BAC

You're right, I'm misremembering. From a quick google search, the Cross match was at the 1991 US Open, and though Cross won, Kolat took it to him at the start. Match here. I guess Kolat would've been a high school sophomore at the time? You can see a snippet of his 7-6 loss to Steve Knight at the '92 OTTs here.

It's a pretty good comparison, and tough to make a pick between Bassett and Kolat. Both have wide-open styles as high schoolers that leave them exposed, but it doesn't matter, since their offensive output is so high that they overwhem(ed) their opponents. Both are famous for training like absolute madmen. Both dominated PA high school wrestling, making wreckage of past state champs and medalists. Both also had freestyle success. Both cadet world champs. Both had success against college opposition in high school. Kolat took 3rd and 4th at Midlands when it was the best tournament of the year, including taking out NCAA finalist Shawn Charles. Bassett has won a couple smaller college tournaments, including one with Bouzakis in it, and has a freestyle win over NCAA champ Ashnault. Both are human. The main chink in Kolat's armor is his 4-4 draw as a senior to Chris Bono at the Dapper Dan. (He went up a weight at Senior Nationals the next weekend to avenge the loss, but Bono didn't make the finals.) Got thumped at OTTs by Kendall Cross (future gold medalist). Bassett has more chinks -- teched by Kolozik, lost at U20s, split matches with Zepeda -- but also lives in an era where there's more opportunities to find the top competition. In college, Kolat made the national finals as a true freshman, taking out Iowa's undefeated defending champ Troy Steiner in the semis. Bassett's true freshman year? Yet to be seen. Both are trailblazers. The country had never seen a high schooler taking on and beating college-level competition when Kolat did it; now it's more common. But Bo's shown leadership qualities in his own right, albeit more by force of personality. (Kolat was always more of a recluse.) Of course, wrestling's come a long way in the 35 years between the two, not just in technique but in access to information (internet, etc), so I don't doubt that Bassett as a high school junior is ahead of Kolat as a high school junior. But I don't think it's fair to factor that in, as the opposite would be true if they swapped the eras they grew up in. Bottom line? I'd call it a draw.

Fair enough brother. Cheers.

Definitely no lack of high-end freestyle training partners at 57kg/61kg either... Gilman, Fix, RBY, Spratley. Hard to fault his choice.

I'm all for trolling overzealous fans, I really am. But you picked a pretty tough angle of attack here. I'm glad Spencer medaled. NLWC accounted for two medals in 2024 (Brooks, Dake) to HWC's one, but even that doesn't begin to tell the story. Fully two-thirds of the men's freestyle Olympians (Brooks, Zain, Dake, Snyder) were NLWC. Just Lee for HWC. Fully two-thirds of the Olympic alternates were NLWC (N Lee, Taylor, Gilman, Nolf). None for HWC. The finals of the trials was basically a NLWC intra-squad dual meet. Overall medals too. Of the finalists, HWC athletes accounted for just the one medal, while the NLWC finalists accounted for about 28. Probably a third of those medals were when some the athletes were with their prior clubs, but it's still a whole bunch to just Spencer (and give HWC Gilman's 2017 medal too.) A bunch of other NLWC athletes made deep runs too, but can you even name any other HWC athletes at OTTs? I think maybe Marinelli was there, who's retired now. Is that it? Maybe Cassioppi? Did he win a match? Can you even name any other HWC athletes? I remember a few guys got steamrolled at the Last Chance Qualifier. Maybe they should rename the HWC to the SLC (Spencer Lee Club). And don't get me started on Spencer, one of my favorites. How many times did Hawk coaches prioritize their NCAA aspirations over Lee's health and USA's success? They inherited a 3x age-group world champion, and he didn't see the international mats again until last year. I'm glad to see him take silver but with his two bum knees, I don't think anyone expects him to be on the mats much longer. I already made the argument in another thread (before he made his choice) that Iowa was probably the right pick for Bassett, given my understanding of his main goal (e.g. to be the main face of a program and build his brand). But if freestyle success were his top goal, I don't think there's any serious question he's at the wrong place. You don't need to be a PSU fanboy to know that.

