BruceyB

Oh, give me a break. You think someone that wants to wrestle in college is going to leave the sport altogether because Kerkvliet is 256 pounds? D1 wrestlers are a different breed, they are going to make the best of their situation regardless of the weight. The argument should strictly be on creating more equity for the tweeners, and stop with this argument about these supposed wrestlers that are leaving the sport because of the weight class.

The first half of every NCAA season is pretty boring IMO. You might get a handful of interesting duals, and CKLV. Even if their are a number of top 10 matchups, they are spread out over several weeks and several events. The B1G duals are basically the best part of the regular college season. With guys only wrestling 20 matches during the regular season, there just aren't that many great events where a lot of top guys are present at the same time.

You're walking back your words now. You originally said that Brooks was closer to being a gold medalist. That obviously infers that he would beat Yazdani. Don't play ignorant.

Ramos and Glory were closer to winning the 2023 title seeing as Spencer wasn't in the finals, the others are irrelevant as they also lost in the finals or before and were also on the backside. You understand the concept of an upset, do you not? If a match was wrestled 10 times between Lee and Ramos, Spencer might damn well might have won 9 of 10. But guess what, that doesn't make him closer to winning a title until his hand is raised.. If we want to go through history and throw out all of the upsets because "so and so was closer to winning" because they were a favorite, then lets just draw up the brackets and not bother wrestling them.

Last I heard it's hard to win gold when you lose in the semis.. You could argue that Brooks would win more gold's versus the field if they wrestled it 10x than Spencer was, but then I would still say you're wrong because Spencer was a takedown away from gold IIRC. Brooks lost to Ramazanov who isn't very close to a healthy Yazdani. The simple fact is that on the day that mattered, Spencer had a chance for gold in his final match, aka closer. Whereas Brooks was wrestling for bronze, which is further away. This is terrible comparison. In match play golf, the entire strategy is to beat your current opponent, not try to score the lowest overall score. If you have a lead early, you're likely going to play safer shots and be content with pars rather than try to take riskier shots in hunt of birdies. It's like saying someone who wins a match 16-14 is better than someone who wins 4-1, because they scored more points, even though they likely only scored so many points because their opponent kept scoring as well. In one match, you had to keep pressing for points, the other you could stay within yourself and cruise to a controlled victory. That's far from a perfect analogy as their is no traditional offense/defense in golf, but I think it at least gives some insight for anyone unfamiliar with match play. Beside the fact it's not a good comparison, the conversation is not about who is better, it was about who was closer to winning gold in Paris. In your scenario, I would still the player that made the finals was closer to winning the tournament since he was in the final match.

I'd probably move 205 to 210, but sign me up.

I don't have a distaste for the coaching tree concept, when I think of myself as a coach, I think of my high school club coach as the biggest influence on my coaching philosophy and overall coaching style. I would be happy to be considered part of his coaching tree, as I think that is a compliment. I do agree with your second point that just because an athlete wrestled for a specific coach in college, that doesn't mean they are going to coach with those philosophies and training styles. Gilman, like you said, is a perfect example of this.

It was a joke lol.

He's a fringe AA contender at this point.. why wouldn't you just have him RS this year (his points aren't going to matter in a rebuild) and then have 4 years following when he is more ready? Either way he is going to cover the same time frame, and this year seems like the year where a few extra team points that he might provide are probably the least important given the makeup of this roster.

I did not say the cousins count. I said they meet the criteria of the original question more so than naming two brothers that went to the same school. The Dean's wrestled at Cornell, the Schultz' wrestled at OU. Are those the same schools? Oh, I guess so. If you want to try to circumvent the intent behind the question, just say so. If you want to get semantic about "different schools" then have at it.

You start your best two guys.

I can only assume this is a sad attempt at rage bait. Shame, shame.

Sinclair at 84 and Elam at 197 isn't a bad combo. Aedon looks like he could probably spend at least a couple of years at 184 before maturing into a true 197.

I agree that OTT isn't the right tournament to use. Without a doubt many college wrestlers that are seeking to compete at their best weight during the collegiate season where there are 10 weights, and then that is shrunk to 6 just weeks later, aren't going to be in their best for having to make a completely different weight just weeks later. I think the lack of college competitors at either OTT or WTT comes from the fact that the event comes so close after a long, grueling college season and most guys just want or need a break, whether fatigue, tired of holding the weight, injuries, whatever the reason. Not to mention that there are very few college guys at each weight who probably truly believe they could be USA's rep.

If that's the case, that's too bad. I love Smith and Missouri and especially after KOT and Rocky won Jr Worlds, I was hoping they would bring home a trophy to MIZZ. I don't pay that much attention to the 2nd through 4th each year, but I'm assuming the tigers haven't brought home a trophy during the KOT and Rocky years?

Ben has a business mind. If they made it 10m, he would likely encourage the transaction and suggest young Keegan invest in bitcoin immediately. Then we could all watch as they ride the ship to the moon.

They would be fools because..?

A fools mistake to commit to soon. We could have had Dee Bachelor sweepstakes along side the Bo Bachelor. Anyone who is in the know understands that Lockett is individually, as big of a recruit as anyone in high school right now. If you're reading this and haven't seen it, watch Lockett vs Mesenbrink at the trials last year. He's going to be a problem.

Many who need to humble brag do so out of a feeling of inferiority. I would go on but I'm losing my breath as I suck in my gut typing this response.

Get this man his bread. Unfortunately, Ben has made his thoughts on Iowa clear, and I don't know that KOT would cross the picket line, even for the right amount of dough.

Ah, that's better at least. Like you said, No KOT in the matchup would really take the wind out of the sails. Mizz is down pretty hard this year compared to normal.

Arnold cannot RS. He was a RS last year and this season is a year of eligibility whether he is the starter or not.

Another bad take, mate. He literally committed to John Smith. Maybe in hindsight he is happy DT is there, but regardless.. he committed to OKST and John Smith before DT was ever even a consideration..

This is to the point of my previous post. The point of initiating a "dry" season isn't even necessarily to have athletes completely abstain from alcohol or marijuana, but if anything occurs due to substance use, it is a firm grounds for discipline. It's not the drinks or substance that are inherently the problem, it's over indulgence that leads to bad decisions. A dry season is to eliminate young men from making bad decisions more than to eliminate the use of any substance. It's more of a "it's not a problem unless it becomes a problem" kind of thing.

I'm just waiting for your counterpoints. I'd love it if you could share with the rest of us the "raw numbers" of the athletes that you speak for.