BAC

Forgot he had another year. He's in the mix for the last 2-3 spots. Forgot Griffith had another year. He's also in the mix for the last 2-3 spots, but he did take several losses this year and took 5th, so I dunno. Did think of Lovett/Schultz but wouldn't put either top 10. Feel free to add as HMs. Not sold on Alirez on a P4P level. He won out unbeaten, but as a 1st time AA in a cleared-out weight class. No notable senior-level wins or world-level freestyle honors. The guys I put above him have better overall resumes against better competition, IMO. Maybe he should be a spot or two higher, but there's also an argument to slot Lewis and maybe Sasso/Griffith ahead of him. Sorry to trigger you Jimmy!

Maybe. I hope he goes 61kg this year. Not an Olympic weight but he can use his performance to judge what to do next.

I haven't been following very closely who's got another year and who doesn't but here is my take. Lots of freestyle analogies to draw distinctions, but some of it is just eye test. What's yours? 1. Arujau. This guy level-jumped big time. Never thought I'd see someone major Fix, a World silver medalist, and definitely never thought I'd someone handle RBY like that. Move over Gilman/Lee, I see him as our 57kg Olympic rep. 2. Brooks. Just effortlessly dismantles guys with Cael-like fluidity. Going for 4. Wins over Olympic Bronze Amine shows his bona fides. Only think I think he lacks is S-tier strength. Will be fun to see him challenge Taylor for 86kg supremacy. 3. Starocci. Gives up nothing. Going for 4. Multiple wins over Jr World Gold Lewis. Stuck between 74kg and 86kg but I hope he sticks around after Olympics before MMA because 79kg would be his. 4. O'Toole. Win over Carr was super impressive. So was his tech over Kharchla. 2xer and has a Jr World Gold. High wrestling IQ and can't wait to see how far he goes. 5. Carr. Knocked off O'Toole 2x before NCAA finals, 2 career losses, past NCAA champ and Jr World Gold. Future world teamer. 6. Fix. Can't seem to get on the top of the podium but has a Sr-Level World silver, 3x NCAA runner up, and chatter is he'll use his last year. Would have him higher but after McGee loss, am thinking he's doing the Okie St regression. 7. Kerkvliet. Has been stuck behind some studs. Level-jumped to pass Cass, but Parris level-jumped even more. Past Cadet gold, and good shot at international success if he stays healthy. 8. Hendrickson. Very little separating him from Kerk. Would have won in the semis if he picked top. Molested Cass, a former U23 World Champ. 9. Alirez. Undefeated NCAA champ with huge bonus percentage. Beat a tough Woods to get there. Maybe too high, maybe too low here... hard to say. 10. Woods. Only loss to Alirez and was right there with him. A couple one-point losses last year to Lee/Rivera. A tough out. Hard to leave out Keckeisen, Ramos, Haines, Hidlay, Foca and others, and I'm sure someone will tell me so-and-so is or isn't coming back for a final year, but that's off the top of my head. Speaking of which, is Mekhi Lewis coming back? If so, I'd probably slot him in somewhere toward the end, despite Foca loss.

I'd be sympathetic to this point if someone were left off the PA team who might have beat Kasak but didn't have the chance since Kasak opted out. But in fact, both the AA and AAA finalists were underclassmen, who aren't eligible. Its a no-brainer to put Kasak in there.

A longer version is on the Chael/Lee thread, but here is the shorter version of what I do/don't think. Don't think Lee was injured, at least not anymore than he already was from his overall rehab journey. Do think he'd have wrestled back if he could. Don't think he could because he was too psychologically distraught from the loss. Do think Iowa issued a wishy-washy press release to keep the wolves at bay, implying injury without ever actually stating it. Don't think he owes fans an explanation. Do think he will speak to it eventually. Don't think Spencer deserves blame for not doing something (wrestling back) he was just not mentally capable of at that time. Do think Iowa bears some responsibility for that outcome by convincing Spencer he's the best ever and totally invincible, given that the whole reason Spencer got so good is that he's insanely self-critical and never satisfied with his performances. Don't have any solid basis for any of this rank speculation on my part. Do think I'm mostly right, even though Spencer's PR people on the NIL front will push him to play the injury card.

Will probably be 16 by next year. Arrington will have a couple AA finishes at least.

Exactly. If they're chest to chest, sure, but there was about a full foot separating their chests he just elevates him with underhooks. How?

Philly by a mile.

Those first two throws deserve more props than they're getting here. Both were nasty. The second one, I don't think I've seen one quite like it before. I have no idea how he was able to elevate him like that.

