BAC

What is your theory, exactly? That Nate Carr Sr, ISU alum and rabid fan, whose eldest son Nate Jr. went to, wrestled for and graduated from ISU, and who had another son, David, who also committed to wrestle for ISU... BUT, before David committed, Nate Sr. DEMANDED that ISU give him a job one year later, otherwise Nate Sr. would force David to go somewhere else? Think about what you are saying for a moment. It isn't the lack of a smoking gun that makes any suggestion of corruption wildly implausible. I don't even buy that it was in "convenient" in the way you're claiming, as though it were some sort of crazy coincidence. If anything, considering how accomplished Nate Sr. was as one of ISU's best graduates, and given that his sons went there too, it would be surprising if Nate Sr. didn't get involved in their wrestling program in some way. I mean, Nate Jr. has a head coaching job now, and he has only a fraction of the accomplishments and experience that his dad has. You don't think ISU wanted Nate Sr? If there was an inducement, I frankly think it is more likely it worked the other way: Let's try extra hard to bring on Nate Jr's kids so that we have a shot at getting Nate Sr. involved in our program. I doubt even that is true, since any decent program would be thrilled to have his kids on their team (especially David), but my point is that its just a really poor example of potential corruption or "convenient" coincidence.

Clearly you've never tried Proper Twelve.

He coached at West Virginia and was named National Assistant Coach of the Year by the NWCA. Did the ministry thing for a while, then ran 2 wrestling clubs, then at Perry a few years when his kid was there. Fold in his NCAA tittles at ISU, and world and Olympic medals, and it’s hard to say he isn’t exceptionally qualified. That aside, hard to say his hiring was a recruiting inducement when one kid (Nate Jr) had already graduated ISU and David committed a year before. I’’m all for combating recruiting abuses but it would be good to be a bit more judicious in allegations of corruption. ISU was lucky to get Nate Sr on board irrespective of his sons, and the odds of Nate Jr or David going anywhere but ISU if Nate Sr didn’t get hired later at the RTC are zero.

I don't think the test is whether a country is "authoritarian" or not. Nor is it whether the people of that country have unpopular opinions, or if it is a "Western" country, or any of the other things you're saying. I don't even buy the argument that it is "political" or "all about politics." Instead, the basic idea is that in the Olympics -- which is an exhibition of fellowship among nation-states -- you don't get to compete if you try to take another nation-state's land for yourself. And that's pretty much it. Russia decided they wanted to claim for themselves some land that the UN has long recognized belongs to Ukraine. So poof, just like that, Russia doesn't get to participate. And that's OK by me. It seems to me that "don't steal another country's land" is a pretty easy standard to abide by if you want to participate in the Olympics. And along with "don't have a government-sanctioned doping program", I think it is pretty clear what you can't do, even if Russia didn't get the memo (on either). Of course, the reason we've having this conversation at all is that the IOC decided to have an exception for land-grabbing countries, where their independent athletes still get to participate if they aren't supporters of the land-grabbing. Granted, that answer isn't always clear, but it is super misleading to say "how come we're punishing Russian athletes' opinions but not the opinions of ....[X]." It isn't punishing opinions. Russian athletes are already excluded, because Russia is land-grabbing. They only question is whether individual Russians can get back in, albeit as a neutral athletes, by showing that they had nothing to do with all that land-grabbing. And if you're Russian, its pretty simple: don't go banging the drum about how awesome it is to be a land-grabber. At least not if you want to compete in the Olympics. Now, if you want to expand the pool of countries who can't participate in the Olympics to go beyond (1) those with state-sanctioned doping programs and (2) thieves of other countries' UN-recognized lands, have at it, but beware: it gets real tricky to draw the line in a clear, objective, non-political way. But as it stands, I think it is actually very simple. For countries: don't implement doping programs and don't land-grab. And if you're an athlete in one of those countries: don't dope and don't support land-grabbing. And if you can't do those things, don't come crying to me, since everyone knows you don't take land that isn't yours and you don't take illegal drugs to beat your competitors. Duh.

