Wrestleknownothing

It did not just allow for hateful remarks, it created them. Out of whole cloth. https://www.theringer.com/2025/07/09/tech/ai-x-grok-elon-musk-linda-yaccarino-hitler "This week, though, the bot lost its nonexistent mind to a completely new degree, promoting nakedly antisemitic conspiracy theories, praising Hitler, and ranting about white genocide in a surreally exaggerated tone of Very Online glee. " There are some real shocking details in that article and other articles it links to. Of course it isn't Musk's fault. So Yaccarino must take the fall. But this was always her fate. Taking a job where you are Musk's figurehead boss, the "CEO in name only" to his "Chief Technology Officer (ha ha, who are we kidding?)" was always doomed to fail. This is precisely the kind of scenario she was kept around for. All of this is so very, very disgusting, but the most important paragraph from the article is: "I’m going to assume, for the sake of my own sanity, that you think all this is bad. But maybe you don’t think it’s that bad? Maybe there’s a small part of you that’s like, “OK, whatever, some knobs got turned and some ugly things got said, but the process of technological advancement always includes setbacks. They’ll learn from this, and it won’t happen again.” I’d ask you to consider, though, the possibility that this latest Grok incident is in fact a reason to be very, very frightened of AI chatbots generally. I’d ask you to consider the possibility that it will happen again, that it will go on happening for as long as this technology is in the hands of oligarchs like Musk, and that the really dangerous thing is that it won’t always be this overt. It will go on happening, only once the technology is properly tuned, we won’t be able to see it happening, and that will be much more damaging."

Bored?

Soooooo happy for him, his wife, his children, and his parents to see him coming out the other side.

Stay tuned. The data for 2004 - 2011 does not yet specify SV or TB, but it will. Unfortunately though, some brackets do not say if it was SV-1, SV-2, or later (i.e. after rideouts) so those brackets will understate how many went to the first set of rideouts. But for 2012 - 2025 37.3% of OT matches went past SV-1

No worries. Sadly I only have searchable match by match data for the tournament. And even that took a massive effort by @cowcards and @grogs84

BTW. Sneaky second is Caleb Smith with 8 OT matches (6-2) Another fun fact is that all the high usage rate guys are good at OT matches. Only one of the top 40 by volume has a sub-.500 record.

6 is his tournament total. Are you including regular season?

Rocco has a ways to go to catch Morningstar. At 3 Welsh is currently ranked 147th on the list. And while 3 is a lot for one tournament, it is not the most. In 2011 Illinois heavy, John Lockhart went to OT 4 straight matches.

At 6 OT matches, Lewan (4-2) is tied for 9th all time.

Making an eating bet with a wrestler AFTER a match is a fool's errand Edit: Same with swimmers

The 3-point thread got me thinking about overtime. Though the methods for deciding tied matches have changed a lot over time*, overtime became a permanent way to decide them in 1957. While highly variable from 1957 to 2025, the percentage of overtime matches has been generally growing. During the continuous use of overtime, the percentage of overtime matches has never been higher than in this past season at 10.8%. (The only thing that has me scratching my head is the drop off in 2016 and 2017. There were a few rule changes in 2016 that may, or may not, have led to the drop off (5 second rule, one of three calls for going OB), but it is not obvious to me that they do. If anyone has an opinion here, just shout it out.) Too Much Is Never Enough We have already discussed the individual overtime leaders, Illinois heavy John Lockhart (7-0 career OT record) for win % and Iowa 165 Ryan Morningstar (6-3) for volume, but who are the team leaders? There is obviously a volume story here. The more years you go and the more wrestlers you send, the more OT matches you will have. So let's look at that first (minimum 75 OT matches). No surprise that the two most dominant teams in history, Oklahoma State and Iowa, also dominate the list of OT matches and OT wins. More surprising is that with such a high use rate Iowa also has the highest win rate at 61.8%. At the other end of the spectrum is NC State. They really need to get it done in regulation as their OT win % is an anemic 40.7% Or Maybe It Is? But that analysis misses a few things. Just because you win a lot of OT matches does not mean you want to go to OT. Most teams have a lower winning percentage in OT than in regulation. Oklahoma State REALLLLLY wants to avoid overtime. Their regulation win % is 16.4% higher than their overtime win %. Purdue, on the other hand, wants to lure you into the deep water where they have a significantly better chance of winning (+9.8%) Central Michigan has probably optimized things. They get to overtime more frequently than anyone else AND they increase their win % once they are there by 6.7%.