Personally, I think Spencer was just plain too distraught to get it together in time. Quint's comment in the ESPN broadcast in response to Iowa's press release was revealing. He said that he happened to be in the back area later that evening for another reason, and saw Spencer -- and described him, without going into uncomfortable detail, as the most distraught he had ever seen a wrestler after a match at NCAAs. Ever. Its really the only explanation. If it were an injury, he'd still be there cheering on his teammates right away, not just mid-day. Spencer has too much leadership to not be there rooting for his teammates if he can. Too much class to not congratulate the victor. Too much sense of duty to not wrestle back for third if he can. Too much of a tough guy to not wrestle back if he can. He just couldn't pull himself together. The Iowa press release was damage control, not the calculated decision that Chael assumes. They had to say something to keep the wolves at bay, but didn't want to say the truth, so they fed this line about recovery being a "long road" -- enough for readers to infer injury, but vague enough to avoid being later called a lie. But I'm not inclined to blame Spencer for not wrestling back, because I really think it was beyond his control. As I said above, I'm confident that if he weren't in such a hyper distressed state, that he'd have been able to do all those things that he ordinarily would. He always has. He just couldn't. The interesting question is -- why was he so distraught that he couldn't recover like everyone else who suffered heartbreaking defeats? Personally, I think it is because he started believing the hype, instead of being the intensely self-critical guy whose self-disapproval made him constantly improve and become who he is. The GOAT podcast stuff, Brands saying he's the best wrestler of all time, the separate training, the sponsorships, the separate Iowa web page, all of it unmoored him from what makes him great, made him believe for a moment he really was invincible, and he couldn't regain his footing when he lost like that. Again, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong. Maybe some doctor will say he shredded his ACL in the 1st match and wouldn't clear him for Saturday. But for now, I think Spencer started believing too many things about himself that weren't compatible with losing -- so when he did lose, he was shattered. Really hope he is OK and can find peace. Love watching him and hope to see on the mat for the US Open.

He called Mohammed a false prophet. That may be his truth but it’s also a diss. Would you be fine with a Jewish or Muslim wrestler who used his speech to say “don’t worship Jesus, he is no god or savior”? They are just speaking their truth too, so it’s all good?

Like Brooks a lot, respect his religious beliefs, grimaced when he dissed Islam. Disappointing and unnecessary.

I can't decide who that's a bad matchup for. Besides the fans, I mean.

Can someone explain to me again why pot is a prohibited substance? U.S. Wrestling athlete Jordan Oliver accepts sanction for second Anti-Doping Rule Violation (teamusa.org) Is there some literature somewhere that says its performance enhancing? Judging from seeing my stoned buddies glued to their sofas, I'd have guessed the opposite.

At 157 in the B1G, what do you do with Brayton Lee and Mike Carr? Both are top 20 guys with long histories. Lee a former AA, Carr was unbeaten this year and lots of big wins over his career. But... Lee is 4-9, no wins over top 20 guys, and went 0-2 at B1Gs, ending with a 1st minute pin to MD's North. And Carr went 0-3 at B1Gs and only has 7 matches.

My favorite anecdote: Maribelli: “Hey Austin how come you always wear that red shirt under your training gear? DeSanro: “I’ll break your arm.”

Dunno about that. Oliver beat Stieber handily in the regular season. Oliver lost in the finals later that year, but only when his last-second arguable-takedown wasn't counted as one -- and they later changed the rules to clarify that it is indeed a takedown.

Was gonna come to this thread to say the same thing about Pinto. Holy bracket buster

Its impressive but we should relax a bit. Its a tournament geared toward redshirts and non-starters. All the guys he wrestled were freshmen who don't start. Remember, earlier this year he wrestled in another college tournament where he got a couple similar wins over non-starters, but then ran in to a ranked kid from Purdue. He got teched. And he does have a high school loss this year (to Lilledahl, which he avenged). At the same time, I don't want to undersell him either. Its very rare for a freshman to be able to compete against D1 college guys. The guys he beat, despite being freshmen redshirts/non-starters, were themselves studs in high school. He's good enough to start for many D1 schools right NOW, even though I highly doubt he'd be ranked. And I love that he is willing to challenge himself like this. Best ever? That's a high bar. He doesn't have any college wins at the level of Kolat's high finishes at Midlands as a sophomore and junior. But Jax is still a freshman, and if he keeps improving... you never know.

Three points. One, if the point is to avoid taking numbers away from other schools, why only athletics? The most common reason for a family to move to for educational reasons is to go to a better school -- i.e. to go to an academically superior school where your child will be better challenged. Yet no one has any quarrel with that, even though it pulls students from other public schools, and creates "power academic schools"? Why is that OK, but not athletics? Why is every other education-related reason to move to a new school district OK (diversity, quality of facilities, cuteness of girls, etc) OK, but ONLY athletics is not? When you boil it down, isn't it just raw discrimination against athletes? Two, how much of a risk is this "power team" thing, really? There's a very limited number of families that are wlling to dislodge from their jobs and sell their house to move to another school district entirely, just so junior can have a better wrestling team. Even if were allowed, what are we talking, maybe a half-dozen per year out of thousands of wrestlers? And even where it happens, it will necessarily be limited, as if the top 5 135lbers in the state all decide they want to transfer to the "best school", that means 4 won't even start. Compare it to other states without such rules: PIAA's fear has not come to pass. All this fuss over a handful of kids who like a particular sport so much that they want to be in a school with the best coach/program. Big freaking deal. Its not like schools would suddenly be drained of their roster because all the families are moving away. It is enormously disruptive to quit jobs and sell your house and move, and is not nearly the risk that some paint it to be. Three, back to the hypocrisy: if it were REALLY a goal of PIAA to "prevent is power teams taking completely taking over and taking numbers away from the other public school teams," why would they allow parochial schools to participate in PIAA leagues and post-season, without requiring as a condition of entry that they abide by the "no athletic intent" reason for joining that school? THAT more than anything is what creates a situation of have and have-nots in PA. If some wrestler in the middle of nowhere PA wants to go to a better wrestling program and compete in PIAA states, and is forbidden by PIAA from going to another public school, then his only choice is to go to a parochial school that lacks such rules -- e.g. Bethlehem Catholic. And THAT is why so much talent is now concentrated there: not in spite of PIAA policies, but because of them. At the end of the day, this PIAA policy is just raw protectionism for schools with crappy athletic programs. Its just incentive for them to not get better, and for the school district to not try to make any improvements in the staff. I realize you're just explaining the PIAA position and not necessarily defending them, but how do you think they -- or any of their defenders -- would respond to these three points? Is there even a response?