Fair enough. Haven't been over to HR/Rivals in a while. When I have in the past, there's usually a lone dissenter who gets shouted down by sycophants. Maybe that's changing. I do wonder though -- what's the resistance to change internally at Iowa? Is it Brands' ego, i.e. that he thinks he knows better than everyone else, so if a coach isn't preaching his sermon he doesn't want them around? Or is more an Iowa cultural thing -- the "us vs. the world" mentality that they've cultivated for decades, which has an isolating effect? The interview Metcalf gave about his interactions with Gilman on this latter point -- and how they changed and evolved post-Iowa-bubble -- is pretty eye-opening. It makes me think its both: an insular culture, of which the Brands brothers are active proponents. And M*/Telford have never coached anywhere except at Iowa under Brands, so they don't know any better than to sing that same tune. Whatever it is, it's a shame because Tom Brands is, though I hate to admit it, otherwise an excellent coach. And honestly, if there's anyone who ought to move on, its Terry Brands, who deserves better. To me, his greatest accomplishments as a coach are (1) the way he elevated the Chattanooga program when he was HC there, albeit for only a couples years, and (2) his national freestyle coaching work, especially for Cejudo. Of course he's at Iowa by choice, but to me, he's totally wasted there. He's too good to be his brother's echo.

Brooks likes the underhooks but, like Taylor, his offense is dynamic. Their last match was 5-4, and Brooks took him down with a hi-c and again with a double. He also has some nasty trips and picks. It isn't going to be that Brooks suddenly comes up with some new crazy move, but rather with the same stuff he uses to beat everyone else, and the same stuff he threw at Taylor last time. Lets assume conditioning and strength are a wash. If so, my guess is that Taylor is still the better counter-wrestler, but won't be able to match Brooks' offensive output. The difference, I think, will be how sharp and clean Brooks' attacks are. Last time he was a bit imprecise and Taylor exploited it. The truth is they have very similar styles. Not sure if Brooks pulls it off this time or not, but when it happens, I think people will say Taylor ran into a younger, fitter, faster version of himself.

Brooks absolutely has a shot here. Going into the year, I'd have had him at 3rd best in the world, behind Taylor and Yazdani. Yes, Taylor handled Brooks pretty well in 2023 WTTs, but didn't dominate him by any means -- and Brooks beat Zahid (who ended up medaling up a weight) in about the same way Taylor has beaten Zahid. Brooks also won U23s over the Russian National champ. And with Brooks filling out physically to Taylor's weight, I expect them to be closer. Plus, even if Brooks hasn't improved to the level that Taylor was at last year, you have to remember he's still ascending that hill, while Taylor is on the back end of it. We won't know how much of a bite out of Taylor that Father Time has taken until OTTs. But 33 is old for this game. I'll predict a 2-1 series. Slightly favor DT but a Brooks win wouldn't surprise me at all.

