Wrestleknownothing

You are now comparing Spencer Lee's NCAA default to Carter Starocci's US Open default when you know they are categorically different. At the NCAA's you are part of a team earning team points, not just individual accolades. The opposite is true at the US Open. At the US Open there is one winner and a bunch of who cares. Many on this board's predecessor even went so far as to claim wrestlers (only certain ones) do not try on the backside of these types of qualifying tournaments. You are also ignoring that Spencer Lee did not drop out of the consolation bracket at the US Open.

I can confirm this confirmation, and I have been through confirmation, though I felt like no one involved took it all that seriously.

If I have to assume both are healthy, then I also have to assume they never wrestle.

He must possess an air of indifferent arrogance, but I am not sure what else beside that.

I am not treating that as a sure thing.

The Free Points for Everyone Version: If we assume everyone moves up by the number of wrestlers who finished above them that are not returning, 2024 PSU are on par with 1997 Iowa's placement points (actually +1) and advancement points (-3). But 2024 PSU still has the original bonus point problem.

Got it. Bit of a stretch on the definition of returning, but then this whole exercise is a stretch.

Good question. Stay tuned.

I took some time (too much time) to compile the 1997 Iowa team score from the brackets on wrestlingstats.com so that I could also re-score them using the current scoring rules. I ran into a problem. When I compile the team score I get 171 rather than the 170 that is reported everywhere. 1997 scored with 1997 rules: I am wondering if they had a team point deducted somewhere along the way. If anyone knows the answer, please let me know. I have consulted with two of our resident historians and we were not certain. 1997 scored with 2024 rules: The deltas come from two sources. Fifth and sixth place are worth 2 and 3 more points today than in 1997, respectively. But in 1997 the tournament was scored as a 64 team bracket whereas it is now scored as a 32 team bracket with pigtails. The impact of scoring it as a 64 team bracket is that any time there are more than 32 wrestlers in a bracket there will be a lot more advancement points available to the field (16 more on the champ side and 8 more on the conso side). If it turns out there was a one point deduction, then the new 1997 Iowa total using 2024 scoring rules would be 170.5. PSU Returning Points So where does PSU stand heading into 2024? With Roman Bravo-Young and Max Dean being replaced by Aaron Nagao and Bernie Truax their returning points are 141.5 (I saw 143 reported elsewhere, but I think that is wrong). So PSU has either a 30 point gap or a 29 point gap to make up. Seems like a tall order,. But, not so much from a placement perspective. Does anyone really doubt PSU's ability to have 5 champs, 1 runner-up, and 2 other AA's? No the issue for PSU will be, and has been for several years, bonus points. Iowa ripped off 33 of them. The currently constituted PSU line-up had 20. And the prior two tournaments they were under 20 points each. Stranger things have happened, though. As a matter of fact the 1997 Iowa team apparently was not even the favorite to win the tournament. That was Oklahoma State. Conclusion It rarely (never?) pays to bet against Cael Sanderson, but I have to take the under on PSU getting to 171.5. Or 170.5, whichever.

2k is $4,302.72, but 1k is $2,657.01? There was a lot of inflation in that hour between posts.

It is wild to think about when you put it like that.

Perhaps it was on purpose, going for the double meaning.

Or a flight itinerary from Louisville to St. Louis

Only if Gilman has a time machine. The deadline was a week ago.

No WTT for a weight where someone is already sitting in Final X this year. The US Open is the qualifying tournament this year for the other half of Final X. So Lee is out. Whoever wins 57 tonight will face Gilman at Final X.

In this case my username is highly accurate. I pretty much just follow college and international. Sorry.

I get it how it happens. You look at the board, it has Bartlett underlined, you know the rules are confusing and there is software involved that sorts it out quickly and accurately. You don't automatically think that there may have been an input error. But someone somewhere said hold on a second, wasn't it Bartlett who was cautioned and didn't it end 10-10? Doesn't that mean that Lee won? And then discussions were had and the error was fixed. Kinda. Sorta. It still look inconsistent to me on the score sheet. If you look at the score sheet on page 1 of this thread it says at the top that Lee won by VPO1, which I believe means victory by points (VPO) with the opponent having scored points (1). But if you look at the detail below there is a red 0 in Nick Lee's column. The 0 indicates a caution, but I think they normally put that in the column of the person receiving the caution, not the person who benefits from the caution (presumably that is why it is red?). The software sees the red 0 and underlines Bartlett's name. Everyone knows the software is programmed correctly so they raise Bartlett's hand.

I think it was marked incorrectly. I believe the table incorrectly put the caution under Lee causing the advantage underlining to go under Bartlett. Mass confusion ensues.

A lot of venues list different capacities for different sports as the playing surfaces take up different amounts of space. I thought I heard Tippin Gym's capacity for wrestling is 175.

Blending your five eras with my four rules/scoring based eras gets us seven eras. I have Pre-Gable broken into three. And you have 10 weights, 8 places broken into four:

You must be new here.

What an interesting concept. I am all for it. I know this is at least partly tongue in cheek, but I am starting to love the idea.

This is a shadow tax increase. It is a way to raise taxes while claiming you did not raise taxes. And worse, like the attempts to wave student loan debt, it introduces moral hazard where it should not be. Subsidizing poor credit is always a bad idea. It creates a near term bump in activity at the expense of taking on a longer term risk that is not properly priced. Improperly pricing risk has a long history of ending very badly. We saw what happens when the federal government attempts to influence lenders to make loans they otherwise would not make during the last mortgage lending crisis. Let's not repeat that mistake.

"It's better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." -Joseph Joubert I do not need to listen to him to know he is wrong. Next topic.

The impression I got watching live was that they were having a very friendly conversation. Parris has an obvious smile on his face as he approaches Steveson and then they are both smiling while talking and waiting for the final confirmation. Didn't seem like trash talk at all to me.