BAC

Not just you, I avoid podcasts like the plague. I spend enough of my life listening to people talk that I'm not eager to add to it. I checked it out only bc of this thread. That said, they did have some interesting stories toward the last third. (Other parts of it are a bit insufferable.)

Carter actually speaks very highly of Iowa in the interview. (Granted, he says Iowa fans were throwing the N word at him, but also says it didn't bother him at all and he loved the fans' fiery attitude.)

Honestly Sasso is overranked at 157 too. Love the kid, but I doubt he's top 20. Arrington had him tech-pinned and looked like he could tech him a second time if he had all 7 minutes. Rooting for him to get back into form and I dig the story arc, but I think we all should just accept he's not there yet. He can't be loving that fans have this look of surprise every time he doesn't win a match against a lesser opponent. Not sure he deserves the starting spot over Gallagher but I'll let the OSU people figure that one out.

That's all well and good, but how do you plan to impose that directive on the Big Ten Network? We have basically zero clout. The original question was, "Why do fans tolerate poor broadcasting?" I think the answer is "Because we have to." I mean really, how much leverage do you think we have? Even if you could impose that requirement on B1G+, would you? I wouldn't. I'd worry that the network would just say, yeah, thanks but no thanks, we'll broadcast more swimming and volleyball instead. No skin off their back, and I'm sure they have zero interest in writing up some sort of wrestling quiz, which I'm sure they don't have for other sports either. I suspect all the other smaller sports on B1G+ have inexperienced announcers too, and they'll cater who whoever doesn't make them spend a bunch of extra money. As it is, I *highly* doubt that Big 10 Network makes any real money from these broadcasts. They're probably required to put on wrestling broadcasts as part of their contract with the Big 10 Conference, in which they had to agree to broadcast the minor sports in order to get the rights to broadcast the real moneymaking sports, e.g. basketball and football. It's not just Big 10, of course. Have you ever seen the Olympic wrestling broadcast with those two Scottish dudes, who sound like the only wrestling match they saw is the ones they were forced to watch at the Olympics? NBC has had those same two knuckleheads for about three straight Olympics. Again, my guess is wrestling sees airtime on NBC because the IOC made them broadcast it as part of their contract. It was the price of admission to get broadcast rights to the more heavily watched sports. It isn't like they're making money off the wrestling broadcast. So yeah, there's bad announcers out there, but I just can't bring myself to get all exorcised about it. I suppose we could start some social media movement and say "no more watching matches on the Big 10 Network until they step up their announcer game," but that'll just result lower Nielson ratings and fewer matches broadcast as a result. Most of the airtime wrestling has is part of a package deal, and I'm just not convinced that ruffling their feathers with boycotts or angry letters will be more helpful than harmful. The only one with clout are the conferences with the TV contract, so if you're going to complain, relay it to them, but don't expect they'll do much as wrestling viewership is so tiny as it is. Bottom line: For those that are reliant on wrestling fans (e.g. flowrestling), we have more leverage, but for Big Ten Network and NBC and other league networks, just take what we get. Sorry if that sounds defeatist, but I'm just being realistic here.

How does one do that, exactly? What’s your proposal?

When is the last time a Big 10 school had 55+ points put up on them? I would not be shocked if it’s a new Big 10 record. The shutout isn’t surprising, but averaging 5.5 points per match is astonishing, even in a mismatch.

This is such a bad take. If you remove Keckeisen from the lineup of the UNI team against Nebraska (but leave in the backup at 133), the average WrestlStat ranking of those 9 wrestlers is 15.7. The average ranking of Army's starters in their last dual is 49.7 -- with not a single guy ranked better than UNI's 15.7 average (sans Keckeisen). The average ranking of Navy's starters in the last dual of 2024 was even worse -- 57.8, with only one guy ranked better than 15. I'm getting the sense you don't realize how good UNI really is, with or without Keckeisen. I like Flynn. What he accomplished at Edinboro is legendary. At WVU, surely his teams are an improvement over Henson's tenure, and the dark latter years of Turnbull. But honestly, that's a really low bar. I think a lot of us were hoping that if you put Flynn at a place like WVU -- in the back yard of the wrestling hotbeds of Ohio and Western PA, plus being the only legit D1 option for in-state WV wrestlers, fully funded -- he'd be able to elevate the program back to top 10-15 status, as Turnbull achieved in his heyday. It hasn't happened. He's brought the program back to respectability, and made it competitive, which is good. But to me, that's meeting expectations but not exceeding them. With a recruiting base that is so much better than a place like UNI or Edinboro, I wouldn't be setting off fireworks for placing 17th. I like their future though. I feel like some guys aren't improving the way I'd hope to see (Conley, Titus, Hillegas), but Watters and Hall look like hammers. Curious to see how Rune Lawrence develops.

