BAC

There's a lot of data on my "very small percentage" comment. One of the more reputable studies was run by the NIH. For prostitutes who were 18 or older, 4.6% reported being "coerced, threatened, pressured, misled, tricked, or physically forced into trading sex." The number goes up to 21% for prostitutes under 18. Study here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7305278/. There's also a number of studies that have found that since Congress passed the wildly regressive FOSTA-SESTA laws, these coerced/underage prostitutes are now working the streets, and aren't advertising online (See e.g. NIJ study here: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/unconventional-wisdom-research-shakes-assumptions-about-sex-trafficking-clues). The "good news", I guess, is that the online ads have cleaned up, but the bad news is that underage sex traffickers are now much harder to catch, and victims harder to save. As for "how it's possible to minimize trafficking," see my other posts. First you need to understand what's included in "trafficking" before you have this conversation. It isn't just "people being taken against their will," which is a real problem, but rare (see above). Rather, "trafficking" is often used to include escorts traveling for work in conjunction with others -- which of course is virtually *all* escorts. It's a term used to demonize, when it's actually just describing virtually the entire sex industry, in which the vast majority are participating voluntarily. Although there's a lot of data on this, there's also a lot of bad data. You need to look at actual reputable peer-reviewed journals, not advocacy groups or people trying to sell stuff. For example, your website above is published by a company that sells software to police departments looking to crack down on prostitution (see https://deliverfund.org/about/). Take a wild guess what financial incentive is? If you really care about the subject, I suggest you do some homework about how best to destigmatize the women who *want* to be in that industry, and how best to identify and help those who are underage or otherwise *not* there voluntarily. Once you do that, you'll understand where my posts are coming from.

Look, that's just not true. First off, just because a woman traveled from out of state and is working with a booker (and is therefore "trafficking") doesn't mean she isn't a fully consenting adult. People throw that word around, but honestly, who cares what state the woman came from? All that matters is if she is capable of consent, i.e. isn't forced, underage, or mentally ill, and that's a very small percent. What's more, studies have shown that virtually all such women are working the street, as opposed to having some online ad where someone can text, as Snyder allegedly did. That's because federal laws like FOSTA and SESTA (and the resulting death of backpage/craigslist) have made online providers unwilling to host anyone who doesn't cough up a drivers license and other identifying information. Now, if Snyder was responding to an ad of some kid who looks 15, or was doing some sort of back-alley transaction and not even seeing the person, I'd say he's at high risk of engaging with someone who is underage. But again, if that were true, the cops would have dinged him for it. Since he apparently just texted a girl he saw in an online ad, the odds of it being anyone other than a consulting adult (or a cop, LOL) are vanishingly small.

A lot of misleading statistics get thrown around in this field, and that's one of them. The 79% refers to the percentage of escorts come from out-of-state/country to get to where they're working, and are working with someone (booker/agency). That's pretty normal, as escorts working out-of-town typically will want to connect with someone who can help her line up hotels and screen clients. But puritanical zealots call it "trafficking" since the woman's working with someone. It's so stupid, so insulting. What we should worry about are escorts who are underage, mentally ill, or doing the work forcibly. It's a problem, but a very small percentage. Most are just financially needy women who want to make a buck and be left alone. We have all these puritanical zealots and supposed feminists who claim they want to help, but all they are doing is making it harder for a low-income woman to put food on her and her kid's table, and also making it harder to find the women who are actual abuse victims since politicians won't permit decriminalization and registration.

Huh? If you don't think prostitution should be illegal, then why are you jumping all over Snyder for doing something that you think should be legalized? If your point is that Snyder shouldn't have been soliciting someone who wasn't capable of consent, such as someone underage or mentally ill, then I'd agree with you -- if it were true. But it's pretty obviously NOT true, or else he'd have been charged for that. He wasn't. It's just a garden variety case of someone texting an escort who has an ad up, goes there, pays her, whoops it's a cop. That's it. So yes, I absolutely can excuse the conduct, at least criminally, because I think it's a disgrace that it's a crime at all. And, moreover, it's a problem that is readily solvable, if you preachy religious types would get off your high horse long enough to do something (decriminalization) that respects personal and economic liberty, stops patronizing women, increases public health, increases tax revenue, and, by virtual of mandatory registration, enables police to easily spot women who are NOT in the business consensually.

