jdalu75

I can think of a few others (Henson twins from Nebraska to Penn, Matt Greenberg from Columbia to Cornell, Rost Aizenberg from a JC to Cornell, I think Corey Anderson started somewhere else) but not recent. As you say, rare.

The important thing to remember is that both persona were just acts.

Maybe the B team wrestles for one of Penn State's other campuses? Hey, Formula 1 racing actually has that setup, in a major sport. Red Bull has been one of the dominant teams over the past 15 years; their second team changes names but is currently known as AlphaTauri. They just demoted a driver from Red Bull and promoted one of the AlphaTauri drivers into the car. Why can't Cael do the same thing?

And got closer each time!

Peritore, Trenge, and Vice Admiral Kilrain (ret.) was my list.

The coaches would all like it to be a spring-only sport; the NCAA vows that it's under consideration. That's what I heard from the EIWA coaches three years ago, that's where we are today. So I figure Cael opposes it.

When did we become the Mustard Yellow & White?

Just like my wife's Accord.

Look at the Ivies and you'll find lots of 2019 HS graduates who greyshirted; their NCAA calendar hadn't started but time still marched on.

That was Cornell College of Iowa, not Cornell University. Campbell's pre-NCAA press release referred to Wyatt Henson out of Lehigh, so I think that should disqualify them from consideration. Besides, any school foolish enough to drop wrestling doesn't deserve to win the big prize. My choice would be Lehigh, but I'm slightly biased.

That's just because Texas was too cheap to buy new mats! 71. I'm told I look a lot younger, but it evens out because I feel a lot older.

I predict lots of angst and gnashing of teeth.

A document you really need to see is this one, beginning with Pg 13: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/wrestling/d1/men/2024-25D1MWR_PreChampsManual.pdf In the PreChampionships Manual, the Subjective Criteria section (pg 13) has this sentence: "The committee may also consider the following subjective measures to supplement established selection and seeding criteria:" So yes, it's not just seeding. I see the split in the Quality Wins criterion, and I agree they can be split. But they don't show what's needed for the split. Regardless, if the two wrestlers tie then they split the points, otherwise the guy who gets more QW points get more comparison points. One table that's definitely worth looking at is on Pg. 6 of the Slideshow. This is the only place I've ever seen the actual RPI calculation results shown. Normally all we see are the rankings. It's from the 125 class in, I think, 2016. The RPI column shows the results, which range from about 0.55 to 0.699, rounded to five decimals. The result is 0.55167 for the 27th rank, 0.55162 for the 28th rank. That's a difference of 0.00005; if an error is made anywhere in the data entry, a match that should have been included wasn't (like if a default in a November tournament is instead entered as a forfeit), the change in an RPI will be as much as 0.005. I ran some trial hand calculations a few years ago and found I could easily shift the guy ranked 8th to 4th, or vice versa. It probably doesn't matter much for the top 10; but how about for the guy ranked 29th, the guy who didn't make the field?

Also, beating a quality wrestler multiple times counts as just a single QW, your source is correct. I never understood that. If you beat the same guy twice you get credit for two wins, right? So why not ....

Page 7 lists the criteria just to get into the at-large pool. That's the starting point and it's absolute. With Page 8, it's more involved than just the criteria shown. It works the same way as seeding. Wrestler A is compared to Wrestler B using those seven criteria. Win a criteria, earn points. If A and B haven't wrestled, then no one gets the 25 H-H points. Whoever has the most quality wins gets 20 points. Whoever has the higher CP ranking gets 15 points. And so on, then total up the points. The wrestler with the most points in that comparison earns a point against the whole field. Then move on to Wrestler A vs Wrestler C; repeat the process, winner earns a point. A vs D, winner gets a point. When Wrestler A has been compared against all the others, move on to Wrestler B and compare him to C. Continue until all the wrestlers have been compared, one at a time, to all the others. At no time are all the wrestlers compared as a group. It's all one guy against another guy. If there are four available at-large berths, the four wrestlers with the most points receive them and the guy in 5th place is the alternate. A couple of years ago the NCAA came out with subjective criteria, and I believe they just apply to the at-large process. Here they are (they're not in the slideshow): SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA The committee may also consider the following subjective measures to supplement established selection and seeding criteria: ● Bad Losses ● Outside the top 30 CR and/or 30 RPI ● Conference Champion ● Performance in last five matches ● Number of Injury default or medical forfeits wins/losses ● Best quality win ● Wrestler availability (injured or medically unable to compete) I particularly like the "bad losses" criterion. Years ago when I was sifting through this stuff for the EIWA, it struck me that they rewarded quality wins but didn't penalize clunker losses. Now they can. These apply to both at-large selection and seeding criteria (Obviously. Conference champs aren't in the at-large pool.). I hope this helps.