Wrestleknownothing

Seems tease-y to me.

Because your tax dollars are not paying them.

To what end?

He sure is teasing it.

We are firmly into NIL 2.0, or maybe 3.0, era and parity may be being restored. The predicted defections from the crowded PSU room are occurring, and that will seed some others nicely. First we had Beard and Barraclough go elsewhere and AA. Now we have Facundo and Ryder going elsewhere to improve other teams. Circle of life stuff.

His bonus percentage was above Hendrickson's

You know I think the moral high ground stuff is silly.

If not Trumble then it will be someone else, some other time. It has to be to remain competitive in the long term. I expect the "we build, we don't buy", especially the present tense of it, to age poorly.

I find the disconnect in so many of these comments entertaining. We think it is good for the guy who got paid at the same time we think it is bad that the schools got them paid.

The thing everyone predicted would happened / expected to happen / surprised no one if it happens...happened.

Isaac Trumble?

On the Iowa football roster.

The settlement still needs final approval. Hearing is set for April 7.

I was on top of those numbers, but then they got the best of me.

I would settle for one zero, with a positive number in front of it, instead of the 9 negative ones we have gotten.

Didn't Biden used to put out stuff like this? Call me skeptical of every politician's accounting ever. Meanwhile, in numbers that can be verified, the S&P500 has rallied to -9.2% since the start of the "Dumbest Trade War in History".

Well that was pretty dumb of me not to include that. You both make a good point. The number of decisions has a huge amount of volatility, even more than the smaller individual categories of bonus types, which complicates the analysis. But, using the same kind of trend does show exactly what you are talking about. Bonus, as a single category, has jumped from historical lows. Near MD have become MD, near TF have become TF, but PF have not increased. But the increase in Bonus is greater than the effect of shifting categories. This probably suggest there were a lot of matches finishing close to the barriers of both MD and TF.

It has only been two years and I am only looking at the NCAA tournament, so any conclusions are going to be a bit shaky. And bonus point scoring is notoriously volatile from year to year. Anyway... I have bonus by type going back to 1988. The only significant rule changes I can think of (other than the 3-point TD) over that time that affect bonus are changes in near fall possibilities. But I do not think they have a significant impact. The 2-point years are in blue (highlighted) and the 3-point years are in orange (faint). And I use percentage of matches rather than raw numbers because the number of contested matches was highly variable prior to 1998 (ranging from 547 to 636). Major Decisions With the advent of the 3-point TD, major decisions jumped last year and this, but they "jumped" from historically low levels. When looked at through the broader trend (dotted line) all they really did is return to the trend. It seems like the 3-point TD has had little effect on the amount of majors at the NCAA tournament so far. Pin Falls PF are generally down and have stayed that way with the 3-point TD. I have theorized in the past that this is a direct result of matches ending sooner in TF before they can become PF in the 3-point TD era. For now, I am sticking with this idea even though proof is thin. Tech Falls Now this is where we see a pretty big impact. I put two trend lines in all the graphs. The highlighted one is the trend without factoring in 2024 or 2025. For MD and PF you cannot tell that there are two lines because they are on top of each other. But for TF adding in the two years of 3-point TD significantly changes the trend upward. It is clear to me that the immediate effect of the 3-point TD is an appreciable increase in TF. Did the 3-Point TD "Work"? I also think (without the data to back it up) that this is (weak) proof that the desired effect of the 3-point TD was achieved. There are more TDs relative to trend. If it were simply the case that the same number of TD were occurring but 11-14 point MDs were now 15+ point TFs, and PF were being turned into TF, both with the same number of TD as before, then there would be a decrease in MD (there is not) and a decrease in PF (there is, but it also fits the trend). NOTE: What the hell happened in 2006? An absurd 16.9% of matches at the NCAA tournament ended in PF? What an outlier.

Impressive sleuthing, j. Thanks for this. I remember Askren on FRL a while back talking about going to opens with lesser competition on his own so he could fatten up his PF totals.

Any idea how many TF and MD in 2010?

This tracks.

AJ and Carter in a corner "training" with each other? Sign me up.