fishbane

I think the Brandses arrived in Iowa City at the nadir of Gable's tenure not the peak. Their senior year in high school Iowa failed to win NCAAs for the first time in 10 years. The streak would extend to 4 years without a title before Iowa won during their redshirt junior season. This is not true. Terry lost in the state final as a senior after winning as a sophomore and a junior. Tom set that record his junior year when he won his only state title. Tom didn't wrestle in the postseason as a senior because he was suspended by the school for sexual misconduct. I would say that neither Brands ended their high school career on a high note. On the national stage Terry was 5th in Fargo before entering his senior year and Tom was 4th. After their senior year in 1987 Terry placed 3rd and Tom was 5th both at 123lbs. Those finishes might have been a little late to play into recruiting hype. I wasn't following wrestling in 1987, but I suspect that despite their outstanding records they were not the biggest recruits in the county that year. Top 20 maybe top 10 would be my guess, but that could be biased high based on what they ultimately did in college. Other 1987 high school grads that went on to win multiple NCAA titles include Kurt Angle, Jeff Prescott, and Matt DeMaray.

No one has mentioned Dave Schultz. His senior year he won the Great Plains Championships pinning 2x NCAA Champ Chuck Yagla at the event. He wrestled in the Tbilisi tournament finishing 2nd. Those results were both in freestyle though he also won the US senior open in greco. In terms of accomplishments in high school Schultz and Carr might be at the top of the heap. Cejudo is close too. He won the senior open in high school and also beat NCAA Champ Jason Powell whilst in high school. He lost in the finals of the WTT to Sammie Henson. Has anyone else won the senior open/WTT/OTT in high school? There are probably 10 or so guys who have placed at one of those as a high schooler - Blaze, Kolat, Forrest, Stieber, Valencia. Fried? I think Snyder and Pico didn't really start winning on the senior level until they had graduated.

I think the suggestion was that he takes DiBiase's nickname, "The Million Dollar Man," rather than Ted DiBiase. Taylor has a history of stealing nicknames. Magic Man - he took that from Cal Naughton Jr.

It has been quite the turnaround by the Big 12. It was not so long ago that they seemed like the Power 5 conference most likely to be consumed by the others. Nebraska went to the Big Ten, Colorado to the PAC 12, Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC followed by Texas and Oklahoma announcing their intent to do the same. Now the PAC-12 is nearly gone and the ACC looks vulnerable. Grant of rights would be in addition to the exit fee. The exit fee is for leaving the conference, but the grant of rights gives the ACC the broadcast rights to the member schools home games until 2036. So $100 million plus the ACC has the broadcast rights to the home games. I'm sure that agreement will be challenged in court and ACC schools will be unlikely to sign such an onerous agreement in the future given how their revenues have lagged behind other conferences.

Not saying they should make a change, but when the topic of this thread, Kolat, was at Lock Haven they finished 5th at NCAAs. They had 4 AAs and 1 champ. Their ceiling is a little higher than what they are producing.

I think the schools are an essential part of what makes NCAA sports the cash cow that they are. My guess is that NCAA football and basketball generate far more revenue than equivalent minor league programs (AAA baseball, AAA Hockey, G league basketball, arena league football, and XFL/UFL). NCAA sports have a built in fan base of students and alumni. The largest institutions have upwards of 500k living alumni. It would be foolish to terminate the affiliation or start and unaffiliated team, but of the schools want out it could happen. What most schools put out isn't a profit/loss statement for each teams. It's a more of an internal budget. Almost all spend the money they are allocated at almost all institutions. They are all non-profits. That's how they work. There is no profit incentive. If they didn't use all the money in the budget no investors would get to keep it. If they didn't spend all the money they were allocated that is more likely the result of being allocated all the revenue they produce and under projecting that revenue than the team being profitable. If private equity gets involved there will be an incentive to turn a profit. It will be amazing how quickly power 5 teams that struggled to "break even" as non profits suddenly started turning a profit if they are ever managed by private equity. Wouldn't even have to drop programs to do it. But they would be more profitable if they did...

Private equity could be a huge problem for anything that doesn't generate a profit. Private equity gets paid based on increasing the value of the investment. If you cut off a part that costs more than it generates it would seem that the overall value has increased. Some pretty historic programs still reside in the Big 12 - OSU, ISU, ASU, and WVU. Losing even one would be the biggest program drop in years if not ever. No school that has won a team title at the D1 level has ever dropped the program.

This was the match he won at the 2009 NLO. Beat PSU backup Tom Reynolds when he was in 8th grade. *Tom Reynolds L, 3-6 dec. Chance Marsteller,

Marstellar entered the Nittany Lion Open in middle school. He defeated a PSU backup I think. DNP but he was in middle school.

Glad he's doing well after surgery. ID at a pharmacy will depend on the state and also potentially the pharmacy and drug being prescribed. The last prescription I had filled did not require ID. A lot of the things might require ID some places but not universally, similar to voting.

Funny, but a passport is not the issue for those crossing illegally at the souther border, its getting a visa.

This isn't a TSA requirement for a domestic flight. If auntie lives in another country they need an ID, namely a passport.

Poll workers are paid where I live though not much. Probably would be difficult to recruit people to do it if they were held strictly liable for accepting/processing an ineligible ballot in the say way PA holds liquor license holders responsible for serving underage patrons. I suspect the government wouldn't do that to itself. They often write laws private business and citizens are required to follow, but they are exempted.

