BruceyB

Is this match greco?

I didn't like the stall call either, but I also don't feel sympathy for someone who isn't doing anything anyway getting hit.

I was wondering the same thing. I thought we were heading straight for tiebreakers.

Can you not extrapolate the point from the post? That was just an extreme example to show how top heavy tournament scoring is and, how in turn, it is not an accurate reflection of how good a team really is. If the two teams faced in a dual, the team with ten R12'ers would likely win 9 out of the 10 matchups. They are a vastly superior team. As for "who cares when neither of them are top 20 teams?" Minnesota finished in 22nd at NCAAs last year but was ranked 11th as a dual team. Just because a team isn't in the top 20 in the tournament system doesn't mean they aren't a tough group that would easily qualify for a NCAA Dual Tournament. Much like in March Madness you have teams that reach the sweet sixteen, elite eight, or final four for the first time in program history, you could have something similar where teams that might never have a chance to finish with a trophy at the tournament, you could have teams that qualify for the tournament for the first time, win a match at nationals for the first time, etc. It would give more milestones to team development than simply judging a teams success by how many points they score in March.

I don't know how many people would bite the bullet and pay $150 so they could watch this event. If you aren't paying $150 for all of the content you get for an entire year (the college coverage, U.S. open for all age groups, WTT for all of the age groups, final X, not to mention rankings/big board/articles etc.) than I can't imagine a couple hours of an awesome event would put them over the top. But I suppose your right. 1000 new subscribers probably isn't a lofty goal, and that is a good chunk of money to help cover the event costs. I have no idea, but how many wrestling fans that would be excited for the card don't already have a flo subscription?

A lot of the "articles" are really just blogs to provide some insight to an upcoming dual or tournament. They probably aren't bothering to pay an editor to check for grammar and typos for a breakdown of Iowa vs Illinois, which will be read for two days and then never look at again. It's not exactly the Washington Post.

I'm assuming you are correct. He doesn't look like he is cutting any weight at all. He's going to be looking at 65kg in 2028, so I would be shocked if he wrestled above 149 his first two years of college.

I don't believe the NIL amount will be the deciding factor for Bo. He's going to get paid wherever he goes, and he'll choose the school where he believes he is going to achieve his long term goals.

I couldn't disagree more. The hot take sports media is the worst of all. People make claims just to create discussion, without even believing what they are saying. I can't watch a lot of sports shows because of this. I also feel duped and irritated when I see a video or article with a clickbaity title and then after several minutes reading/watching I realize that I just wasted my time because the content did not at all accomplish what the title suggested. I prefer the qualifiers and the solid, rational, reasonable takes that follow. I don't need disingenuous titles and takes to catch my interest, but that's just my opinion. I don't really understand the overwhelming disgust for Flo that so many people harbor. They're the best thing that has ever happened for fans of wrestling. Sure, there have been some hiccups (some bigger than others along the way), but when I was in high school and Flo started growing, it was the first time I was able to watch matches from Ironman, CKLV, Southern Scuffle, etc. Before that, all I knew were youtube videos of old NCAA matches and the NCAA Finals once a year.

Oops, I meant only ranked *win*

I'd take Nebraska and over 1.5 125 is hard to predict because we haven't seen Lilledahl against any ranked opponents outside of Seymour, and Caleb Smith is a bit of a wildcard with his consistency. But this match is toss-up and certainly winnable for Nebraska. 133 Davis is the favorite, but his only ranked match at 133 was a 1-0 win where Bailey chose neutral when he was down 1 in the third. Van Dee is 2-0 against Ragusin, and just beat a tough Tyler Wells, he has the potential to pull an upset. 141 It's crazy that these guys have only wrestled twice. In 2023 IIRC Hardy won a scramble where Beau ended up on his back to secure a 7-2 win. Last year, Bartlett won a 9-6 match. I would guess that Hardy will put the match in some scrambles that will determine the winner. I wouldn't say Beau is a significant favorite in this matchup. 149 SVN has been super dominant this season, but he did get outwrestled in the first period against Jordan Williams before bullying him to his back for the pin in the second, and that is his only notable matchup so far this season, excluding his demolishing of a now known, injured Ty Watters at the All-Star. I would probably lean towards Van Ness because of his power/arsenal on his feet, but it's another winnable match-up for Nebraska. 157 This will be the toughest opponent that Kasak has wrestled at 157 and I would call it a toss-up. 2 toss-ups and 3 other matches that should be competitive, I'll take Nebraska getting two. Tbh, I'm just joining Truzz and talking myself into believing these are all winnable matches for Nebraska. Penn State could very well win them all and we'll have another 10-0 shutout for the nits.

They've done the argument a million times on FRL. I always agreed with JD and Ben that a dual format would be more accurate in representing how good a team is than a tournament format. Take CSB with Ferrari this year. IF Ferrari were to win, that's a guarantee of 20 points, and he might be their only NQ. Take a fictional team that takes 10 guys to NCAAs and they all lose in the R12. Without any bonus, this team would score between 15-20 points depending on how the wrestler got there. Which team is better? The current tournament system is weighted too heavily in favor of champions and high AAs versus low-AAs and R12 guys. There is no way that a single individual should be able to outscore an entire roster of R12 guys. Last year Franek took 8th and scored 5.5 points for Iowa. Vito took first and scored 24 points. 1 champ outscoring 4 AAs just doesn't represent an accurate picture of how good teams are.

I actually chuckled out loud to this one. That was good.

