Wrestleknownothing

You have an excellent memory

There must be a mistake. I don't see Eve Berrington seeded at 62kg.

I disagree that large NIL payments are only going to be happening at two places. All it takes is one very wealthy, very interested alum to make it happen. Or a whole lot of not wealthy alumni. Every school has at least one very wealthy alum. The key then becomes getting them interested. It is obviously easier to do that where there is already a high degree of success (PSU and Iowa), but what prevents storied programs like Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Iowa State, or Oklahoma, who have massive alumni networks, or more recent up and comers like Missouri and Cornell, also with huge networks, from equaling or surpassing PSU or Iowa? It can happen if someone has the will and ability to make it happen.

As long as I have been involved in finance (since 1987) I have always heard this. It is just a restatement of the risk/reward trade off and where the balance of opinion seems to stand at any given time.

Pistols at dawn?

Define your terms. The NCAA defined their terms earlier this year, and it seems to contradict what I assume you are talking about. But then the issue may be me.

I have nothing to support this, but I have a feeling that there is a cycle to this. For a niche sport dynasties create interest. The casual sports fan might take note of the fact that Dan Gable's Iowa has won 14 titles and is going for 15 (that was my personal experience). But in order for a sport to transition from niche to popular it has to have a feeling of hope for all fans. The NFL is the ultimate first to last league. It seemingly happens every year. But similar things are true for the MLB, and NBA. Now where the transition needs to occur, or what the necessary conditions are to move from niche to popular, I have no idea. But at some point the NFL reached a tipping point. They changed their rules to promote parity and things really took off. I have a nagging suspicion that if they had changed their rules too soon it would have hurt their growth. Wrestling will never achieve the status of these other sports. So I feel like a dynasty is good. Either that or I am just talking up my own book. Take your pick.

You had me until Giordano's. Has to be Lou's.

Get some sleep

None of the schools have television contracts to show the non-athletes going to class, either. It is a two way street after decades of it being a one way street.

Post of the year candidate.

You have inspired me, ionel. It is Calumet Farms 15 tonight.

I love it when the subtext to these debates is "yeah, but my team did it with virtue". So silly.

You should update your stats. Smith has coached 34 national champs, thought the OSU website only has 33. Meanwhile, Sanderson has 34 at PSU and 2 at ISU, so with 36 he has the most of any active coach.

I know, right?

2015 there were 9 In the 10 weight era (1952-1965 and 1970-present) there have been 8 unique schools win individual titles 16 times, 9 unique schools 8 times (2105 being most recent), and 10 unique schools 6 times (2009 being most recent). The average number of unique schools during these 67 years was 7.5, so 8 is not an outlier. Note: the graph below is inaccurate for 2019. I have Suriano listed at two schools, so Tableau counts that as unique when it isn't. I didn't feel like changing the underlying data structure to fix the graph though.

Does that make you the Bluto Blutarsky of salad making?

Hang on. How can Cael Sanderson destroy what was already destroyed by Dan Gable and multiple Oklahoma State coaches before him?

Real Woods had all 5 guys above him clear out. As the highest placing returnee, it was reasonable to consider him an immediate title contender.

Packaging is a major?

Troller's gonna troll.

I remembered that I have looked at NCAA tournament bonus points in the past, so I dug it up and updated for 2023. They have been down the past two years.

Sadly I do not. I was just quoting from the article. I would like to look at them as well.

I am not sure who the author of those points was, but with regard to point one above, point two applies. I get that it is hard to prove the negative, but I am highly skeptical that rule changes do not lead to increases in viewership, or decreases in decreases in viewership. After all it is usually when viewership is decreasing that changes are made (see the first bullet point below). To not make changes at such a time would be the irresponsible thing to do. And while specific data was not presented, committee members did referred to data that was used to make these decisions. Examples from the Flo article: Viewership was down for the NCAA tournament with probably some of the best storylines we’ve ever had all in one year national tournament match points down 19 percent since 2019 and takedowns down almost 17 percent during the same time frame If you look at the numbers statistically, takedowns have gone down, backpoints have gone down, tech falls have gone down. Everything has decreased in the last 10 years in our numbers, so we’ve got to figure out how to create more action, more points, more opportunities

No real knowledge, but it seems like Anthony was at the end of his process, while AJ still has quite a ways to go.