Your point is well taken and, I would submit, precisely why it should be decriminalized. If so, then every prostitute would be required to register as such, undergo testing, pay her taxes, not walk the streets, be subject to regulation. It would clean up the profession, and subject them to the same sorts of rights and responsibilities that porn actors/actresses have. The whole reason that human trafficking exists, and that we have women being coerced into systems of prostitution with abusive pimps, is that the entire industry operates in this shadowy underworld. It isn't hard to find them: just hop on Google and you'll find thousands of listings for escorts, right out in the open. There's a fraction of that -- hopefully a small one -- where it isn't really consensual, as the women are underage, or imported from overseas and forced into this line of work. But the police NEVER go after them, since they can't tell which is which. The police don't want to deal with it get away with it because they don't see the point of sticking their nose into a primarily consensual industry, and they are terrified to going after them, ruining lives, having politicians who partake in the industry come after their heads. So they leave it alone, except in the rare instance that someone's operation becomes *too* visible and someone complains. But imagine if it were decriminalized, and prostitutes required to register, be tested, and pay taxes, as in places like Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nevada. Then anyone who posts an ad without their registration number, the cops know to *immediately* go after, since they know that person's not legit and might be underage or a victim of coercion/abuse. That's a win-win for everyone. It means women who are abuse victim are apt to be located and their abusers prosecuted, while women and their clients who are doing this fully consensually can do so in peace. As added bonuses, the spread of disease is curtailed, and we add some money to the treasury income tax, as these ladies ought to pay their fair share just like everyone else.

Thoughts: --It's just so stupid that this is even illegal. It happens legally thousands of times a day in the porn world and the OnlyFans world (and in parts of Nevada and Maine), and thousands more a day in the "arrangements"/"sugar daddy" world, and it's barely a rounding error a way from what happens millions of times a day, e.g. men buying dinner and sort of getting something in return, and women seducing wealthier men for access to his wallet. Much of human history is built on men who provide best being the ones who get ass. Where, as here, there's no indicia the person lacked the capacity to consent, it is a simple business transaction, morally indistinguishable from paying someone to mow your lawn. So I'm sorry, but I just can't bring it upon myself to be even remotely troubled by this as I don't see it being in any way wrong. It's a crime, but right up there in seriousness with jaywalking and loitering. The people acting all butthurt about this are ridiculous. --I'd always happy to make an exception for the religious preachy types when they're abject hypocrites, but does it here? Not that I can see. I don't doubt that he's a devout Christian, and trying to live a Christian life, doesn't mean he's criticizing the lifestyles of others who aren't devout Christians and saying we're all going to hell, nor is he out there trying to jack up the penalties for prostitution or preaching against it. I'm only bothered when the religious right tries to shove morals down my throat that they themselves won't adhere to. Maybe he violated his own professed beliefs, but that's between him and himself. I just have no reason to care. --He's probably in hot water with his wife, but truthfully, we don't even know that. For all we know, she signed off on it or agreed to look the other way, as maybe there's things she can't or won't do. Or maybe not -- maybe she's furious and ready to rip his nuts off, but once again, that's solely between them. I'm not willing to make any judgments about his marriage any more than I will about his morality. --I'm sure his PR people will help him write up some big public apology, talking about how he let down his wife and kids and his God, how he'll try to do better and live his life according to God's plan, blah blah blah, but none of that changes the above. That's understandable, as the sponsors will expect it. But it won't change what I said above. Bottom line: For his own mental health and personal happiness, I hope he's able to conform his conduct to his beliefs and his commitments to his wife, but it makes zero difference to me if that entails changing his conduct or changing his beliefs/commitments.

I'm not a fan of the "1 year window of time" and "2 year window of time" stuff. That's just a way to assure inaccurate results by self-imposed blinders. Better to just pick a point in time, and say who's best P4P as of that time, based on what's known at that time. As of now, you have to say Jax, since he won the bracket Blaze was in, and mowed through the best the country has to offer (except Vito). The weekend before Seniors, I'd have said Blaze. After next weekend, there may be a different answer, if Blaze, Duke or Bassett make deep runs that equal what Jax did. I'm also not a fan of looking back at losses 2 and 3 years ago, when we know the kid has made leaps and bounds since then. If you're having a "who had the best overall high school career, 9th to 12" conversation, then sure, it's fair to trot out old loss. But if we're talking who's best P4P, it's irrelevant. For example, Blaze's loss to Jax in 2022 is meaningless to me given how different they are now, and considering Blaze won the WTT challenge tournament last fall. Jax's lost to Vargo as a sophomore (who he teched a week later) is meaningless when he just teched his way through the US Open over the best in the country. We're living in a crazy time, where some of the best high schoolers of all time are all competing at the same time.

