1032004

And yet, I’m sure the college wrestlers that actually made a bet actually paid if they lost…

Looks like we should take Nick Lee in a Catan battle

Zain?

I think there’s always going to be some subjectivity, but don’t think we should be really adding more. I could get on board with a shot clock of some sort though. Maybe something like: Whoever has choice in the 2nd and 3rd periods has 1:00 minute to score (which could possibly include going over 1:00 in RT, and could also possibly be null if the other guy scores instead) or they receive a stall call. Using the 1:00 mark in the period would make it a little more simple for refs to keep track IMO, and they are already keeping track of who had choice at the start of the period. For one I think this would encourage more guys to choose bottom and we see more mat wrestling, which seems to be a concern of some that with the 3pt takedown it will just become all neutral wrestling. This could also help how we often don’t see any stall calls until there’s ~15 seconds left in the match when they don’t mean much.

I don't watch a ton of freestyle but I feel like 9 times out of 10 one person gets put on the clock then the other one does. Which seems the complete opposite of what typically happens especially in folkstyle where it's usually one guy doing most of the stalling. I don't love the subjectivity of stalling in folkstyle, but I think it's better than just removing it (not saying you're suggesting that), and making this change isn't really changing the subjectivity, since they previously had to work to "improve" which was still subjective anyway.

If the job was open right now I’d agree. But the Brands brothers aren’t going anywhere for a little while. By the time Lee is done competing and gets a couple years assisting maybe they will though.

According to the NCAA rulebook until now, this is not true.

I think the change of telling the refs to call stalling could be a reason they are holding off on the turn needed for riding time. Makes sense to see what kind of impact that has first

Which is arguably more subjective than most folkstyle stalling calls…

Maybe will be graduating after next season so just getting an early start for 2024-2025?

If Mark Consuelos adopts Mason Parris, can he wrestle for Mexico?

I think I'd go with Haines over Franek maybe 6 of 10 times, and Brooks over Ferrari maybe 7 or 8 of 10 times. Franek's only losses last year were to Robb who he also beat, and 2x to Josh Humphreys who Haines never wrestled. He did beat Zerban who beat Haines (I know we can call that a "fluke" for Haines, bur Zerban did finish R12 only losing to Franek and AOC).

That was all I saw as well. FWIW, I don’t believe it was “taught,” just in the library

I believe it was claimed to be an NIL deal

Willie just gave it legs in the other thread

Cassioppi could ORS right?

I don’t think anyone’s projecting he will except in the dream that he wrestles as a true freshman

They kinda do. PSU had a guy on their roster a couple years ago who didn’t even qualify for states (yes, it’s “states”) in NJ

He might be able to place at the Soldier Salute

Isn’t the out of state tuition at PSU somewhere around $50k a year these days?

Not unless they get Gable which seems unlikely. Franek has a shot against Haines, but Bartlett also has a shot against Woods, and Ayala/Howard is a tossup.

Charitable donations is probably a good comparison. That's basically what a 4th place wrestler getting $200K would be...

No. Obviously he'd be an improvement but they're already counting on pretty big points from Cassioppi, so he really only adds maybe 7ish points at the tournament. AJ would be a bigger impact with their current hole at 197. But even with AJ + Gable, their best case scenario in a dual against PSU is probably 4 wins, which is kinda crazy.

Can you provide some other examples where "we do this all the time in society"? I know it happens, the closest I can think of is maybe memorabilia, but I'm not sure if it happens "all the time," at least not to this extent where people are paying many times more than what the overwhelming majority of people would pay for something. Some would probably argue real estate but I'd disagree with that except for maybe a few exceptions.

Basically the NCAA's whole argument previously was that more of the value is in the name of the school, not the specific players. By having these offers illegally tied to attendance at a certain school, they are pretty much being proven correct.