Wrestleknownothing

Opting in, or not, does not affect championship eligibility. https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/KnightCommissionBrief_HousevNCAA_182025.pdf From page 2: NCAA bylaws governing DI membership and access to DI championships are not impacted by the House settlement.

I don't understand the question.

The settlement is up for approval Monday, so no one so far, technically, but as BigRed indicates, only the Ivies have announced their intention. The power 5 (Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, SEC, and Pac12) are required to opt in.

Smaller schools can opt in and make direct payments to athletes of any size as there is no minimum, only a cap, on those payments. That would also allow them to offer more scholarships. But it would come at the cost of roster caps. All three of those things cost money as the roster cap has the potential to cost the school tuition revenue. So if you are a school without a money making football or basketball program that you need to support in order to compete, it probably doesn't make sense to opt in.

Retherford has started coaching. He was hired as an assistant at NLWC after he announced his retirement. This was just after Nick Lee got the PSU assistant position.

That guy was searching for the gullible. That is why today he posted a graph from Wednesday, that ends before a 10% drop in two days. I don't have to search for negativity when Trump is thruating it in our faces.

That graph is from Wednesday. Take another 10% off.

It could be very good for the small programs as they pull in some big program exhaust. In theory.

The smaller programs are unlikely to be subject to roster limits under the current settlement. Roster limits only apply to schools who are also opting into revenue sharing. For P5 conferences it is mandatory. For everyone else, they have the option to share revenue AND have roster limits, or neither.

I like that you have started rating your own replies.

Facundo is transferring again already?

I concur

No one governed by Bernie Sanders

Those dastardly Democrats fooled Trump into the Dumbest Trade War in history. Thanks, Obama.

I am no fan of Bernie Sanders' economic theories, but they have also never been followed. I am no fan of Trump's economic theories. And now that I see the results, I absolutely hate them. Comparing this reality to some past theoretical world is useless.

I found this very brilliant post on another thread. Everyone should listen to this guy: We are being fed a very mixed message on tariffs. Some may call that a lie. Trump has attempted to sell these as retaliation for unfair trade practices (tariffs imposed on US goods, protectionists policies and taxes). If the goal was really to remove those barriers imposed by other nations then you would need to target those nations and those policies to have a chance at being effective. But that is not what happened. Tariffs are being imposed willy-nilly based on balance of trade. They took a hyper simplistic approach. And the effect was predictable. Now other countries will impose retaliatory tariffs on the US. Imbalance of trade can be the result of unfair practices. But what you describe above is not that. Cheaper labor in other countries is a structural advantage. Tariffs will never solve that problem. Tariffs will only serve to import inflation. The tariff formula they used makes matters worse. And they knew what they were doing was simplistic so they attempted to dress up their formula with superscripts and subscripts that have no meaning. And they added Greek letters that exactly offset each other (4 x .25 = 1) while citing studies that DO NOT support those values. This is so poorly executed after being so poorly conceived. That is why the market is selling off hard. A complete unforced error. And Trump will absolutely violate the first rule of holes. Now that he is in one, he keep digging.

For NIL I understand they offered him a singlet that fits.

We are being fed a very mixed message on tariffs. Some may call that a lie. Trump has attempted to sell these as retaliation for unfair trade practices (tariffs imposed on US goods, protectionists policies and taxes). If the goal was really to remove those barriers imposed by other nations then you would need to target those nations and those policies to have a chance at being effective. But that is not what happened. Tariffs are being imposed willy-nilly based on balance of trade. They took a hyper simplistic approach. And the effect was predictable. Now other countries will impose retaliatory tariffs on the US. Imbalance of trade can be the result of unfair practices. But what you describe above is not that. Cheaper labor in other countries is a structural advantage. Tariffs will never solve that problem. Tariffs will only serve to import inflation. The tariff formula they used makes matters worse. And they knew what they were doing was simplistic so they attempted to dress up their formula with superscripts and subscripts that have no meaning. And they added Greek letters that exactly offset each other (4 x .25 = 1) while citing studies that DO NOT support those values. This is so poorly executed after being so poorly conceived. That is why the market is selling off hard. A complete unforced error. And Trump will absolutely violate the first rule of holes. Now that he is in one, he keep digging.

I laughed out loud twice when reading this. First, when he says he wants to set the record straight. For a guy who is notorious for deleting the record when it is his record that needs to be set straight is rich. Then when he says he is in awe of the narratives set up by some. That is his entire existence. Setting up narratives. True, false, uncertain? Who gives a crap. Delete the truly stupid takes, block anyone who keeps track, and move on. His high road attempt makes me disrespect him more. But, I believe what he is saying that Ryder was blindsided.

I am certainly not advocating he move down. I mean, I have not the first clue what is best for him. I guess I am just saying I would not be surprised either way.

Just thought of another who would have gone down, after going up, if he could. Max Dean. If Brooks wasn't in the way he definitely would have gone back to 184. I saw him at dinner once and was marveling at how much he ate and he said he had to because he had a hard time getting heavy enough to wrestle 197. Poor guy. And if you squint you can see it with Bernie Truax too. He went down to 184 at PSU after wrestling 197 at Cal Poly. Again with Aaron Brooks? So I guess it is really all about Aaron Brooks after all. Never mind.

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.