Wrestleknownothing

You are wrong. No surprise. It is your brand. Rankings are not predictions. You are using rankings to make predictions. It was an upset because a two time NCAA champ, two time Hodge winner, undefeated Olympic gold medalist lost to a wrestler who had significantly lesser credentials. It was not an upset when a #9 seed won a title last year either because the ranking was not a prediction.

The NSA distributed a special bulletin saying so. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2025-03-26/national-security-officials-were-warned-in-february-that-signal-was-vulnerable-to-attack

As to why Waltz would have Goldberg's contact, it seems likely that Waltz has been a source for Goldberg.

Not a pastry. A criminal...lawyer.

Beau really let himself go.

Zero is a limit

I am sure it depends. Guys like Barraclough, Sealey and Evans are probably #3 guys that a lot of people would want. But it won't just be that. If a guy is in his third or fourth year without being a starter, and room needs to be made for the next hot recruit with four years of eligibilty left, I can see a coach saying "we can help find you a spot elsewhere, but here our roster size is constrained."

Yes they were. And the word is they did not use them instead at least some of them are said to have used personal cell phones. The idea that Goldberg somehow hacked his way into a Signal group chat is some high level conspiracy theory stuff. Especially since Waltz has already admitted that he invited Goldberg to the chat.

I love that you assume these morons will do it again.

We are waaaaaaay too old to have rizz. Shiiit I'm too old to type rizz.

The settlement is binding on all Power 5 conference schools - Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12 (or whatever), ACC, and SEC. All other schools get to decide if they want to opt in. Opting in means the school can make direct payments to athletes, but are then also subject to the roster limits (and all other provisions of the settlement). The Ivies have already said they will not opt in, so their wrestling rosters can be whatever they want. I think they will still have scholarship limits.

The House settlement has the potential to tip this dynamic in favor of mid-size programs. Virtually every Power 5 school is at or over the roster limit. If the settlement is approved April 7, those programs will become net suppliers of hundreds of wrestlers.

Some of those schools (~8) are not subject to the roster limits unless they opt into the settlement, which is set to be approved (or not) on April 7. The teams that are covered by the settlement (Power 5 schools) could then become feeders to smaller teams.

No site. It is from my database.

It is a long list of guys that had 4 or 5 AA finishes without winning. Not that this should be a definitive list (does not include the guys from the no freshmen eligible era, for example), but it is a starting point to debate. I only included guys who average better than fourth place.

I agree that is the binary way to look at it. But Jokic and SGA were not allowed to play basketball this season while much of their competition was banned from playing. But I think if ever there was an exception to the binary approach it is in the year where the top two finalist, with very little to separate them, did two (kinda) unprecedented (albeit in different ways) things, in a season that was only granted to them each as an exception.

This is not a fully formed thought yet so bear with me. It is possible that we see the relationship between the big programs and the others turn into a sort of reverse minor leagues. Let's use the example of Terrell Barraclaugh. He spends four years at PSU behind some real hammers while he perfects his craft (steel sharpens steel stuff). He did not look like an AA for the first three years he was a spot starter. Sure he could hang with the better wrestlers and keep it close, but his best wins were not notable, and his defense was better than his offense. But by year four he is starting to beat the NQ type guys and his development is obvious. Almost like an apprenticeship, he is now ready to go it alone. He takes the offer from UVU (assuming he got some cash), and year five is where he really shines at a program that probably was not going to be able to develop him on the same path PSU could. Iowa's turnover was a different scenario obviously, as was Oklahoma States', but that does not mean we wont see something similar with guys who cannot make the starting lineup there. Now that they are both pulling in big name recruits their second team may become a feeder system for other schools. One thing it does for the UVU's of the world is lessen volatility. They do not have much in NIL to give, so they cannot afford to make mistakes. They may be better off paying for proven commodities, like Barraclaugh, than rolling the dice on high school kids who weren't recruited by bigger names. The logjam at PSU, and the potential logjam at other big names, could serve as a feeder system for the others. We are seeing that with the number of PSU guys already in the portal.

My argument for two Hodges this year is this. They are both fifth tournament guys. Neither of their achievements exist without the fifth year. Therefore you cannot separate this year from past achievements, even though past achievements has been dropped as a secondary criteria. The tacit argument for Starocci is five titles. The contra-argument is five tries. And the fifth really isn't meaningful (my belief when it comes to ranking 100%ers). But if it isn't meaningful how can we assign meaning to Hendrickson's fifth year? I choose to assign meaning to both Hendrickson's fifth year and Starocci's five years making me OK with a tie.

2012 had a bigger gap between 4th and 5th than this year.

Total points scored by all teams did tick up the last two years, but it did so from historically low levels, and remains well below what we saw in the 2007 - 2012

I still need to do that analysis for this year. But last year it was not immediately apparent that the 3 point TD mattered, or if it did, it was too close to call. What looked like happened was that the number of majors was up slightly where it mattered (8 - 11 points). And the number of tech falls was up. But the number of pinfalls was down, offsetting the scoring. My theory was that pinfalls were turned into tech falls because the superior wrestler was getting to +15 too fast. It was so little data (1 year), and bonus points are so volatile, that it is hard to commit to that theory, though.

No, but he can crib off of Agnew

Owings over Gable, for my money

voted

If they do, the NCAA will be killjoys and make them meet in the second round.