GreatWhiteNorth

Warner, after taking 3rd place, was on the mic talking about getting 'the next best thing.' Which, if you've followed Iowa wrestling at all - you are familiar with. It's what the Brands coaching staff have taught, have been doing for years. If you don't get what you want, get the 'next best thing.' Lee didn't do that. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't make him a better or worse wrestler. Or a 'wusse' or anything else. It was just his choice. There is conflict with the fact that his choice doesn't match with Iowa wrestling's current philosophy - that's true. But that'll sort itself out.

C'mon now. You don't think Gable deserved the award last year? It has always been an award about dominance, and pinning has always been a key consideration. But last year, Gable was an 800# gorilla lighting up a lot of really good heavies. It is still about dominance and pinning - but sometimes there are other 'considerations.' Dominance isn't always shown the same way.

Couldn't agree more. Using the word "considerations" would clear up a lot of confusion. (But note that the word 'criteria' - strictly speaking - isn't actually used incorrectly. It's confusing because it is used in a different way than it is typically used in the wrestling world. Example - Your 'criteria' for a new truck could = fast, corners well, comfortable, seats 4, heavy duty towing, heavy duty payload, 4x8 bed, heated front seats. That is 'criteria', but it isn't definitive enough to actually select the best truck. To do that, you'd have to put the considerations in a defined order.)

I've been posting about this for many years now. I agree that it's unnecessarily confusing. The definition of the word "criteria" does not strictly require a step by step set of metrics for making a decision. That's not what the word means. The word "criteria" is used to refer to a logical set of steps for deciding things like tiebreakers in wrestling, that is true (and I suspect in other applications.) But that is happenstance for those usage cases. It isn't required for the word to be used. Every year, I suggest replacing the word "criteria" with something like "factors" or "considerations" and we can avoid much of the confusion that the Hodge creates. (And, also, eliminate numbering the factors - that implies strict order, which isn't actually required, at all.) If it were actually "criteria" as we use for tiebreakers in wresting, then Parris wins by criteria #1 - game over.

So many moves, hard to keep track - some are crazy...

This year Parris is the 1st horse in the race and is out in front. No amount of posting here will change that.

Works just fine for me. Thanks again Vak and lu_alum! It's been fun, hope to see you all here again next year.

Hmmm... up until the last post, 'dragit' bot was doing fairly well.

I appreciate the discussion: I firmly believe Trump is no longer eligible for the "respect for the office" position - he was disqualified from that the moment Biden took office. I don't believe there's any wiggle-room there. That is cut and dried. I agree. Trump's choice to attend the NCAA tournament is fine. As I've said, none of us really know the motivation, nor should we need to. As far as I know, his attendance neither helped nor hurt anyone. No problem with it at all. The 'track record' is going to be a bit of a discussion. I do think Trump has a track record of respecting WWE/fake-wrestling. I don't think he has an accurate perspective on what NCAA wrestling really is. While giving the award to Gable, Trump did mention that he thought he could take him... which made real wrestlers across the country cringe. Jim Jordan was the guy who put the event together - and Trump did praise him. Considering that Jordan has been a vocal supporter of Trump throughout his presidency, this smelled more like politics than it did like legitimate respect among peers. In any case, much is up for debate, but I don't see that Trump has any real track record to speak of with NCAA wrestling.

Ooooh, just outside the 15 minute line. Comedy (or at least attempted comedy) is a tough business around here.

I've seen photos of you - you seem to be working from the middle out. (Disclaimer: I haven't actually seen any photos and if that joke hits too close to home, it was completely by accident. No disrespect intended. No animals were harmed.)

I agree with everything in your post, with the exception of the "respect for the office" part. Trump is no longer the President. He continues to make claims otherwise, which we may or may not believe. Regardless, the fact is that he is no longer in the office - and is no longer eligible for the "respect for the office" consideration. Discussing Nixon's Watergate scandal, Clinton's Monica scandal, Reagan's Iran Contra scandal, etc. are all fair game. We needn't be concerned about their previous position when discussing those scandals. Trump is no different.

