Wrestleknownothing

I think the sample size of guys who go up then down is generally small, never mind at a single university. More often than not the up, down (or down, up) is to avoid a guy in your own room. Not a lot of schools have that high class problem. Barr went up to avoid Starocci. And now Starocci is gone. Shakur Rasheed did it as well. He wrestled 165, 174, 197, 184, 197. Similar to Bartlett (and to Barr this year) he went up to 197 both times because he could not beat the 184 (Nickal, then Brooks), even though 184 was his preferred weight. Alex Facundo, too. After qualifying at 165 he went down to 157 last year. Of course, that was to avoid Mesenbrink, and Wrestlestat has him at 174 next year, presumably to avoid Mesenbrink again. And with the transfer portal as wide open as it is I think we will see it even less in the future. That is already playing out at PSU (Facundo and Ryder), we saw it at Iowa last year where guys transferred out rather than change weight or sit on the bench, and there are other examples this year that I am forgetting.

Give me some Gage Marty first semester

That is an extra credit assignment for you.

I like the general idea (I know someone on HVI does this, or did this in the past, for PSU wrestlers), but your instinct is right that the weights need to change. As stated you are giving non-NQ and NQ who not make the BR the same weight. Ditto for BR and AA. Simplifying you equation gets (0.3(Non-NQ + NQ not in BR or better)) + (0.5(NQ in BR or better)) Alternatively, if you meant the categories to be non-overlapping (i.e. NQ who doesn't BR or better, NQ who loses in BR, NQ who AA's) then you are overweighting non-NQ and underweighting AAs. Something like 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 for successive categories would make more sense.

I'm not sure this guy can lift a chair

It is a castle, not a palace.

I am not sure what your point is. YTD the stock market is down 9%.

It is even dumber than you think. I just saw the formula Trump used to decide how each country's tariff was decided. It his nothing to do with being reciprocal, in spite of the marketing tag line. It charges tariffs based on the size of the trade deficit with the US - not on whether there are any tariffs on us. It is the most simplistic calculation possible. Call it the artifice of the deal. Take the trade deficit, divide it by how much we import from that country, then divide by 2. That is the percentage tariff on that country. Why is that dumb, you may reasonably ask? Because many trade deficits are not caused by tariffs or protectionist policies. Many trade deficits are structural. Another country pays its labor less than we pay ours causing goods from that country to cost less. All we are doing then is importing inflation. So now we make our own t-shirts and sneakers? Who wants those jobs? Perhaps we can bring back some immigrants we just deported to handle the work. If Trump really wanted this to work, without blowing up our economy, he would have spent time to actually attack the problem - protectionist policies and tariffs. Instead, he is too lazy to do the hard work and will throw out the baby with the bathwater. Once again - The Dumbest Trade War Ever.

From one of those other threads: Let's explore the concept of dumb as it relates to tariffs. I just saw the formula Trump used to decide how each country's tariff was decided. It his nothing to do with being reciprocal, in spite of the marketing tag line. It charges tariffs based on the size of the trade deficit with the US - not on whether there are any tariffs on us. It is the most simplistic calculation possible. Call it the artifice of the deal. Take the trade deficit, divide it by how much we import from that country, then divide by 2. That is the percentage tariff on that country. Why is that dumb, you may reasonably ask? Because many trade deficits are not caused by tariffs or protectionist policies. Many trade deficits are structural. Another country pays its labor less than we pay ours causing goods from that country to cost less. All we are doing then is importing inflation. So now we make our own t-shirts and sneakers? Who wants those jobs? Perhaps we can bring back some immigrants we just deported to handle the work. If Trump really wanted this to work, without blowing up our economy, he would have spent time to actually attack the problem - protectionist policies and tariffs. Instead, he is too lazy to do the hard work and will throw out the baby with the bathwater. Once again - The Dumbest Trade War Ever.

Let's explore the concept of dumb as it relates to tariffs. I just saw the formula Trump used to decide how each country's tariff was decided. It his nothing to do with being reciprocal, in spite of the marketing tag line. It charges tariffs based on the size of the trade deficit with the US - not on whether there are any tariffs on us. It is the most simplistic calculation possible. Call it the artifice of the deal. Take the trade deficit, divide it by how much we import from that country, then divide by 2. That is the percentage tariff on that country. Why is that dumb, you may reasonably ask? Because many trade deficits are not caused by tariffs or protectionist policies. Many trade deficits are structural. Another country pays its labor less than we pay ours causing goods from that country to cost less. All we are doing then is importing inflation. So now we make our own t-shirts and sneakers? Who wants those jobs? Perhaps we can bring back some immigrants we just deported to handle the work. If Trump really wanted this to work, without blowing up our economy, he would have spent time to actually attack the problem - protectionist policies and tariffs. Instead, he is too lazy to do the hard work and will throw out the baby with the bathwater. Once again - The Dumbest Trade War Ever.

Not sure why you are using this as a referendum to discuss 2025. There is no shortage of threads where you can do that.

I just talked to Meyer Rosen. He would like a word.

The first mention of criteria doesn't come until 2002. Then it was: "A number of criteria are used to select the Hodge Trophy winner as college wrestling’s most outstanding wrestler: dominance on the mat, number of pins, record, past credentials, quality of competition, sportsmanship, citizenship and heart." again with the misspelling.

They did not list explicit criteria that first year, but they did emphasize pinfalls: "It’s a tough call because both Gutches and Jaworsky are worthy winners of the Hodge Trophy. In the final analysis, the determining factors were twofold: Hodge was one of the greatest pinners of all time and the W.I.N. staff wanted pinning to play a large role in the selection process. Jaworsky scored 24 pins this season. From what we could tell, that was the highest number of pins this season and perhaps the highest number of pins for any Division I collegian in several seasons." But for some reason they misspelled pinfalls.

Thought about it, but it would have been a lot of work to find. Maybe on other years. Or.....what have you got on your plate today? Interested in some extra credit points?

I will kick it off. It has to be Pat Smith, right? First ever 4-timer. And he wins a bracket that is pretty loaded. To the point Flo writes an article about it almost 30 years later. https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/10985424-the-158-pound-bracket-at-the-1994-ncaa-championships-defies-logic

already done

Get ye to the 1994 poll now.

Using the 10 champions as our finalists, who would you vote for to win the Hodge had there been a Hodge in 1994? In our Hodge electioneering is not just allowed, it is encouraged. Use the comments to state your case for your favorite in a naked attempt to sway the vote.

Great idea, by the way. I think we need to vote the Hodge winners for the seasons before the Hodge existed.

And when they put me in charge he will have it.

I used normalized weights for this. 141 includes 134, etc.

157 has the joint third most finalists, but has yet to have a winner. 157 Finalists include Kyle Dake, Jason Nolf (twice), and Alex Dieringer. Oof. Though 184 has the most near misses with six.

Calling bullshiit on that one