My money's on Iowa. Okie State is the sexy choice with DT pulling in an army of top recruits, but I don't see the relationships that would make them stand out to Bo. PSU is both the safe choice and likely the best choice to reach his full potential, but I'm not sure that aligns with Bo's brand-building goals, as he wouldn't really stand apart from other PSU studs. V-Tech is the underdog choice, but lacks the wrestling-frenzy atmosphere or fan base. But Iowa checks all the boxes. What they lack in talent development, they make up for in having a devoted fan base who'd treat him like a celebrity, and which is anxiously looking for their next Spencer, not just a one-year wonder via the portal. It's also a program that for years has lacked an ambassador for its "Iowa Style" brand, and would no doubt be willing to rebuild it around Bo's "machine guy" branding. The brands have some similarity too, both emphasizing pace/stamina/hard work over style/technique/talent, and Bo can embody the virtues of that prioritization. Bottom line is he can be a star in Iowa City in a way he wouldn't be at any other school. The coaches shoveling his steps at 5am probably also showed they're willing to cater (if not subjugate themselves) to him in a way that some of the other coaching staffs won't, at least not to that degree. Truth is, Iowa needs Bo far more than any of these other "final four" programs need him, and I suspect that's come out in the recruiting process. Wherever he lands, I'll root for him. He seems like a good kid. Part of me wishes he'd go to PSU as I think his ceiling is highest there, but I do see why Iowa is a sensible choice for what he says is important to him, and parity is a good thing too.

I wish I had. I didn't like it at all. The rules permitted it, but I suspect the reason for and spirit of the rule was to allow wrestlers to go for the pin, a higher team point value than a tech. Saitiev clearly wasn't going for the pin. Watching the match, it was unclear to me whether he was trying to humiliate the guy or was just using the early-round match to work out the kinks in his own game (which I'd have been OK with), but the post-match smirk told me it was the former. I'm glad they changed the rule.

I watched that match live at MSG. Afterward, Satiev climbed up into the stands just a few feet away from me, where the rest of the Russia contingent was. I’ll never forget the smirk on his face as he exchanged glances with his teammates. Left my stomach feeling unsettled. I wouldn’t be surprised if that match was the reason FILA made the tech automatic rather than optional.

Sounds like Coleman is adding a lot of value to the Ohio State RTC. I'm glad they're getting some return on that investment, and I'm guessing Ryan went out on a limb to find a way to make that happen. Honestly, it was tough seeing Coleman uprooting his family and leaving his UNC position for Stillwater, only to get passed over for the HC job he was auditioning for -- and right at a time when hiring season's over for coaches. Seems like he's landed on his feet, with the RTC part-time gig and starting up some camps back in Stillwater. Not sure how long it'll last though, as you gotta think he's the first person ADs will call when coaching positions start to open up after NCAAs.

Yeah, calling a major is a bit bold, especially given how good Cardenas has looked this year. But he only squeaked by McDanel, who Barr destroyed. And last year he lost twice to Beard, who Barr majored. The only other guys who have put bonus on Beard since 2019 are Buchanan and Hidlay (both majors last year), the latter of whom also majored Cardenas last year, as you mention. But score analysis aside, I've always seen Cardenas as a guy who's super dangerous early-match, but late match... well, I don't want to say he fades, but he doesn't put up many third period points, either. I could see a tight match that Barr breaks open. I could be wrong, of course. Heck, Little got pinned twice by Cardenas last year, and took Barr to SV a month ago. I just like Barr in this matchup. I think a lot of it has to do with how much Cardenas has improved since last year, and how much he holds up against the third period onslaught.

That's be cool if they play that as Carter's walk-out music.

I LOL'd when Mitch got all philosophical in his response with, "Matthew McConaughey says something about livin..."

Naw man, here's what my boy is channeling:

