1032004

I think one potential argument was that if the COL difference was significant, a “pay cut” could actually even result in more net money (plus of course his other reasons for taking the job). I guess some online calculators only put the different at about 11%, but I don’t care enough to argue any more about it.

I still think putting Crookham at #5 as intermat did is worse than putting him at #1 though. They're probably both "wrong."

No, I doubt the cost of living was much of a factor for him. But people have said he "took a pay cut" to go there, which based on the COL differences likely isn't really the case (depending of course on exactly how much he made vs is making now)

O'Toole. For that reason I don't necessarily agree that, particularly 165, was "watered down."

You keep saying 2021 was “watered down,” but 1 of Wittlake’s losses in that tournament was to a guy that likely wouldn’t have even been in it if not for the “free year.” He still has some decent wins since though. He beat Austin Murphy this year who finished R12 during the “watered down” year. Last year he beat Hawks twice and Tate Samuelson who both finished R16.

Calling my shot now. I think PSU breaks the points record this year (maybe with some help from 3 point takedowns)

Do you think any of these guys could beat Travis Wittlake right now?

I’ll take this as you admitting much of what you were describing is actually stalling, just trying to make it look like it’s not…

I know this was a week ago but I'm putting this as the best dual of the early season so far. Rider was in it thanks to wins by Koehler who was basically being dominated by Rooks but funked his way to keeping it close then got a takedown with a few seconds left, and then Kinner with a pretty dominating win of his own over the other Rooks (and getting a forfeit at heavyweight). It was 15-15 with 2 matches to go. Rider was up 11-7 at 184 in the 3rd period, for some reason he cut Rogotzke and ends up getting pinned. I guess those Rogotzkes have a knack for exciting pins. Then Indiana seals it with another pin at 197.

Once again, based on the new stalling rule, “earning RT” or “wearing down and frustrating” your opponent are not sufficient to avoid being called for stalling. Must be working for a near fall.

I think I cracked Tom’s code of “who should be asked the questions” with the help of BEG wrestling on YouTube (shoutout to their podcast). They called out one specific segment of the rant where Tom mentions “the committee” and references a male AD, while asking why it was just Iowa and Iowa State that were targeted. I’m pretty confident he’s referring to UNI AD David Harris. The decision on the penalties was made by something called the “Division I Council Coordination Committee.” I can’t seem to find who is on that specific committee, however it appears to be a subcommittee of the “Division I Council,” of which David Harris is a member and Iowa and Iowa State’s AD’s are not: https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1COUNCIL Obviously Iowa should still have accountability for their actions. But it would be interesting if a competing school instigated this…

Think it depends on how we’re defining gambling. Do fantasy football and March madness pools count? I thought they did and if so then 56% of athletes could be low. Of course it doesn’t seem that any of the Iowa wrestlers got in trouble for playing fantasy football or March madness pools…

Has Gable been there 2 years?

Yeah I think that was kinda my point re: Gable. If even Kasper, who seems to have beeb successful, was in NXT for awhile, it shouldn't be a surprise if Gable is.

I guess Cael does care about breaking the record… Either that or he’s afraid of Messenbrink matching his undefeated record

Dresser confirmed this in his “media availability” which was posted in the Tom is angry thread

Isn't Kasper still in NXT too and has been for awhile? It's not even confirmed the WWE even has "an issue" with Steveson's performance, right?

I haven't been in college for awhile but honestly I do specifically remember a meeting in the beginning of the year saying that...

I agree. Although it's not totally clear to me what Brands opinion on that is. Him continually saying why was it just Iowa and Iowa State seems to imply he does think other teams should be punished too. But then him pulling the "they didn't break any laws" line implies maybe he doesn't think anyone should have been punished.

Agree, but technically I believe Brands was basing his speculation on his quote that apparently the NCAA has found that 56% of athletes gamble or something like that.

Yeah that maybe bugged me the most, that this rant was in response to the reporter literally just asking him what his thoughts were about the ruling

Guess we're assuming Coleman wants to rent a 2 bedroom apartment ? Doesn't he have like 4 kids? Based on the house prices listed and a 30 year loan at current rates, the difference would be more like $1,400 per month, plus $47K more needed for a down payment.

I was referring to Iowa State. Paniro was the only name I had heard previously.

Thanks for the link. He does ask a similar question of “why was it only Iowa and Iowa State,” albeit more calmly of course. He also alludes to that Paniro will lose a year of eligibility (I thought there was still question around that). I’m also not sure if I realized there were more guys than just Paniro involved, but I guess the rest are backups?

Correct, my point is that actual crimes by other sport athletes were being investigated. And it looks like Iowa then reported the NCAA, but non-criminal violations as a result of that