I think this is fair. I have Lockett slightly behind Duke/Blaze in folk but you're right that his results this year have been fire in both styles. I do have him as a likely NCAA titlist and you're probably right that they are the same overall tier. But I do predict more titles overall from the PSU class, which makes me lean to them.

I would have PSU #1. At the highest level, the name of the game isn't recruiting guys who are going to AA. It's recruiting guys who are going to win multiple NCAA titles. That's how you win a team title. PSU has two here: Blaze and Duke. I don't like predicting college success as I've been wrong before, but man, I'll eat my shorts if these guys don't win at least a couple titles each. I'm not sure OSU has any. Are Lockett, Robideau and Vega good enough to win a NCAA title? Yeah, probably. But I dunno. I guess Lockett, but his forte is freestyle. I wouldn't be surprised to see him come up a bit short in folk. Robideau is amazing but not going to beat Duke. Vega may end up being the best folkstyler of the bunch, but I'm not ready to say he's a likely titlist. Possible, yes, but not likely. Bottom line is I see 2 sure-thing national champs in PSU's class, and a possibility in Henkel/Asher, and 3 possibles in OSU's. Or maybe 1 "likely" in Lockett and 2 possibles. But I still see more PSU titles over 4 years. You'll notice I'm not talking so much about the other guys, and there's a reason for that: it isn't 2010 anymore. Yes, there's other potential AAs there: Desmond for PSU, and about 3-4 guys for OSU. But the thing is, a school like PSU or OSU can bring in an AA through the portal at the drop of a hat. Look at Iowa: a month hadn't passed before they had 4 AA-type guys filling out their lineup holes. In today's "age of the portal" and NIL, I'm just not that impressed by bringing in a guy who has AA potential, as it's not really adding in a significant way to what they were probably already going to get without those recruits. The depth reflected in OSU's class would be worth far more if it were, say, Lehigh -- in which case this recruiting class would be utterly transformational. But at OSU, half those guys will be gone in 2 years when they can't pierce the lineup. For schools vying for a NCAA title, the best class is going to be the one that brings in the most future champs, as that's where team titles come from -- and team titles attract future AA-level transfers. OSU has some hammers and I may be underselling the number of future titlists they have there, but I see more in PSU's class, so they get my vote for #1.

Its a pretty thin weight for us right now. McKenna is tough but he's sort of a gatekeeper-type guy, who's now THE guy since no one can get past the gatekeeper. Would be great to see someone suddenly explode to another level. Would be fun to see Blaze here, or Gross. I think Nick Lee has the best chance if he's been training and goes, with Mendez the leader of the younger crowd, but I don' see a medal here. Hard to imagine this isn't Green vs Yianni again. Duke is the only one I can see getting past Green, and that's a longshot. Yianni can medal but he's so hot/cold. Hard to see anyone beating Carr, but O'Toole could if he's healthy by then. Or Haines, but not sure he wants to take on his teammate. Another MM-Carr shootout will be great. A medal's plausible; about 50-50. Can someone from 86kg please drop down? We're weak here. Wick is another gatekeeper-type guy who's paid his dues but not our strongest option. Really it should be Dake since he's not an 86kg'er, and even if he can get by Zahid it's a sin for one of these 2 guys to stay home. If Dake doesn't drop, maybe O'Toole or Haines? Starocci's too big right? I'd love to see a Nolf or JB comeback too. JB never retired right? No medal unless Dake drops or Nolf/JB makes a run, or maybe Chance. If no one drops (and assuming no Brooks), it's Dake v Zahid again. If Dake drops, Keck/Chance battle for the right to challenge Zahid, although it would be cool if Starocci made a run as he'd be right there. McEnelly too. Zahid can medal but man, he needs to get in shape, big-time. Such a thin weight. Hidlay is good enough to medal, but not win. I haven't heard the story on Brooks. Why wasn't he at the Open and why is he an open question for WTTs? Is he hurt? I'm assuming he's at 92 since that's what everyone says, but I never heard him/NLWC say it. Regardless, if he comes back, he wins this and medals. Otherwise, I don't see any other challengers here unless one of the 86kg'ers go up (e.g. Keck), Barr/Starocci show up at 92kg. Obviously it's Snyder all day, but didn't Ferrari say he was going to wrestle freestyle in the offseason? He's the only one I can see making things interesting. (Barr's too small and I never heard of Buchanan doing freestyle.) Snyder should medal. Is Parris hurt? Hopefully he goes, and I always hope Gable shows. I'm assuming Kerk won't be back from surgery yet. If none of those go, Keuter's good enough to make Final X. My guess is we see Parris/Wyatt, which could go either way, and the winner takes world bronze/silver.