Once again, you're relying on NCAA placement as the measure of answering the "Who does the most with less" question, even though it's a terrible quantifier for this purpose. UNI is ranked #7, and just wrecked #4 Nebraska 24-9. Even the matches they lost, they were competitive with them. Will they be a top 10 year at NCAAs this year? Maybe, maybe not. My guess is no, because outside of Keckeisen, they have no returning AAs in the lineup. They're just super solid top to bottom, with an average starter ranked around #15. Maybe you just value tournament scores way more than dual meets. You're entitled to your view. I suppose you are one of those who think Air Force was "better" last year than Minnesota, because Hendrickson's NCAA pins gave Air Force more overall NCAA points than Minnesota -- even though Minny would crush them in 9 of 10 weight classes. I just disagree. I'm more impressed by a coach that can coach up his entire team to be top 20ish, than I am by a coach who can create a single NCAA champ, or a coach who can help create 2-3 stars while every other starter is sub-500. The latter team is going to score better at NCAAs, but I don't think that makes them the better coach, or the better team. I'd also put the coaching results of Schwab and his staff against any of the coaches/teams you mentioned. First off, while they might outscore Schwab's current UNI team at NCAAs, they'd lose to them in a dual more often than not. Second, many of the coaches you mentioned are famously excellent recruiters. I'm not dissing Schwab's recruiting, but as I mentioned, his recruiting classes are almost never in the top 20, and the highest rank I could find from recent years is 18th. Not surprising, as they're third in line behind Iowa and ISU at the Iowa recruiting trough. Yet here they are, one of the best top-to-bottom teams in the country. So if "Who does most with the least" is, at bottom, a measure of who's able to get the most out of their recruits -- and I think it is -- I'd put Schwab up against anyone. So I disagree that there's a "landslide or two" separating what Schwab's done at UNI from what the other excellent coaches you mentioned have accomplished at their teams. I think Schwab's accomplishments are right there with them, and in some instances surpass them.

Sure looked to me like Taylor was trying to score in that sequence, first a shot and then working underhooks, while Downey was backing away to avoid being scored upon. I can see giving Downey a pass, but for the life of me I don't see what the ref saw that would justify a neutral stalling call against Taylor there.

I don't think you can fairly answer this question (what D1 coach does a lot with less) simply by looking at NCAA finishes. It's useful for differentiating the very top teams, but not for differentiating the next tier of teams. Consider, for example, two different hypothetical mid-tier D1 schools, each of whom is only able to attract a mediocre group of recruits. Coach 1 is killing it with them, and by the end of 4 years, the average WrestlStat ranking of his starters is 25, with all in the 20-35 range. Coach 2 is mailing it in, and after 4 years, his starters have an average WrestlStat ranking of 95. Huge difference! Problem is, NCAA results don't show it, since neither team has guys who are able to put up any points at the big show. And if Coach 2 happens to have one guy who suddenly gets good, his team may place higher at NCAAs than Coach 1, despite his overall team being far worse. Last year, for example, Minnesota took 22nd at NCAAs, while Air Force took 21st. Does that mean Air Force is a better program overall than Minnesota? I don't think anyone would say that. Pretty much all of Air Force's 21.5 points came from a single guy. Everyone would agree Minny is the stronger program overall, and in a dual, Minny would win 9 out of 10. You make the point that Keckeisen was sort of like Hendrickson last year, accounting for almost all of UNI's points. That's fair as far as it goes, but ignores the rest of the team. Most regard UNI so highly is that their team may not be a bunch of AAs, but they're all hammers, up and down the lineup. Schwab's like Coach 1 in the above example, taking a group of guys who weren't highly recruited, and making them good enough that they can hold a team like Nebraska to single digits on a given day. True, they don't have many clear AA candidates beyond Keckeisen (there's Downey, maybe Happel), but their worst-ranked guy is #31, and second worst is #21. How many other schools can say that about their second-worst starter is #21 or better? They're an absolute nightmare in a dual -- arguably top 5 in the country. And they're doing this with nothing. Most years they don't crack the top 20 in recruiting rankings, and the best they've ever been ranked by Flo the in the past 5 recruiting classes (2020-24) is 18th. So no, I don't think it's any sort of "indictment of the times" to say Schwab takes the prize for Who Does Most With the Less. Without Keckeisen in their lineup, their NCAA point total will go down, but UNI will still have a monster lineup and win a ton of duals over schools with higher-ranked recruiting classes.

