Wrestleknownothing

You do like to mis-paraphrase. My beef is that the NCAA misused their ability to punish athletes for breaking a rule. And as evidence I offer the NCAA's own actions. They have retroactively changed their punishment once, and are now messaging they will do it a second time.

Yes, I have been careful not to claim that they are without fault, or that there should not be a rule against gambling, or there should not be consequences for breaking the rule (even if we disagree on whether my consequences are so light as to be meaningless). My argument is that both the original penalties, and the first set of retroactive penalties, were too harsh given the facts and circumstances.

In what way is this clip evidence that Twitter is better? Are you saying that in the past this would not have been on Twitter and now it is? Or that you can only find this on Twitter? Or something else?

Everyone will enact new gambling penalties because no one can stop themselves from taking gambling profits.

I disagree with you on how the real world works. There are any number of violations of rules, or laws that have a different punishment for a first time offense than for repeated offenses. Warnings exit. Probation exists. Punishments for violating probation exist. Ratcheting punishments for repeat offenders exist. Going to the maximal allowable punishment right away is some old testament stuff, but not real world stuff. You say, it is pretty simple, and I disagree with that, as well. It is actually quite nuanced. And part of that nuance is the NCAA's own complicity with the gambling industry, their history of hypocrisy with regard to the benefits received by the athletes (notice I did not say student-athletes?), and the recent trend of the courts and legislatures calling them on their hypocrisies.

A crime needs to occur for there to be a victim of a crime. In the case of the Iowa wrestlers there are no crimes and no allegations of crime. In the case of Paniro Johnson, none of what you list is alleged to have occurred. His alleged crime relates to his attempts to disguise his identity. In your list (a) is not a crime, (b) is not alleged to have occurred, making (1) and (2) moot, and (3) is also not a crime. I need you to tell me you understand what a crime is.

We should also consider the motivation of the NCAA in changing their punishments. Remember that they have already retroactively changed the punishment once, and they are now considering a second retroactive change to the punishment. Why would they do that? One possible explanation is that they are reasonable stewards of sport and they that feel a sort of parental benevolence toward their charges, the student-athletes. They are doing this for their own good. Of course, their entire history of enforcement actions and rule sets would suggest otherwise. A second possible explanation is profit motive. Several of their member institutions already take payments from gambling companies. They also use their position to promote gambling among their students, including underaged students. The NCAA and member institutions have already lost a number of court protections for their past hypocritical positions. They know that they cannot both take money from gambling companies, and overly harshly punish students for doing the thing that they are promoting, AND expect that to hold up in court over the long haul. A third possibility is that they are mostly concerned about the purity of sport and the wonderful things it can do for the amateur athlete in between going to classes, but classes always come first. I had a hard time typing that sentence between giggles.

Let me take that back. It is not even a crime in almost all cases. It is a rules violation.

Yes. Can you identify a victim?

A slap on the wrist is the proper punishment in this case. The argument I hear for bringing down the hammer is "but what if we do not punish harshly? Think of the moral hazard they might be subject to. Think of all the gambling debts they most assuredly will have that will most assuredly lead to them throwing games, or influencing outcomes." Punishing someone over harshly for a minor crime because there is a low probability that it will lead to some larger crime is just wrong.

You are so full of crap. First time offenders of victimless crimes almost always get a slap on the wrist. It is only when they do not get a slap on the wrist that people get upset. You sit around claiming it is only Iowa fans who are upset, but it is only you, the supposed PSU fan, who is upset when reason prevails. Again. You are so full of crap.

Yeah, I did a poor job of formatting there. The probability column should go to the hundredths like this: Then you see that as a 20 seed he would have a 3% chance of AAing. And that is not a statement about Feldman. It is a statement about the history of guys who were the 20 seed. Now if Feldman has a strong season and winds up a 10 seed then his probability goes up to 37%. As an 8 seed it jumps to 49%. Even a 1 seed is not guaranteed to AA (98.5%).

Buddy Lee?

It is possible that his tweet was referring to the Oly Trials, not the Pan Am challenge process. One man's confusion is another man being intentionally vague.

A freakin men. I always thought the penalties were too harsh in this case and these potential revisions recognize that. If they also make the revisions retroactive, as is being considered, it would be another aknowledgement that they got it wrong the first time. Good for them that they appear to recognize their mistake.

I think he tweeted something along the lines of, "it's time to take back what's mine." Which cracked me up. It's not like he was stripped of the title. He lost. Twice.

I think Diakomihalis challenges for sure. Does that then get Retherford to challenge so that he can wear out Diakomihalis for his buddy Lee? Does that then get Arujau to challenge so that he can get a chance to wear out Retherford for his buddy Diakomihalis? What then if Retherford and Diakomihalis meet first? Is it like a bracket? One guy gets a bye to round two? Who gets the bye? Is it random?

Using the pre-season Intermat rankings we are still around 80% chance of 4 AA's for the Wolverines.

Oops. Missed that there was a new thread.

Using the pre-season Intermat rankings we are at 50% chance of 1 and 50% chance of 2 AA's for the Panthers.

Using the pre-season Intermat rankings we are at a 90% chance of 4 AA's for the Tigers.

If the weight is not qualified at Pan Ams there is a last chance qualifier that is world wide. Top 3 qualify the weight so they wrestle to true third. Pan Ams does not wrestle to true second. Both finalists qualify the weight.

Using the pre-season Intermat rankings we are at 50% chance of 2 and 50% chance of 3 AA's for the Buckeyes.

Using the pre-season Intermat rankings we are at 50% chance of 2 and 50% chance of 3 AA's for the Cowboys.

Using the pre-season Intermat rankings we are still around 80% chance of 4 AA's for the Wolverines.