Dake just needs to go to 79kg.

LOL I'm an idiot Why did Mirasola look so much bigger to me?

What does Michael Mocco weigh? Honestly he looks more to me like a 197lber/97kg'er than a HWT. He doesn't have papa Mocco's build at all. Reminds me more of Snyder. Kid has great technique but unless he has a growth sport, he looks like he's always going to be a bit undersized against the big boys.

I think he was talking about something else. He's referring to a folkstyle match between Luke Stanich (non Lilledahl) and Jax Forrest in an open tournament a couple seasons ago (in early 2024). Here's the match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yfyuxGo3lw It was Stanich's true freshman year at Lehigh, and he went on to take 4th at NCAAs. Forrest would've been a sophomore in high school at the time, albeit an older sophomore (probably 17).

I dunno about "should have lost." Maybe in the Kolat "let's rescore the match in a back room after its over" era but not today. Coaches could've challenged it but didn't. Duke also wrestled defensively to sit on his lead, which wouldn't have happened had he not had a lead. Regardless, Miller pushed him. Not many guys can score on Duke.

I like the new system. The US Open had really lost its luster for a number of years. If the best you could get from it was a bye to the finals of the WTTs, where you *still* had to win to make Final X, it really wasn't much of an incentive. Too easy to just wait for WTTs so the best guys skipped it. The only guys who went were the ones who needed to get their top-8 placement to qualify for WTTs. The result was that the premier senior-level freestyle event was more of an afterthought, and just one of multiple ways to qualify for WTTs. The quality of WTTs does take a hit since it'll eliminate some weight classes (two this year), but I don't think it hurts the event all that much. And it may make the remaining WTT weight classes that much more competitive, as some guys will shift weights to try to make the world team at a weight where there's still an opening. So this year, expect some of the 61kg guys to be at 65kgs at WTTs. Overall its a change for the better.

I don't think there's any question he's ready for the senior level guys at 70kg, considering he took 3rd at WTTs last year at the same weight. That includes wins over Lewan, Jacques and Thomas. He got worked by Pantaleo, but Pantaleo lost yesterday to Arrington and Andonian, who both finished well behind Duke at WTTs. The Lewan win is especially notable considering Lewan beat Green two months ago (but lost to him yesterday). Duke's still an underdog against Green/Yianni, but I don't doubt he'll be competitive.

I don't think there's ever been the time when the US has ever had 5 high schoolers as good and accomplished as these five: L Lockett J Forrest M Blaze P Duke B Bassett How would you rank them, in freestyle? Anyone more deserving of top 5 than these five? (The Open's done but still plenty of time for upsets at U20s...)

Two great competitors with long careers and lots of success on the way.

I'm all for leaving it up to the athlete, but asking for their hometown isn't the same asking for their state of wrestling origin. If you asked me for mind, I'd give a different state for each, as what I call my hometown isn't the state that I'd say produced me as a wrestler. Regardless, your points are well taken, especially when you're in the wrestling media as you are -- that is, you need to have an approach which, despite its potential inaccuracies, can't be said to be borne of bias. And, as you mention, you're paid by your output, not by the hour. For me, though, since I don't have to answer to anyone besides online hecklers and angry Arizonans as I bask in anonymity, I'll stick to my way. :]

