BuckyBadger

My money is on Pitt-Johnstown.

Just now, red viking said:

Lots of violence all over the world. Israel is more violent than any country in world history, so either way, the overall violence would be a lot less if it weren't for them. 

Care to cite the study you are referencing?

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Middle East would be pretty peaceful if Israel was out of the pic. 

Middle East is plenty violent without Israel. Sectarian violence between different tribes, religious denominations etc is so common over there it’s normal.  If you don’t know that you are very uninformed. 

Anyone in need of a good laugh, watch and enjoy. I don’t think there is a 30 second clip that can better capture how the tables have turned in the last week or so.

My take is we will look back on Oct. 7th as the point when Iran miscalculated and went too far. They have created a situation where if they don’t respond they look weak, which is a big no no in the Middle East. It is very dangerous domestically for the regime. If they do respond, they risk getting drawn into a fight with Israel. In the last week Israel has shown that they have been pushed too far and the status quo that has existed recently is gone. All red lines that Iran and their proxies thought existed are gone. Iran’s strategy has not been to get into a war with Israel, but to use their proxies to make life unlivable there. What they didn’t count on was getting hit at home. Israel can easily take out their oil fields and refineries, which is probably check mate for the regime their.

Israel has shown recently they will go their if needed. 
 

Make no mistake, taking out Nasrallah is a game changer.

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

The question is, does it really change anything? 

If it allows Israel’s northern population to return to their homes and restores Israel’s deterrence, yes. It changes a lot.

If it causes Iran to be fearful of getting dragged in and back off, it changes a lot.

Is it going to root out Islamic terrorism and end Hezbollah? No, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make a difference.

Somehow, I never watched Jaws….until this week. Man, what a great movie.

On 9/4/2024 at 8:19 PM, Old Dirty said:

1. We have been in the top 3 in wrestling for a long time.  Cut us a break.  We were world champs last year, the year before, and we are kinda good.

You’re right, and I don’t meant to discount that. We can pull that off with a folk style focus and prioritizing winning at a young age over technique/development. We could just be a lot better.

Wow

All 10 in semis, is that right?

Much has been written on here about the American approach to youth development in wrestling, and what we do wrong in our approach.
 

I came across this quote from Landon Donovan (former US Soccer player) about youth development of soccer in the US. His words are eerily similar to criticisms I’ve seen of wrestling voiced by guys like Askren, Hrovat etc.

It brings up the idea that our problem to youth development in sports here is not really sport specific, but more of a cultural problem.

“My kids are in youth soccer. I see youth soccer environments. It’s a disaster. An absolute disaster.”

“The kids are developing but nowhere near the rate they could be. It’s wasteful. It’s a cultural problem in America.”

“This is my opinion. One thing amazing about America is we want to win everything and be the best at everything. The problem is that trickles down to a six-year-old’s soccer games.”

“The emphasis on a six-year-old should be getting better, not winning soccer games. There are coaches I hear say ‘this coach I’m coaching next week is my arch nemesis. We have to win that game.' And I'm thinking what the hell is wrong with you? You're coaching seven-year-olds, that's not what this is about."

"Or they say this tournament is very important so we have to win and five out of 10 players might not play as much. It's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous."

"The incentive structure is totally backwards. We will never compete at that level unless we get that part right."

Agreed, these are the new rules. Either the big programs get on board or fall behind.

But to be clear, Round Rock north of Austin and a suburb. Some of that stuff, like rising home prices, have spilled into Round Rock, but not to the same degree.

17 hours ago, 1032004 said:

This will always be my favorite song about moving to Austin (language NSFW, I have never been to Austin so can’t speak to it’s accuracy)

 

I grew up in Austin. All these things are true, it’s very expensive, traffic is awful, city politics have a certain progressive streak that makes homeless communities an issue.

