nhs67

It may be likely that you're probably correct more often than not, possibly.

Me too.

It all starts with $5... As Willie stated... A GOD.

I have wanted Alvarez to 149 since he couldn't suck to 133 and said he 'needed to grow in to 141' in some interview shortly afterwards. My thinking was if he wanted to grow, he needed to go 149 at the lowest.

BRF could just STFU. Also... Me argue? Nah, bro. Also... As I said, I adhered to them there and I do here. Harping on an individual who should be held to higher regard - who also had already apologized and typically does post the link(s) - is, in layman's terms: Stoopid (with a capital 'S' there). Nothing needed to actually be said. Kozak had handled his business. I can die on this hill. I have no qualms with that.

I am familiar with all that. All that has been said is 'This kid is the same age as this (proof?) and is violating rules because of this (proof?).' No actual proof has been given.

Not disputing that. In fact I do this. The point of trying to make others adhere to other forum's rules was poppycock that annoyed me. Biden isn't POB. He is POTUS. His rules don't apply to Bangladesh just like Mohammed Shahabuddin's rules don't apply to the USofA.

What?

Agreed.

This is entirely different and your Ivy League educated brain knows that. Why? Because the owner of that and this would be the same. Ergo their opinions and enforcement on the matter could go hand-in-hand. It doesn't mean it would. It could, though. If you weren't offended then why in TF did you decide that another forum's rules should matter here? You are allowed your opinion on the matter. I am also allowed to tell you that you are wrong, which you were.

Any actual proof to this?

So... where the hell do the coaches stand with this? Are they still not allowed in the room? This is essentially a death sentence to the program for the foreseeable. It is a mid-MAC school in their better years and this sets them back at the very best-case for this season. Nevermind the recruiting aspect that would set them back for the next few seasons as well...

I mean... Kozak is the one Flo-gent I appreciate irrevocable, really. I don't want him to feel slighted at all. I just think it is preposterous that some Ivy League turdbiscuit thinks he can enforce some sort of 'by-law' from an entirely different FORUM on here. This is courtyard, playground shit here, gents. Why get so upset? Especially knowing who had done the original post in Dr. MPhil... a guy who should get the benefit of the doubt here.

If you would like I could post videographic proof that I do, in fact put shopping carts away and know how to park. You nailed the last part, though.

I do.

So again... you and your Ivy League education are telling us we must adhere to rules of other forums? Also, I have a horse to sell you. You must buy it. You don't have a choice.

So nowhere on these forums then by anybody in the moderation team from these forums that we are currently typing on? Is there some federally mandated forum set of rules that must be followed in order to even submit replies? Cool. Was not aware.

After Finesilver beat Lugo 8-2.

Where did you get this last part of your quote?

I love option two with the caveat that I believe losing wrestlers should be allowed to score team points too, if they score points. So a 9-8 match would br 20+9+1=30 to 8 for team purposes.

Ew. That said, I do think that a modification in team scoring could be in order. Example... Guy loses 6-1 via Decision, the loser gets one point for his team. 3-1 point swing (similar to Freestyle). If the match ends via points, whether Tech, Major, or Decision, the loser will earn 1 or 0 points. If he earned 0 points during the match he earns 0 team points. If he earns more than 0 points during the match, he earns 1 point for his team. A pin, default, or forfeit is a 6-0 swing no matter what. As far as individual matches go, I would actually prefer they adopt Freestyle rules altogether. If they don't, I am all on board for them deciding how they score the points during the match. I may not like the 3 point takedown, however they make the rules - not me. Here are two examples from last year. The first being the closest dual Penn State had last year. It was with Iowa and it was a 23-14 victory for Penn State. 125 - Iowa Tech 18-2 Old 0-5, New 1-5 133 - Penn State Pin Old 6-5, New 7-5 141 - Iowa Dec 4-1 Old 6-8, New 8-8 149 - Iowa Dec 4-1 Old 6-11, New 9-11 157 - Penn State Dec 3-2 Old 9-11, New 12-12 165 - Iowa Dec 2-1 Old 9-14, New 13-15 174 - Penn State Dec 2-1 Old 12-14, New 16-16 184 - Penn State Tech 22-7 Old 17-14, New 21-17 197 - Penn State Dec 2-0 Old 20-14, New 24-17 285 - Penn State Dec 4-1 Old 23-14, New 27-18 Adds a little more spice to it for me. Now the second example, which was a bit more competitive of a dual... Rutgers - Michigan State, where Rutgers won via 17-16 and it was a 5-5 match dual. 125 - Rutgers Dec 6-3 Old 3-0, New 3-1 133 - Rutgers Dec 4-3 Old 6-0, New 6-2 141 - Rutgers Maj 16-4 Old 10-0, New 10-3 149 - Rutgers Dec 5-3 Old 13-0, New 13-4 157 - Michigan State Dec 5-0 Old 13-3, New 13-7 165 - Michigan State Dec 2-0 Old 13-6, New 13-10 174 - Rutgers Dec 7-2 Old 16-6, New 16-10 184 - Michigan State Maj 16-6 Old 16-10, New 17-14 197 - Michigan State Dec 3-1 Old 16-13, New 18-17 285 - Michigan State Dec 3-0 Old 16-16, New 18-20 Michigan State would have won 20-18 rather than lost 16-16 on criteria.

Can't delete or edit, though. So no. Not really.

Turds stole my content idea.... https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/11156827-daton-fix-registers-for-57-kilos-is-an-ncaa-weight-change-next

Daton Fix at 57 KG. Anyone think he might head down to 125 for next season? Would that even make sense for the lineup? Spratley to 133 for a season?