Carter might want to pick a new 2Pac quote. I'm guessing PSU admin will let everything else slide but not that.

That's brave of you to admit, Jimmy. Remember, the first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.

PA's transfer rules are absurdly draconian. We don't penalize parents for moving to another school because it has a better science curriculum, or fewer students, or cuter girls, or more (or less) diversity, or better teachers, or a nicer building, but the hammer comes down if they go for athletics? It makes no sense. We should be encouraging schools to do thinks well, academically and athletically, so they attract other students. Instead we are catering to the lowest common denominator: schools whose programs are so bad that parents want to leave. And they have no incentive to improve, since the PIAA makes them stay. But even if you're inclined to agree with the PIAA rules, what is indefensible is that PA lets parochial schools compete in PIAA (e.g. Bethlehem Catholic) but doesn't require they comply with the same rules as a condition of entry. So if you move to Bethlehem to go wrestle for Nazareth, you're out, but if you're moving there to wrestle for BeCa, no problem, carry on. How is that fair?

The IOC statement is maddening on so many levels. Just a few: 1: What has changed since the IOC's statement in 2/22, prohibiting Russian (and Belorussian) athletes from participating at all? https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-eb-recommends-no-participation-of-russian-and-belarusian-athletes-and-officials Answer. Nothing. Nothing at all. Only that Russia has stepped up its aggression and kept even more Ukranians from participating. And, apparently, that Russia's influence over the IOC won out over concerns over Russia's murderous territory grab. 2. We already know from anti-doping scandals that this remedy is not only ineffective, it is pointless. Referring to athletes as "Russian Olympic Committee" is a distinctoin without a difference, and even the media refers to the supposedly "independent athletes" as Russian. The athletes privately carry Russian flags and thank Mother Russia in their speeches. Seriously, why even bother pretending its a sanction, when it so clearly is not? 3. I firmly believe that the only way Russia backs down from its territory grab is if faces significant internal pressure. That is very hard to create, especially where Russia lacks democracy and has forbidden public criticism of the attack. One of the VERY few ways such pressure could arise is if the athlete ban were lifted, instead of remaining in place until Russia retreats: then, eventually, the sports-loving public would revolt. As it is, Russian athletes and fans have been willing to "wait it out," based on assurance from Putin and Russian government that the IOC will cave. Putin was right, and now the single best point of leverage is lost. 4. The trigger for prohibiting a Russian athlete is so vanishingly small as to be nonexistent. My guess is 0% are barred from participation. You need to be "actively supporting the war in Ukraine," and Russian athletes already know to keep their mouth shut -- and Putin knows not to put athletes in a position where they might be disqualified, because he needs to keep the masses behind him. In fact, the way the IOC resolution is written, you could literally be on the front lines of the Russian war and have killed countless Ukranians and still be allowed to compete, since most of the current Russan soldiers were drafted -- and since a draft is involuntary it argubly is not "actively supporting." 5. Worse, you can be assured that this is being sold in Russia as not merely letting Russian athletes participate, but rather as an outright vindication. "The IOC has reviewed the situation and concluded we should be able to participate EXACTLY like we were able to participate in the last Olympics, before there was ever any invasion!", they will be told -- accurately. In an unfree media, this will be sold to the Russian populace of an international blessing of what they are doing. 6. Now that this hurdle has passed, Putin is also free to step up his assault on Ukriane. He no doubt realized the public backlash he'd face if there were a full-scale ban by Olympic committees, so he must have know that he had to keep it at a level where he doesn't invite an indefinite ban until Russia withdraws. Now that the risk has passed, he is free to step up the aggression again, even to the point of crushing Kiev entirely if he can. Its not like the IOC will change its mind. Needless to say, it is just a matter of days before UWW alters its position to mirror that of the IOC. I don't even blame UWW, as wrestling is hanging on by a thread as it is, and they certainly aren't going to want to go crosswise with the IOC and get themselves booted from the Olympics again. But even so, this feckless, gutless IOC capitulation is going to cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives, and prolong this war by untold years.

Keep the shirt on. He can compete now but Slinger is a senior and Pitzer is still a bit undersized.