I'd like to see Barry Davis on the call. I can see him showing up an hour too early with a big box 'o donuts, ready to go. Firing up the other guys, making Sparks look almost lazy by comparison.

Former president attended the tournament, that is clear. Was it a PR move? Was he showing respect for wrestling? Was he boosting morale for a group he thinks will protest for him after he's arrested on Tuesday (according to him)? Was he sincerely interested in following the wrestlers' performance? Did he really pay attention to any of the matches at all? Meh - nobody really knows. At least some of the wrestlers went for photo-ops with him, that is also clear. Did they support him? Did they just want to get a photo-op with someone famous? Did someone else encourage them to do it even if they didn't care? Did they want to participate in his election campaign? Did they want a photo before he is arrested and put in jail? Meh - nobody really knows.

Exactly. And if I were to choose to treat Brooks with disdain, then I'm no better than he is.

I forget which religion, but there is one where the members carry a broom with them and sweep the sidewalk in front of them as they walk so as not to kill any insects. Some people may think this is nutty behavior. Of them, some may even feel comfortable calling them 'nuts' on live TV. Which wouldn't be very nice. Regardless, I'm a believer in protecting their right to call them 'nuts' if they so choose. I think it would be a mean thing to say, but I don't see the cause for outrage (as popular as that seems to be these days.) If social media has taught us one thing, it is that we have a wide variety of opinions and beliefs that can cause much friction between us. The thing we have yet to learn is that anger and hate toward those with differing opinions isn't the answer, tolerance and respect is. We should treat those with different opinions the same way we expect to be treated. With respect rather than anger.

Seems we know what the asterisk will need to be used for. (Not to mention the guys who could only wrestle in 3 tournaments because freshmen weren't allowed. IMO, they shouldn't be overlooked in the 4x list - especially if they were undefeated in their collegiate career.)

Agree. I like Rock, he's very good. But, IMO, JB was the best commentator. Gibby brings a lot of experience to the table, and Sparks has unique energy. As I had mentioned before, I don't know what changed - but Quint's post match interviews were really good this year. In years past, they were cringe awful. If I had to pick one gripe, it'd be them doing random interviews while good matches were going on. At minimum, they need to do a split screen so viewers can follow the action while the talking heads talk. All in all, they still have work to do - but are moving in the right direction.

No - that's not KOT. My point wasn't directed at any particular wrestler(s), just the situation.

Ummm... no. I know better than to believe a politician on social media. Any politician. Especially those that are being investigated for criminal activity.

I just want to get past having 6, 7, and even 8 year seniors... they really water down the value of a "4x" anything.

I did find this quote from nhs67. Which... doesn't really help solve the problem. At all.

I have been running a football pool of around 30 people for 15 yrs or so. We started with a 'winner take all' payout model. After the first five years, we switched to a top-5 payout model, and after about five more years, we switched to a top-7 or so payout model. Winner gets the biggest chunk, next person gets about half of the 1st, next gets a little less, etc. down to the last person getting their money back to break even. The idea being that, since nobody is going to get rich, we might as well have more winners so it's more exciting for more people as the end nears. Otherwise, by the end, it's a usually 2 horse race and nobody else cares. Why not have a third of the people still in the mix? Next year, maybe we consider adopting the 'top-4 get hardware' that the NCAA uses? Just a thought. Doesn't really apply to this year - too late to switch it now.

@lu_alum That is, without a doubt, above and beyond the call of duty. Well done. Your dedication is appreciated.

Ethically speaking, whatever you had most recently posted before the tournament started seems like the most legitimate way to do it. At that point, we were all on the same page. I haven't looked back to see what that was - if I benefit or not, it doesn't matter much to me. I'm looking forward to next year. This was my 1st year and was totally unprepared, got lucky by 'shooting from the hip' (as was recommended here.) Thanks everybody for letting me participate. The NCAA's were already the best 3 days of the year, this made them a little bit better!