Any refs re rule gurus care to weigh in on the stall call on the sequence that starts at around 10:35 in SV? If I were the ref I'd have dinged the other guy, but in fairness, I've never really understood the distinction between stalling for backing out vs. stalling for pushing out (vs. neither). Is it in the eye of the beholder or is there some objective way to make the call?

This would've been the right answer a decade ago, during his Edinboro years, but now his teams at WVU seem more middle-of-the-pack. Honestly, I expected more. Agree with most of the other names given, but Schwab takes the overall prize by a landslide.

Tough one, but: Dave Schultz Mike Cole Carlton Haselrig Cary Kolat David Taylor Keith Gavin JaMarr Billman Ben Askren Cael Sanderson Reece Humphrey Jordan Burroughs Chris Fleeger Brian Snyder Jordan Oliver Bryce Andonian

I don't really disagree with much of what you said. My comments were more directed toward the long game, i.e. the trend lines over the last 5-7 years. It's sort of like global warming: I don't think the year-to-year difference is very significant, but over time it's pronounced. To that point, the Smith comments I had in mind were actually from last season. A Flo interview after an event with a lot of no-shows; I don't recall which one. He was speaking generally to the shortened season and athletes having more clout to opt out of they wanted a longer vacation, or if they want to give a 95%-healed injury that last 5% of rest, etc. Witness, for example, the Missou-Cornell dual a couple days ago: how many starters were missing? Its not "ducking" in the traditional sense, its that holiday lineups and non-league lineups are, on the whole, more depleted than they were a decade ago or even 5 years ago. There's exceptions, yes. We got O'Toole v Haines, the UNI-Nebraska dual was loaded, CKLV was great. But the cumulative effect of duals having no meaning, NIL, the portal, cultural shifts, and shortsighted AQ criteria, is to slouch the sport into fewer competitions with fewer good matchups.

I agree it's been a down start to the year. The main reasons: 1. Big-time early-season tournaments are way down. After CKLV, there's basically nothing. The formerly great tournaments have been reduced to JV competitions. PSU was a whisker from winning the Scuffle with three frosh redshirts and a backup. 2. The number of competitions are down overall. Compared to 10 years ago, most guys have about 5-7 fewer total competitions. Schools are cutting back, and early-season is taking the biggest hit. 3. More record-padding. Many of the bigger programs are seeking out the lesser programs for non-league duals, the result of which is fewer competitive duals (to go with fewer competitive tournaments). There's exceptions, but overall, most non-league duals are thrashings. 4. More allowing top wrestlers to skip out on duals. Missou's coach has spoken about how much more leverage the wrestlers have these days. Some of it's a cultural shift, and some of it's just a recognition of how much more clout the big-name wrestlers have in the age of the portal and NIL. Coaches used to run a tight ship, expecting guys to make all the big duals, but now if they want to stay home for a longer Xmas break, there really isn't much the coaches can do, or the wrestler may seek out friendlier skies. This also is an underlying cause of #s 1-3. 5. The broken qualification system. Once you're a lock (or on track to be a lock) for an automatic berth, there's really no incentive to do anything else. No need for more comps, and no need to take unnecessary risks. This is an underlying cause of #s 1-4. 6. All that matters is March. National duals have been dead for a while, and efforts to have a national dual meet championship or to make duals count to March point totals are so far in the rear view mirror, that even the former proponents of dual meets have stopped caring. As a result, apart from mandatory league duals and tournament, the rest of the season is just an annoyance -- a chance to get hurt, and not much else. Also a cause of #s 1-4.