett) and the other three loss guy (McKee). McKee losses are to the lone conference undefeated (Ramos), one of the two loss guys (Barnett) and a four loss guy (Peterson). I think that loss to Peterson is what causes him to be seeded below Smith. But the real question is do they put any of the three conference loss guys ahead of any of the two conference loss guys? Among the 2 loss guys, McCrone clearly has the weakest resume. I can see them elevating both McKee and Smith above McCrone. With wins over Davis and DeAugustino, maybe Smith even bumps over them. But with conference losses to Ayala and Barnett, I do not see Smith being above those two. So call it a range of 4 to 8 for Smith's seed.

Awesome stuff, @bracketbuster

Indeed, but we have some newbies, so I thought I would give them some context. But if I recall correctly they didn't have first place that year because PSU wasn't trying. Isn't that right?

PSU bonus points in the Sanderson era. Last year was their lowest other than the punt year and first year.

As a huge PSU fan I can confirm that they are getting all the calls because that is what is right and just.

Yes, 2022

You must be new around here.

Is Messenbrink the new Stevenson?

Seems like you would enjoy Asimov's Robot and Foundation series.

See last week's answer

Right back at ya, Fadz. I always enjoy your posts. You are so knowledgable.

Indeed Haines is not a guarantee, but given what we saw in Iowa last week, and that Robb is 2-4 in his last 6, Haines is a heavy favorite. It would be a major upset if Robb were to beat him. As for Mesenbrink, I think he is one of those guys to whom his opponent's style does not matter. I admittedly do not know much about Taylor, though.

Certainly the first three weights are toss ups. Wrestlestat has all three going to PSU, but I do not see that happening. Wrestlestat also has Kasak beating Lovett which would be a major upset. I do not see that happening either. The only match wrestlestat has going Nebraska's way is the other clear toss up to me, Pinto v Truax. I think Nebraska gets 1 or 2 of the first three weights, Lovett, and Pinto making it 7-3 to PSU, maybe 6-4, but I think 7-3.

You are correct. In the years immediately following WW2 they briefly allowed freshman to be eligible. So, in 1950 Dick Hutton (1,1,2,1 for Oklahoma St) and Joe Scarpello (1,3,2,1 for Iowa) became the first two four timers. And unless they started the finals at Heavyweight Scarpello would have barely preceded Hutton.

Boom, roasted. You have my vote.

Is it me, or is it him? It's him, isn't it?

Gary Breece (Oklahoma) and Jarrett Hubbard (Michigan) were the first two in the modern era. But they were actually the third and fourth overall. Can you name the first two?