This started to get bad 15 years ago or so. Then when Covid hit it became extreme because you had Silicon Valley money buying up everything. Now it’s just a money city, a lot of the things that made it so desirable have just seen huge demand and competition that it’s not the same. For example, SXSW used to be this great film festival where you could just show up to the theatre and see some off the wall Indy film. Now it’s a huge “event” that you’ll never be able to go to if you didn’t buy ahead for a a lot of money. Lots of these upscale restaurants have sprouted up and they aren’t even good. Even BBQ is corporate.

My brother and his wife still live there and it’s still decent enough if you have enough money, but they complain about it.

If they took away double bronze that’s 6 medals = 2 more weights. I wonder if this has been discussed or if the IOC would just shoot it down.

True, but if honesty is so important you have to have problems with Trump.

30 minutes ago, mspart said:

And that's the thing.  He is crazy on social  media.   But his policies were pretty straighforward and worked.   That's why you can't think of an example of what you are concerned about.

mspart

I hope it’s as simple as that if he wins.

6 minutes ago, ionel said:

Can you think of an example that resulted in a bad policy ?

Admittedly, not much from a policy perspective.

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

I may be wrong, but Trump believes and understands in peace through strength. While Joe and now Kamala believe it is peace through, (words)and I quote "DON'T". Russia is now in Ukraine. (proxy war) We are one blink away from a war with Iran in the middle east. We are in a proxy war with Iran right now.

I think that’s correct. The problems I have with Trump are not political. I was thrilled with how they took out Soleimani, the Abraham accords etc.

My concern is that Trump doesn’t really believe in anything. Kamala is a far left progressive. She may try to play more to the center, but it’s pretty clear what she is. She’s more or less a known commodity.

Trump will wake up one day and decide he likes something he hated yesterday. His governing is not rooted in any world view but what will make him look good in the news cycle. He seems unable to separate advice at odds with something he proposed from a personal attack.

I agree with that we are one blink away from a war with Iran, and in that situation you need someone committed to a clear strategy and execution of a plan. Especially when things get rocky and the news cycle goes against you. 

Im also not sure he has any allegiance to any voting group or idea. For example, I could see him backing Ukraine against Russia, but I could also see him appeasing Russia and abandoning Ukraine. The man is a surprise every day and it seems to have nothing to do with politics.

I thought Pompeo was great, but think Trump is too volatile to be the man in charge.

Maybe I’m wrong, and when the stakes are high he won’t play his petty games, but I’m not convinced.

33 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I understand the following she gets from the abortion anytime folks, but I cannot fathom the intellect that would prefer her in any foreign policy or economic situation.

Totally agree

14 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

With my son and son in-law in the service I feel zero confidence in Kamala. With Joe in office we have been one blink away from being in war with Russia, Iran and China, With Kamala it would be imminent. 

Agree as well, but I don’t think Trump presents less of a risk in that sense.

If there are no skeletons in her closet that come out, or some unexpected event that will force her to have to be more forthcoming I think it will work.

Perhaps a debate with Trump could be damaging if she really gaffes.

What I have an hard time understanding about the Bono situation is how it got to this point. I mean I understand that it comes down to recruiting and relationships in WI, but if you look at his history he did pretty well before he got to Madison.

He had a track record of success at SDSU. I think most people would agree that he did a really good job with that program. It’s not like he came  to UW with the reputation and track record he has now. When he was hired I thought he would be able to bring UW up a notch or two.
 

But for whatever reason he has effectively been blacklisted by top in-state recruits. I’ve read all the stories on here about him and Askren, so I get it. But at the same time it seemed like UW got a pretty decent guy to lead the program at the time. I guess sometimes certain people and places, or differences in culture or whatever can be a really bad fit.

@Fadzaev2 That’s impressive. Which year stands out as most memorable?

Given the short trip to Philly (currently live in the DC area) and that I haven’t been to  NCAAs since 2005, I’m going to try to attend. 

4 hours ago, red viking said:

Badgers have very little talent and Bono isn't seen as a great coach by HS wrestlers or their parents, in general. All the top talent leaves the state now for college. This program is going nowhere in the near future. 

Unfortunately, this is true. And Bono was just given a 5 year extension. The future is pretty bleak for now.