Personally I just don't think its about "Iowa Style" or non-Iowa Style, its that they just don't have the right coaching staff to elevate their guys to the highest level. Brands is an effective coach, no doubt, but he's just one guy, with a very specific stylistic approach and knowledge base. The problem is that he hasn't surrounded himself with enough complementary ideas and perspectives to compete effectively against top programs with more dynamic and varied coaching staffs. I don't think having 2 Brands brothers is much better than just one. They are pretty much clones of each other, and neither brings something to the table that the other doesn't already bring. After that you have Morningstar and Telford, but they're both Brands wrestlers/disciples, and neither was known for their on-the-mat creativity or diversity in technique, so its hard to see how they broaden the coaching staff's knowledge base. Same with Dennis, the HWC coach. To be sure, one good thing the Hawks have done in the last couple years is revive the moribund HWC, which now has several former AAs. But even there, its all just former Brands wrestlers. It is, in short, all Brands. All Brands, all the time. The net result is that if you're a new Hawk recruit, the teaching and technique you get is going to be largely limited to what's in Brands' head. The potential solutions to challenges you face will be largely limited to Brands' preferences. If the Brands don't know something or aren't good at something or don't care for a solution or approach that others like very much, you probably won't learn it. That's just extraordinarily limiting. They've effectively walled themselves off from the rest of the universe of coaching perspectives. There are SO many schools of thought out there, so many ideas and techniques, but they just aren't penetrating the Iowa/Brands bubble unless the recruit already knew it when he got there. Call it Iowa bashing if you want, but I don't think I am, as I think this is pretty much factual and hard to refute. Just look at all the examples of PSU guys losing to Hawks, only to get coached up to flip the series in their favor: RBY-DeSanto, Cass-Kerk, Kemmerer-Starocci, Rathjen-Kasak, and so on. There's almost no examples going the other way. There's examples of Iowa improvement, but then they hit the "Brands ceiling" -- the limits of what Brands knows or can solve -- and others pass them by. That's why there are so few if any recent Hawks who pierced the highest levels who weren't already sui generis when they arrived. It will stay this way until they either get rid of Brands, or Brands gets over himself long enough to bring other coaching perspectives into the fold. I don't see either happening anytime soon, nor do I see any Iowa fans raising any of these concerns, so don't expect anything to change.

Just chiming in to say that Coach Borrelli is one heck of a coach. There's always a couple programs that seem to have no business being discussed in the same paragraph as the PSUs, Iowas and Oklahoma States of the world, yet there they are, as they do so much with so little -- consistently taking mid-grade recruits and turning them into AAs. Little Rock is today's darling, but I'm thinking Northern Iowa under Schwab, or Edinboro under Flynn, or maybe American under Cody. Teams inexplicably in trophy contention, or at least top 10, by force of coaching. That's CMU. Yes, they've lost some of their sheen over the last few years, but how many teams have been so good for so long, while working with so little, as Borrelli's teams the past 30 years? Not many.

They're sure sticking by it. A little weird the school district let them do that.

Mirasola at 197? I figured Steven Little would be there after transferring in from Little Rock.

JB is great. DC is a train wreck. Totally unprepared to talk about the wrestlers, uneducated on the rules, lots of uninformed takes, and overall treating NCAA as little more than an MMA springboard rather than an end in itself. Hard pass.

Three 4th place finishes in a row. Right on schedule, he's in the consy semis. Can he make it 4 for 4 4th? Its a tough path. He'd have to beat Munoz, who handled him earlier this year. Then he'd have to lose to Berge/Salazar, which would really require him pumping the breaks since he'd be red-hot by then. But I think he can do it.

I'm still salty that Carr got a 4 seed. It should've been Mesenbrink and Carr meeting in the bottom half, with the winner getting Keegan in the finals. Or even Mesenbrink as the 4 seed, going thru Keegan, with Ramirez/Carr in the bottom bracket. Though I'm rooting for Mesenbrink, everyone knows Carr and Keegan are the class of this weight, and I'd have preferred Mesenbrink have to go through one of them to earn the right to deprive us of a Carr/Keegan final.

How weird is it that on the ESPN broadcast, they keep talking about how Brooks is going for 4, but they almost *never* mention that Starocci is too? They even keep putting up this graphic about Brooks's quest for 4, but not Carter. So yeah, I'd give OW to Carter if he wins. He's matches have been pretty boring, but he's at 75% at best and still took out 2 former champs.

I like DC but he has no business commentating these matches.

That's one of my favorite wrestling moments. Maybe a touch embarrassing for her at the time, but come on -- that's what being a wrestling mom IS all about. The vast majority would crumple up their glasses in a tiny ball if their kid lost a big match. Mrs. Lee should wear that moment like a badge of honor.

