Wrestleknownothing

It is hard to take anything you say seriously when you do not know the definition of the words you use to make your arguments. Almost like someone who spent his time playing video games instead of going to school.

That was not skipping. That is holding back. You really have zero idea what you are talking about, but boy it never stops you from talking.

Skipping a grade is the OPPOSITE of what you are talking about. You have even confused yourself.

We don't care. You care. You care sooooo very much. Some might say obsess. Some might find that more weird than skipping a grade.

Your AI is hallucinating (the AI industry's attempt to rebrand "making shiit up"). There is no way 20% are 15 or under.

It is equally gross that people continue to give him information so that he can squeeze in.

You are assuming a frictionless world. But in reality they deny first and count on the insured not having the will, the means, or the knowledge to sue to enforce their rights. And they play the numbers. If they deny Ben, and everyone like Ben, then maybe Ben will sue and win, but the rest won't. Net win. It is a cynical, but effective strategy.

And those are just 2024-25 numbers. Per The Athletic, Caleb Williams' estimated NIL/endorsements for his final 2 seasons was $10 million.

Are you really trying to claim you have not seen credible statements that the vast majority of all NIL money goes to football, and that QB's, WR, and DE's get the vast majority of that? Who is being naïve now?

It doesn't give raw numbers because the author doesn't have any. It doesn't measure variation in outcomes among groups. It measures variation in expectations among groups. Those are two VERY different things. And it states BIPOC expectations are 1.6x higher than white athletes. Nothing to do with outcomes. And the gap in expectations cited was $400 between men and women based on an $800 expectation for men. What they measure is not even rounding error. I did not mention the others because after clicking on this one I did not feel the need to click on the others. One bad example was enough. I have cited nothing of my own because the only claim I am making is that the claim you made is not supported by the study you cited.

Worried? I choose to brag when I hurt his feelings. And they are very delicate feelings.

Because the study has no information on what they receive. And because the study is massively under-represented in the sports that receive the most. Another point the author makes is that for non-revenue sports it is important to have a social media presence, but that does not seem to matter for revenue sports. The obvious reason is that with a huge television presence, revenue sport athletes do not need social media to cash in. Then it comes down to what positions are most valued. Quarterback, wide receiver, rush lineman. So whatever the intersection of racial mix and on-field production for those positions are, is the real determinant. Any study that does not cover or account for those things is deeply flawed.

they got pinfalls over on that X thing?

Pat Mineo is bad for the sport. @PMineo22, if this is you, I wanted to make sure you knew my thoughts on the topic as I am not on Twitter.

Why would you want to?

Your first link specifically says: "Even though this study demonstrates BIPOC athletes are involved with NIL deals at higher rates than white athletes, it is unclear if that means they are having the same level of “success.”" Another damning point about this study is it does not come close to representing where the NIL $s are spent. While there are some basketball players (7% - 8th most by sport) and a handful of football players (2.1% - 16th most), it basically ignores where the money is actually spent. Finally, it is a study of expectations rather than actual deals.

The story says he was 17. Signed while in the Dominican, but suing under California laws. They are alleging predatory tactics, but no detail behind that.

Tatis is now suing to get out of his deal with BLA. The updated figures in the story are that he was paid $2 million up front in exchange for 10% of future major league earnings. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45571919/padres-fernando-tatis-jr-sues-big-league-advance-void-future-earnings-deal-signed-minor-leaguer Not sure how the House settlement will impact BLA's NIL plans.

Not necessarily if they considered the source.

I am starting to come around to the counter-intuitive. If you want to increase risk taking, lower the score for a takedown to 1.5. If you only get 1.5 and a reversal is worth 1, you can no longer run and hide after a single takedown. A single stalling point loses the match. If you want to be safe you need more takedowns to build your margin. I am beginning to believe they went the wrong direction if they want to promote scoring and risk-taking.

That does bring things much closer. In 2023 and 2024 the 3-2 match was the most popular with 6.9% of full time matches (6.8% of all matches). While 2024 and 2025 saw the 4-2 score top the list with 7.9% of full time matches (7.1% of all matches).

I excluded TF because I wanted to focus on matches that went the distance. But even if you include TF the direction does not change. The impact is more muted, but still large. Including TF, one take down matches then were 5.1% and now are 7.1% (+39%). There is no impact on zero takedown matches. They still rank 9th now vs. 27th then. I will come up with a way to illustrate the noise.

He recently, and hilariously, posted on HVI "I owned what I said, and still do." Minnow gonna minnow.

Same thing with a jetski. The gas gets you in trouble, the gas gets you out of trouble. Depends on how and when you use it.

Thanks to the data provided by @cowcards we can now look at the three point takedown through a new lens. Lights, Camera, ACTION At the time the three pointer was approved the rationale was twofold: The extra point rewards offensive actions and risk-taking. It creates a more appropriate point differential between takedowns and escapes. https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/8/media-center-3-point-takedown-approved-in-wrestling.aspx Let's examine the first belief. Has there been more offensive action and risk taking? Well, with only two years worth of data it might be too soon to tell, but so far it looks like the answer is a resounding no. Not only has there not been more, there actually appears to be less. Survey Says.... From 1993 to 2023, when all takedowns were worth 2 points and criteria was removed as a tiebreaker, for non-overtime matches ending in decision, or major decision (matches that go the full time and are not tech falls), the most common score was 3-2 (5.3%). With the advent of the three point takedown in the last two years, the most common score for these matches was 4-2 (7.9%). One takedown matches have increased in frequency (+49%) even after they were already the most common outcome. And sadly, during the last two tournaments the ninth most common score for non-TF, full-time matches was 2-0. That's right. A match with zero takedowns has entered the top 10 for full-time score since the rule change. For reference, 2-0 used to be the 27th most common score. So? One way to interpret this is that once the first takedown is secured wrestlers get into the mindset of keeping what they have rather than taking risk to try to add to it. The opposite of the stated goal. A less direct measure is to look at the percentage of matches that go to OT. 1993 - 2023: 8% 2024 - 2025: 10%. Not a huge leap given the size of the data for the 3-point era, but suggestive nonetheless. Taken together you would be hard pressed to say they 3-point takedown has succeeded in rewarding risk-taking.