This has been a topic of debate on this forum and its predecessor for 20 years. It was especially contentious when Blair was tops and Sem wasn't a factor, as the NJ folks would want to take credit for every kid who ever wore a Blair singlet, no matter how short the duration, while Blair haters wanted to deny them credit for anyone who ever lived outside of NJ, no matter how much Blair developed them. Examples: Was Mark Perry from OK, where he trained under the Smith family, or from NJ, for spending 4 years at Blair? Was Mocco from NJ, from his Blair years, or MD, where he was thru his freshman year? How about Jordan Oliver, who was in NJ junior high stud before moving to PA for high school? Heck, the Wyoming crowd (such as it was) thought David Taylor should be considered a WY kid as he only moved to OH somewhere in junior high when he was already a killer and wanted better competition. I understand and respect your approach, and that of @Jason Bryant , to just look at what hometown the kid lists, as that has the benefit of simplicity, removes the bias, and takes the question out of the hands of squabbling fans. But I still don't like it. My main issue is the whole idea of looking at state of origin is to try to measure which state "produces" the best wrestlers, not which state happens to have the most number of kids who once lived there. If, say, Luke Lilledahl moved from Missouri to PA his senior year, and his family did too, such that his hometown is now PA, should PA take credit for him? No way, and I'd side with the Missouri folks balking at that. I think everyone would. I think that's a built-in flaw with the hometown approach. At minimum I think you need to make exceptions for those situations. But it works the other way too. A kid can list his hometown as a place where he didn't do squat as a wrestler, and was coached up elsewhere. I don't see why the hometown should get "credit" there. Lets say 2 kids from Hawaii, who are good but far from great, go to a Blair type boarding school as freshmen, where both become elite wrestlers. Both kids love NJ, and compete on NJ's squad in state/freestyle duals/Fargo. Kid 1's family moves with him, so now his "hometown" is NJ. Kid 2's dad has a job in Hawaii he can't leave, so the family never moves, such that their "hometown" is still HI. Does it make sense to say that, just because of kid 2's dad's job, one's from NJ and the other HI? Over the years, an uneasy consensus sort of developed on the boards that if a kid spent 4 years at a given school, *and* chose to compete for that school's state team (e.g. Fargo) during that time, then he's "produced" by that school for purposes of these calculations. So by the same standard that everyone grudgingly agreed, say, Mark Perry should be treated as a "NJ kid" for these purposes (despite his legit OK roots), Bartlett would be a "PA kid" (despite his legit AZ roots). I'd readily admit that's still imperfect, since these days, kids start crazy early, and the top kids are already killers by the time they hit 9th grade. Bartlett, for example, trained under Beloglazov out west, and did win preps as a freshman, so I can't get too huffy about PA not getting "credit" for him. But you could say the same about any of these other guys I mentioned who excelled elsewhere before finding a new high school, whose state takes credit for their accomplishments. You have to draw the line somewhere. Am I overthinking this? Yeah, probably, but I'd use the "4 years HS + competing for that state" test over the "what they say their hometown is" approach.

6 AAs in D1 is more than a down year for PA. It's easily their all-time worst over the last several decades. It's rare for PA to dip below 10, and I can't a recall a time they had fewer than 9. To be sure, some of the counting is a bit suspect. (Lilledahl I get, but Bartlett? Usually, spending all 4 years of high school at a given state makes you "from" that state for counting purposes.) But mostly it is just bad luck. PA lost a bunch of guys in the blood round. They also had a bunch of hammers redshirting/injured (e.g. Arrington, Welsh, Crookham, Watters), not to mention Sasso getting shot. They only lose Starocci, so I expect they'll be back in double digits next year.

Yeah... I'm not seeing it, and I doubt you are either. I see a lot of people whining about PSU fans not wanting to go, but I don't see any actual PSU fan saying "we shouldn't go." I'm sure there's a couple if you hunt around long enough, but the "Locked On" people want them to go, Byers wants them to go (see video here (here), every PSU fan I know wants them to go. I don't even see any PSU wrestlers saying they don't want to go. But it's Cael's call, and dissent aside, no one's gonna stage a coup over this. There's always a few saying "it's not a real national dual championship if PSU isn't there," but that's also what the fans of pretty much every other school are saying too, which is why everyone wants PSU to go. I guess it sounds self-important when PSU people say it, but they aren't wrong. It's amazing how jealousy has turned so many non-PSU fans into such whiny little b*tches.

I'm hard pressed to see why what Cael's beef is here. I get that he's a traditionalist who doesn't want to see March's significance diluted, but this is a private invitational, not an NCAA sanctioned event. The only rationale I can come up with for PSU/Cael's refusal is that if they go, and the event is popular, then its legitimacy may carry over to a renewal of demands that there be two separate NCAA championships (dual and individual) and/or that the National Duals results factor into the March individual NCAAs. But that's probably not it, as I think Cael's opposition to National Duals predates the efforts to get it NCAA sanctioned. Besides, other coaches that were opposed to a NCAA-sanctioned dual championship are participating. So... I dunno. I do wonder how long they can hold out, though. If this ends up being a big and popular event, with all the top teams, then PSU will be even further behind than they already are in the number of competitions their guys get. It could be a tiebreaker in recruiting too. Can't imagine the guys on the team are thrilled about being left out either. Hopefully the event's a big success and Cael gives in next year.

Not gonna lie, I'm still pretty bummed about Roper leaving. In the NIL/portal era, it's getting harder and harder for a small market team to excel, but Northern Iowa has been able to do it. No top-20 recruiting classes, no NIL to spend, and yet whoops the likes of Nebraska 24-9. Everything I've heard is that Roper is a bit part of why that is. It'll be hard for Schwab to replace him but I hope he's able to.