I would think that someone will want to submit a big number immediately so that they can challenge a rejection in court.

Not a hard cap, per se. Any deal over $600 has to be submitted to the clearinghouse for approval based on its relation to "market value". I put that in parentheses because they defined market value (value in an open market) a little different than what we think of it (whatever someone will pay). If the deal is over fair market value it will be rejected. There are a whole lotta problems with their defenition, though. The stock market is, by any definition, an open market, and yet there are any number of stock prices that bear no relation to the value of their assets (Bed Bath and Beyond, DJT, Strategy, and many other crypto treasury companies). These stocks would probably spit out of the NIL Go algo as overvalued and get rejected even though their prices are decided in an open market.

So much the better to renew you with.

I have faith in you. Everyone else figured it out.

If you end a sentence with "for what its worth", you know what it is worth.

Giving new meaning to French Kiss is this story from The Athletic: "The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has cleared French Olympic fencer Ysaora Thibus of an anti-doping rule violation after judges accepted the contamination was due to kissing her former partner. Following an in-person hearing at headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland in March, CAS issued a verdict Monday saying its judges accepted Thibus’ contamination was due to kissing her then-partner over a period of nine days who had been consuming ostarine without her knowledge, dismissing an appeal made by WADA which sought a four-year ban for the French athlete." CAS clearly gives extra points for creativity and originality leaving me to think Aaron Brooks wasn't trying hard enough.

With the right authority the history is viewable: https://help.snapchat.com/hc/en-us/articles/7012327251348-How-Snap-Inc-Works-with-Law-Enforcement

It would seem highly likely that if the chat exists and Bartlett filed a complaint with the police that they would be viewing Bartlett's phone and using what they find to file charges if it matches what he described. Then subpoenas would get issued and information would become public. That all takes time, so it is entirely possible we are in a quiet period while an investigation is being conducted. It is also possible that an investigation has occured and nothing came of it for whatever reason. It is even possible that nothing has been reported to police for any of a number of reasons. At this point the whole situation requires patience for the simple reason that no one here has subpoena powers.

Maybe they had the same chemistry teacher I had.

Let me throw an alternative interpretation out there. It is only odd if what Beau and Syd Bartlett said happened did happen. But what if none of it did? What if the reason Starocci was not caught on camera with the stolen items is because he did not steal them? What if they were never stolen? What if Bartlett made that up? I understand that there are a lot of other reasons he would not be on camera with the items even if he did steal them, but we have to consider that one possible reason is that there was nothing stolen. Starocci is not likeable at all. Bartlett is very likeable. We want to believe Bartlett. But what if he is making this stuff up? I admit that given what we have all seen of Starocci's behavior it is not hard to believe everything Bartlett said happened did happen. But what if it didn't? Might that also explain why the university has said nothing too? I had a high school chemistry teacher who told a long rambling story (like this post) about someone who had been lied about going to anyone who would listen to explain their innocence, but it only created more doubt. The point of her story was to say, "your friends don't need it, and your enemies won't believe it" and IT is an explanation. Now I am not saying nothing happened, or that Starocci is innocent of anything. But I am saying we need to leave room for doubt. There is a great book by Chuck Klosterman called "But What If We're Wrong: Thinking About The Present As If It Were The Past" that explores the idea that even what we are certain of today is the truth, we may come to find in the future was not.

The list of all boards: https://www.on3.com/boards/

https://www.on3.com/boards/forums/iowa-wrestling.169/