The following eye-opening snippet from an article today on Flo about Starocci is very telling: *** When Barr arrived last year as a true freshman, Starocci was one of the first new teammates he sought out in the room. The senior was eager to get his hands on Barr and the rest of the freshman class. It became a yearly right of passage for Starocci to see how long he could pound on the new guys before they gave up. Barr was willing to go the distance and then some. Starocci called him “a lunatic.” “I wanna see how long these guys can go for until they break,” Starocci said. “It’s always that one guy when you wrestle, ‘Alright bro, I’ve gotta go.’ So who is going to be that guy? And I remember we were going for like five straight hours and he just kept coming back to the middle.” That experience, coupled with the results Barr has turned in as the team’s preferred 197-pounder, has led Starocci to conclude that Barr could stack trophies just as he has. “He just won’t stop,” Starocci said. “He’s one of those guys that’s going to be really good and he’s going to be the next four-time champ.” See https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/13586005-penn-state-wrestling-room-keeping-carter-starocci-sharp Really explains a lot, doesn't it? The late-match techs of Poznanski and McDanel, putting up a major on Beard? Looks like iron's been sharpening iron. My guess is Barr majors Cardenas, and outlasts Ferrari at the end as he did Little. Buchanan's the best of his opposition IMO, and I'm gonna give Buchanan the narrow win on Friday, which Barr avenges in March.

125- Lilledahl vs. Cruz PSU dec. 3-0 PSU 133- Davis vs. Ayala Iowa dec. 3-3 141- Bartlett vs. Block PSU dec. 6-3 PSU 149- Van Ness vs. Parco PSU dec. 9-3 PSU 157- Kasak vs. Teemer Iowa dec. 9-6 PSU 165- MM vs. Caliendo PSU dec 12-6 PSU 174- Haines vs. PK PSU dec. 15-6 PSU 184- Starocci vs. Arnold PSU dec. 18-6 197- Barr vs. Buchanan Iowa dec. 18-9 285- Kerk vs. Kueter PSU dec. 21-9

Kid, With all due respect, you've got some seriously bad takes here, all throughout this thread. You're entitled to your opinions, but the factual understandings on which they're based need some work. Let's take a stab at it, shall we? 1. Boys wrestling isn't dying on the high school level. Participation in high school wrestling is increasing -- including among boys. This article from last year (here) shows an increase of 32,443 boys compared to the prior year, for a total of 291,874. Fold in the gains from the prior year, and there was a 25% gain compared to 2021-22, which is remarkable. This is without mentioning the consistent gains of the girls, to 64,257, although my personal guess is they're mutually reinforcing. The 291K figure is still an overall decrease from the 70s and 80s, including the all-time boys high of 356,131 in 1976 (see article here), but if the current growth rate continues, we'll be back there in a couple years. (We're already there if you add the boys and girls numbers from 2023, but we're talking boys now.) There's pockets where wrestling is struggling for demographic reasons (e.g. in rural areas, where schools have declining enrollment), but it's growing overall. 2. Nor is it dying on the D1 level. It's a concern I share, no doubt, and it's taken a beating over the past half-century, going from 155 D1 men's programs in 1975 to only 79 at the start of this year. But look at the number closer, and you'll see that we've flatlined since around 2011, with a slight net gain in programs since then. A Flo article (here) demonstrates this well, both in listing of actual programs added and dropped over the years, and in an accompanying graph. Yes, losing CSU blows, but every sport loses programs here and there, and not every lost program means "wrestling is dying." 3. Earlier you refer to people "blaming" Title IX, as though it was a scapegoat. While there's a grain of truth to that, there's no question Title IX had a dramatic impact -- or at least the DOE/OCR's three-prong proportionality-driven interpretation did. It isn't rocket science: when you demand equality from colleges whose teams skew male, and don't take disparities in interest into account, you have to either add women or cut men -- and adding costs money. True, those who put all the blame on Title IX ignore the decline in high school participation at the time (see above), and the cuts weren't helped by ADs who overspend on football. But numerous programs were dropped expressly or in part for Title IX reasons, often to stave off pending or threatened lawsuits. On the plus side, it's helped open the door to women's wrestling. Overall this issue has been heavily politicized, and as such most literature on the topic is slanted, so if you have an overly strident view in one direction or the other, you should probably rethink it. Some good reading here, here, here, here, here and here. 4. Can we relax with the "warrior mindset" stuff, and how "soft" we are? Yeah, we're not living in caves anymore using our bare hands to kill our meal each night like "alpha males," but as you can see above, wrestling is doing fine and actually is in the midst of a rebound. Maybe skip the next one or two or twenty Andrew Tate podcasts? Come on man.

What does that mean?

You and me both. It explains some, but you're right about how dramatic the difference is. I feel like there's got to be some other contributing factor, like maybe he was battling injury, or maybe he just did a massive level-jump. Credit to him and his coaches.

A lot of those losses were up at 133 weren’t they?

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.