Wrestleknownothing

look up

Two of four timers who won as a freshman in the upper half of weights (I am not 100% sure this is complete): 1993 Markus Mollica 158 (current 165) 1994 Mark Branch 167 (current 174) 2021 Carter Starocci 174 (2 of 4 and maybe more) 2021 Aaron Brooks 184 (2 of 4 and maybe more)

Three of four timers who won as a freshman in the upper half of weights: 1950 Bill Nelson 155 (current 165) 1950 Dick Hutton UNL 1983 Ed Banach 190 1997 Lincoln McIlravy 150 (current 157) 2005 Greg Jones 184 2006 Jake Rosholt 197 2017 J'Den Cox 197

After I hit send I was wondering if anyone would point this out.

You are not wrong. He has said that. Something I sometimes think about is if Starocci wins four in a row, then comes back for a fifth bite at the apple, but does not win, how does that affect his legacy? Humans are not good at ignoring something they know.

I guarantee it

Will it be full of upsets? Or will it going according to chalk (love that expression)? In the 8 or more seed, 8 place era (1979 to present), the number of AAs that come from the top 8 seeds has been trending higher. Clearly, the seeding process has gotten better/more accurate over time. But there is a lot of volatility around that trend. By this measure, last year was a relative down year for top 8 seeds i.e. good for upsets. But 2022 was also a year of the top dog. Every champion was either a #1 seed or a #2 seed. That has only happened three other time since 1979. I guess 2022 was a barbell year. A lot of upsets for #3 - #8, but domination from the top 2. So what is it going to be? A lot of upsets? Or a year of coronations of the kings? Or some from the left column and some from the right column?

This has been a head scratcher for me too. So little discussion of a guy going for his fourth title. But, he has the misfortune of doing it at the same time as another guy going for his fourth title who has been significantly more dominant throughout the process.

Yes

Little known fact: pinfest is a contraction of pinfall is best.

Thanks for this. I mistakenly highlighted Jim Woods as OW in 1974, but he was the Gorian winner, not OW.

My grandfather was a coal miner in eastern PA, but he can't be talking about me, right?

No worries. I appreciate the help. Anf I love the fact that in 1966 Sanders finished 3rd at D2, but 1st at D1.

Then bring back the dual affiliation. Whatever it takes, give me more.

In seven of the past eleven tournaments at least one wrestler ranked outside of the top 4 has won a title. Who will it be this year?

Lee and Diakomihalis. Because I want there to be beautiful things in the world.

Bring back NAIA too, while we are at it. I think this is the complete list of non-D1 D1 champs. Bolded and underlined means they were also outstanding wrestler that year.

Gimpeltf, Gimpeltf, He's my man.

https://www.wrestlestat.com/rankings/statistical Wyatt Hendrickson 14

I am not sure what it is about pinfall that I love so much, but then who can explain love? Maybe because it seems old fashioned and archaic to me, even if it is neither. I just love it. And that it drives @ionel to distraction is just a bonus. By the way, why is fall acceptible? Wrestlers fon't fall. Fall implies no outside agency. A fall is an accident. A fall is something we inflict on ourselves. A fall is preceeded by a trip. And followed by a broken hip. I have talked myself into pinfall is superior to fall.

I like this idea, but instead of taking the place of 31-33, how about having 4 pigtails instead of 1? 33 gets D2 champ, 32 gets D3 champ, 31 gets D2 runner up, and 30 gets 29 in the four pigtails.

I do things a little differently than that. Rather than guess a finish (usually done by fans and too optimistically) or assume the finish will equal the seed (how all the ranking websites do it), I take a look at the empirical results for a given seed. For example, a #1 seed has finished with an average of 17 advancement and placement points between 2010 and 2022. The problem with the ranking website approach is that it gives too much credit to the top 8 seeds at the expense of giving no credit to the next 25 seeds even though it never happens that way in real life. So for Michigan it looks like this: The expectation is that every one of my estimates will be wrong, but I will be right on average (hopefully).

No winkie needed. I got it. The article actually presented worries that there is a larger effect rather than actual evidence of one. Capital markets have been known to over-react to news on occasion. I am not saying that today's price moves are over-reactions, but they are also not evidence of anything. They are just the current consensus view. As for FDIC insurance it is per depositor, per bank. So to get a multiplier on your coverage you would need to spread your deposits among many banks. You can see why that would be practically difficult for business accounts. If you are using the money to make payroll you need the money to come from a single account, for example. And one of the confounding issues at these three banks is that their depositors were primarily businesses with large, unstable balances that were not covered by FDIC insurance. Now the real thing to understand about deposit insurance is that it is all about confidence. It was instituted to give retail depositors confidence in banks at a time when confidence in banks was in short supply. There is a very good reason for this. The maturity mis-match that banks provide (borrow short-term, lend long-term) is very valuable to the economy. It is how deposits get turned into productive uses for things like mortgages and business loans. The government wants to promote that activity so they provide the insurance that makes it possible for you and me not to think about our bank accounts as anything but 100% money good. And when it comes to savings deposits there really is no such thing as 99% sure. You are either sure, or you are not. In this instance the government decided to extend the insurance coverage beyond the $250k limit because there was good reason to. The loans and bonds that these banks have outstanding do not appear to be the issue (depositor flight is the issue). They have good collateral, it is just locked up in long-term loans. In that scenario it makes sense for the government to effectively lend them money to satisfy withdrawals and take the loans and bonds as collateral against those loans. In this way the government effectively replaces the depositors. There are some confounding accounting issues as well, but this is already too long to go down that rabbit hole.