I can't imagine that these events generate too much money, especially if they are streamed for "free" with a flowrestling subscription. I have no idea what wrestlers are looking to get paid for their participation.. $5,000? $10,000? $20,000+? I don't know how much money you can realistically generate through ads and sponsors to cover the pay for athletes, the venue, the manpower it takes to put out a legitimate broadcast, etc. Wrestling needs a Redbull type of sponsor that will dump money into an event just because it will be awesome, despite taking a financial loss. IMO the best model if someone could figure it out financially would be to have a belt system like MMA. Right now, we occasionally get a random production with a lot of high level guys, but at the end of the day, win/lose doesn't actually mean anything. With a belt system, every match would matter beyond just that evening. You would have title bouts where the belt is on the line, and then the rest of the bouts would be contenders jockeying their way up the ranks in hopes of getting a shot at the title. The matches wouldn't only determine who won that day, but who holds the belt, and who takes a step closer to getting a shot at it. Like MMA, contracts for X amount of matches would be signed and you would get to see them wrestle hopefully at least a few times a year. Obviously this is a pipe-dream, but if somehow this could actually be established, I think it would be better for the sport than where we are at now with just Worlds/Olympics where we collectively tune-in once a year.

Did you not read where I said, "Maybe you would have preferred if I said, "Missouri's boosters/NIL investors can't compete in a bidding war." I'm sorry that I didn't differentiate the financial donors from the school entity in my original post. Either way, your semantic dispute doesn't change the reality. How would you prefer to word that Iowa, PSU, and OKST, through financial means, land more transfers than Missouri?

And I said that where? Maybe you would have preferred if I said, "Missouri's boosters/NIL investors can't compete in a bidding war."

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean for the season, but just to send a mid-season message that if you aren't looking to rack up points, you aren't going to be starting. Obviously with their schedule to date, putting a back-up in at 165 wouldn't have endangered their dual victories, but if he was removed from the starting line-up, it might have given him a kickstart to start pursuing more points. He is obviously the best option at 165, but perhaps with a wake-up call, he might separate himself further from the field below him.

@bnwtwg Still waiting. Why isn't Ferrari a title threat?

It's interesting, especially if you listen to FRL and hear Tyler talk about how much a freakish athlete Cam is. But I agree with @wrestle87, he has done a lot of winning with his approach, and it doesn't appear that he is going to change it now. I was hopeful coming into the year, because I was curious how it would play out if he bought into the scoring mindset. I actually wondered if he would get benched for a lesser wrestler that was willing to go out and look to score, just to send a message, but that clearly hasn't happened.

I want to start by clarifying that I don't have a hard stance as I see an argument for both. I do lean towards keeping it at two points though, but I wouldn't have any strong feelings if it went to 3. This is the thing with the bottom position, you either were put into the bottom position by being taken down, or you chose to be in the bottom position. If you are in the bottom position from being taken down, you are given the opportunity to score points from a defensive position (ie: you cannot score an escape without being taken down). Likewise, with reversals, you cannot score a reversal unless you are in a defensive position. If I take you down, and you reverse me, you were only capable of scoring a reversal because I took you down in the first place. Why should you get the same amount of points as me for reversing me out of the position I put you in? If I didn't take you down, you wouldn't have had the opportunity to score from bottom. This is where it is obviously subjective in what you think should be most heavily rewarded. I think that gaining control from a neutral position should be rewarded more heavily than being able to reverse the position you were forced into after being taken down. Additionally, if you choose bottom, you are choosing bottom knowing that your scoring possibilities are either one point for an escape or two points for a reversal. You can choose neutral with the opportunity to score 3 points, so why does anyone choose bottom? It is because the bottom wrestler believes they are more likely to accumulate more points starting the period in the bottom position than in neutral. I am of the camp that believes scoring a takedown should be most heavily rewarded, and that a reversal, which is only possible to earn by being taken down, or putting yourself in the bottom position should not be equally rewarded. I also understand the argument for emphasizing mat wrestling where being sloppy on top and getting reversed should be more penalized. If you're afraid of getting reversed, cut them instantly and don't play around in the position. I just believe in the current era of college wrestling with the leg passes, far ankle scrambles, Churella positions, etc. It is so hard to get in on someone and score without it being stalemated, that securing a takedown should be rewarded with more points than reversing a position that you were forced into/chose to be in. Anyway, I know that was long, but I hope I was able to make the argument against a 3 point reversal understood.

Missouri has no where near the funds to play a bidding war for AA transfers with Iowa, OKST, and Penn State. Ohio State hasn't even been able to bring in a big transfer in the NIL era. I'm sure there is someone, but who are some returning AAs that have transferred to somewhere other than PSU, Michigan, Iowa, or OKST? Beard to Lehigh is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

Another snarky one liner without making a point. Do you ever actually say anything interesting? Maybe you need it spelled out for you. I do not care about the team score in a dual. The winner of the dual means absolutely nothing in college wrestling. If tOSU lost to Rutgers, what implications does that have on their season? None. I tune in to duals because I want to see good match-ups and good wrestling. PSU pinning and teching a vastly inferior team is not entertaining to me. Likewise, watching a dual where over 90% of the airtime is two guys staring at each other in neutral is not entertaining. OK State vs NC State, despite the matches going 9-1 in OSU's favor was far more entertaining than either of the aforementioned duals, because there was actually wrestling taking place. Not a staring contest, and not a mismatched pin-fest.

Yep. Commercial break.

Add something to the conversation, or just refrain from commenting at all. They were two horribly boring duals for two completely different reasons. PSU vs MSU was a shutout before it began, and tOSU vs Rutgers ended up being a staring contest of who could do less and win a match. Go ahead, defend the buckeyes and their 4 takedowns outside of Mendez.

I was going to say the same. At least they put a time-limit on it.