BruceyB

I would question whether this is true or not. High conference finish usually results in higher seeds at Nationals, which in turn results in an easier path to placing. A wrestler that has had a good season but has a poor showing at conferences often gets dropped out of a top 10 seed and then fail to place. You start by saying that regular season is a better indicator, but then change the argument to the seeds of wrestlers at nationals.. two different things. This strawman argument isn't relevant. I never said that there could never be a #1 seed that lost at conferences, but just that given two sets of quality resumes, I would defer to the wrestler who got the job done most recently.

In my opinion, the rule does more harm than good, especially at a qualifying tournament where a DQ means a season is over. As long as a wrestler is on the scale and makes weight at the correct time, is it that big of a deal if he's working out instead of sitting in the weigh-in area doing nothing? It doesn't give an advantage to be cutting 10 minutes later than the current rule set, but hurts the product to DQ the wrestlers. I also think it cheapens a UNI conference title if they win due to an OKST wrestler being DQ'd on a technicality. At the end of the day, having the best wrestlers in these tournaments is best for the sport. As long as they aren't doing anything malicious and make the weight at the correct time, let it go.

On FRL it was stated that the undergarment must not be altered from it's original state and must cover "both buttocks." And yes, they must wear underwear in weigh-ins now, apparently.

Honestly, I think Vombaur would might have an easier case for #1 than Hardy since he actually beat the #1 wrestler in the country to reach the finals and is now 1-0 against Bartlett this season, and then would have beaten Hardy to win the most recent H2H matchup and tie the series for this season. I think outplacing Mendez at conferences cancels out the H2H win, and no one in the B12 has the credentials for the #1. That being said, I obviously don't think Vombaur would be the favorite to win NCAAs, but I think he could be granted the #1 seed for winning the right matches at the right time.

Agree to disagree. I just can't accept a guy failing to win his own conference and then being granted the number one seed in an even more difficult tournament.

Like I said, Iowa is going to have 4 AAs and Caliendo is one of them. Obviously that omission changes things considerably.

Iowa could very realistically come away from the NCAA tournament with just 3 AAs. Their only wrestlers that will be seeded top 8 are going to be Ayala, Parco, Buchanon, and possibly Kueter after taking third this past weekend?

I would say that injuries are separate from actual results from conferences. That being said, I do think if you're too injured to take the mat at conferences, you probably don't deserve the easiest path to the finals. There should be some punishment if you don't participate. Last year with Starocci was definitely egregious though.

How am I overweighing the conference tournament in these two circumstances? Bartlett's only top 10 wins this season are Mendez and Hardy. He lost to Vombaur in his only other top 10 matchup. Hardy matches his best win, and just won the tournament that he took third place in. If Bartlett actually notched some other notable wins this season, maybe I would feel more strongly that he deserves to be the 1 despite the conference tournament. PSU's schedule is basically what you just described.. get to 15 matches and roll the dice at B10s.. they rolled the dice and Bartlett didn't get the job done.

Luke Lilledahl doesn't get the 1 seed over the guy he just majored because he has one more loss on the season? That's actually insane. If Brock Hardy didn't go to CKLV he would be a 19-1 conference champion, and I don't think anyone would question what his seed should be at NCAAs. His losses are to #1, #4, and #5. Bartlett's single Vombaur loss is worse than any of the three that Hardy has this year, and they share their best win respectively against Mendez. You're punishing Hardy for two losses against top 5 opponents that happened 3 months ago, and pardoning Bartlett for losing to the #8 ranked wrestler two days ago.

See my above question to Portajohn and feel free to give your answer. I'm not trying to be combative, I just can't think of anyone who I thought was robbed of a 1 seed after losing at conferences.

Idk. Just a random number that seemed logical.

Who has lost at conferences that you would have seeded #1 at NCAAs? Are you just arguing about a fictitious scenario that may occur one day, or.. what are we doing here?

We're really talking about results from the first week of December as a reason to ignore what happened this weekend? Alirez should get hammered in the seeds. His best win of the year is Jacob Frost, and he just lost to Tagen Jamison. Jamison should 100% be seeded higher than Alirez when you compare their seasons. Likewise, why should Bartlett be a top two seed at this weight? He is 2-0 over Mendez, 1-0 against Hardy, and 0-1 against Vombaur. Before this tournament he had only wrestled two matches against top 10 opponents all season. Hardy gets punished because he went to CKLV while PSU sat at home? Hardy should absolutely be seeded higher than Bartlett after this weekend. We need to stop punishing guys for wrestling difficult schedules and rewarding wrestlers and teams that avoid competition.

I'm only talking about securing the #1 seed. Get rid of the qualification tournaments and just send the top 33 ranked wrestlers during the regular season to Nationals if we're going to start selectively ignoring conference results.

If wikipedia is to be trusted.. Starocci is 5'11". I was able to find the interview with Gable quicker than Starocci so see below. The interviewer has to be at least 6'7". Gable claims 6'1"

When a loss happens is relevant. But to answer your question, I do think that someone who won their conference tournament should get the #1 seed.. every. single. time. Seeds are not rankings or predictions.

I don't think someone should be able to be the #1 seed if they didn't win their qualifying event. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I can't recall a 1 seed that lost at conferences.

Just noting that it wasn't like the interviewer looked tall next to a 125 pounder, he comically towered over everyone.

I was joking with my wife about this. He was bending over to talk to Starocci even.

I've said this before regarding NCAA finals. 10 matches in a 3 1/2 to 4 hour broadcast is rough.

Is there anything less satisfying than a match being decided by 6 seconds of RT in rideouts?

He's the #1 Jim.

Lilledahl won the only time they've wrestled. And I didn't say your predictions were wrong.. Edit: @MPhillips's TM'd

Picking the favorite in every match.