Boom, agree 100%. Best thing you ever wrote, Jimmy. He reminds me of the guy you bring to their first wrestling match who never wrestled before, who ends up LOVING it and getting REALLY into it, and now he won't shut up about it, which is both amusing and awesome at the same time. Yes, his understanding of what's going on may be a bit off at times, but his passion is absolutely genuine and totally infectious. And there's no denying he does his homework, EVERY time. The sport is lucky to have some really top-shelf broadcasters right now, and he's one of them. And when you're trying to join the sport, he brings an authenticity and relatability that no one really can match.

Cael vs. Manning. I've always liked Manning, but he really did Cael dirty with his tweet that Cael/PSU intentionally lied about Suriano being a possibility for NCAAs. I get that Manning is butthurt about Bubba not getting his at-large bid, but c'mon, Starocci knocked off Mekhi and is in the semis, but Manning still hasn't deleted his "gamesmanship" tweet. Put that man in the octagon with Cael.

Maybe his parents are on this year's seeding committee?

I kinda feel for USAW. You have to think they were clear that they wanted a commitment, not someone who was going to leave the job only 6 months in. I can't criticize Esposito since I don't know the full story, but I hope it was more than "something better came along," since it stinks to have this happen while an Olympic cycle is reaching its peak. Maybe USAW can snag one of the guys who leaves his shoes on the mat at Trials in April?

I think you're misapplying the subjective criteria. The number of injury defaults/MFFs is a favorable criteria, not unfavorable, as it reflects that a loss was not on the merits. And here it negates the "not a conference champ" criteria, and also impacts the "last five match" criteria, as the two Ls were defaults. He's undefeated in matches without an injury default. Taken together, that's an upward adjustment. Same with the other criteria. He's not outside the top 30 in Coaches Rank: he's #2 in the final rankings, behind Lewis. No bad losses, numerous quality wins. And wrestler "availability" doesn't mean to speculate or scour Twitter feeds for rumors: it means if the coach says he's expected to compete, as here, then he's available, without downward adjustment. How can anyone apply this criteria and not seed Starocci over guys like Wolak, Welsh and Kemp? Again, you're saying Cael shoulda done this or that, but no one at Penn State cares. He ran the table three times in a row and he's going to do it again. Its everyone else. Bottom line -- if the seeding committee didn't exercise their maximum subjective discretion to elevate Starocci's seed, then they screwed up big-time. Because as it stands, the #1 and #2 guys in the final Coache's Ranking are going to meet in the quarterfinals, and that's a seeding felony.

You still don't get it. It isn't Starocci's "cause." If it was up to Starocci, he'd be in the pigtail, and wrestle everyone in the bracket. Its a cause of everyone else in the bracket. Guys who worked hard for their seed, which is supposed to come with the right to not have to face Starocci right away. THAT is who the seeding committee needs to look out for. And you know full well it isn't solely a mathematical formula. The formula sets a baseline, after which there is subjectivity to argue someone up or down if he's within a few points of other guys.

This was exactly my feeling when I saw the brackets. They're so concerned about adequately punishing Starocci and putting high conference finishers above him, all in the name of fairness -- but how fair is that to a guy like Lewis, who busted his butt this season to earn a top seed? His reward is Starocci in the quarters. I mean, does anyone seriously think Carter cares where he's seeded? I'm not saying you make Starocci the 1 seed, but I think they took it took far. Sure, put him behind the B10 and ACC and B12 champs, those guys are legit and didn't face Starocci. Behind Griffith too, if only because Griffith showed up at the PSU dual and Carter didn't. But after that it all sort of falls apart. Most of these guys seeded ahead of Starocci I had to Google to figure out who they were. I think 5 is right but at least give Carter the 6 seed (not Welsh, who Carter beat), so he's opposite the Big 10 champ Ruth in the quarters, and the true King of the B1G can move to the semis.

Switch the position of "case" and "mind" and I'd agree with you.