I dunno man people ask for things all the time that aren't required. We're comparing how hundreds of different business might set their policy vs what is required by law. I'd expect voters to get more consistent treatment at a government administered voting location than across hundreds/thousands of private businesses. If the law doesn't say something is required to do something then I'd expect the government to not require it. Private business can be ridiculous. Home Depot asks me to see my government issued ID more in a year than the government that issued it does.

Where are these states that require it? Someone said Florida. I don't know Florida law. I personally don't know for a fact that it's the law anywhere, but concede it's possible it's the law somewhere in the US. Liquor laws are highly variable and often very weird. Some places in this country it's straight up illegal for anyone to even possess alcohol. Still I'd be incredibly surprised if requiring an ID was the law in most of the country. If I'm right and it's not, then its inclusion in the left hand list of the graphic is pretty misleading. Pennsylvania. Below is a direct quote from the state liquor control board website. "Nothing in the Liquor Code or the PLCB’s Regulations requires patrons to possess valid identification while on licensed premises. However, section 493 of the Liquor Code states that licensees are strictly liable for service to minors, including minors who may be on licensed premises with a parent, legal guardian, or under proper supervision. 47 P.S. § 4- 493(1). Verifying the age of a patron by checking identifications cards each and every time a patron is in the licensed establishment helps to ensure that a licensee will not be in violation of the law." I think it is a common misconception that requiring ID is a law. In most cases it is policy adopted by the particular business from a risk standpoint. Requiring ID will reduce the chance of them violating the law and getting fined or their license revoked. In some places having proof a valid ID was provided (scan data) will limit the punishment for serving a minor. As a matter of practicality, I have personally purchased liquor in more than ten states without providing identification.

It's possible. I just wonder what that law looks like that they are charged with breaking. Any law crafted so subjectively - "appears under 40" would have problems. It's legal to sell alcohol to a 35 year old that appears to be 40, but it's illegal to sell alcohol to a 35 year old that appears to be 35. It sounds like a bad law, but those do exist. The law in Florida is beside the point anyway. Even if a a few states actually have a law requiring establishments that sell alcohol to check or scan a valid government issued picture ID for every patron that doesn't really make the graphic any less misleading. There are a few states that require a photo ID to vote. You could put voting in the left hand column with purchasing alcohol or you could put purchasing alcohol in the right hand column with voting.

If someone casts a vote that is ineligible to vote the could also face punishment. Literally the entire list in your graphic is like this. Getting a prescription. My dentist gave me a prescription a couple weeks ago. I don't think I have ever shown him a photo ID. Possibly years ago when I first went to see him. When I went to have it filled I did so at a pharmacy I had never filled a prescription before and they didn't ask for ID. I had to give them my date of birth and they were somewhat concerned that my doctor had not put that on the prescription. They may have called him to verify between when I dropped it off and picked it up a couple days later. I did not show ID when picking it up either. Maybe in some states or for some medication it is required. I am sure many prescriptions are written every day for minors that don't have ID or elderly or sick individuals that simply cannot travel to the pharmacy themselves to fill it. They all get their medication without showing ID. Boarding a plane. Travelers under 18 years old do not have to show ID to the TSA. That's a lot of people. I personally have travelled by plane as an adult thrice post 9/11 without showing a photo ID. The first time I was 18 or 19 and didn't have a drivers license yet. I didn't have a state ID. This would have been within a year or two of 9/11. Not sure what I showed if anything to get my boarding pass. The other two times were in the past 10-12 years. Both times I had forgotten my ID or had temporarily lost it. I was given a pat down and extended screening, but allowed to travel. I may have showed something with my name on it like a credit card, but didn't have anything with a photo. I am sure if you lose your drivers license you will be allowed to board a plane in 2024. Applying for a Job. I don't think this is a thing either. I had several jobs before I had a drivers license. I think my sister even had a job before she was old enough to get a drivers license. The only "government issued" ID we would have had then was a student ID from the public high school we attended. I don't know if I provided that which would be an acceptable document for form I9, but a photo ID is not necessary. Proof of ID for ID is worded like this on I9 "ID card issued by federal, state or local government agencies or entities, provided it contains a photograph _or_ information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address". So it doesn't need to have a photograph on it at all and some of the listed options don't typically have a photograph, like a voter registration card. Show a voter card and your social security card and your Gucci for I9. Cashing a check. I am pretty sure there is no law on this. You might struggle to find someone willing to do it, but I believe it is theoretically possible. ... it's the whole entire list.

I am talking about today, but that link said nothing about requiring ID and I said nothing about underage drinking. I'm not talking about 20 years ago. I don't know any state that requires an alcohol sellers to check an ID before selling alcohol. Penalties I am aware of are for actually selling alcohol to minors. I think some States remove liability for the establishment if the patron provided a valid ID. This is also why some store will scan all IDs this way they have a record. I personally hate buying alcohol at these places because I don't want my information stored in their system and potentially in another data breach. I try to give ID as infrequently as possible. Secret shoppers are over 21, but may appear to be under 21. There is usually not a legal penalty for selling to one without checking the ID because you haven't broken the law. The shopper will tell the manager though and the employee that made the sale may be disciplined.

I never said anything about selling alcohol to minors. I never bought alcohol from a store as a minor. It often happens as a middle age man. Walk into to a bar order alcohol. Pay for alcohol. Consume alcohol. Leave. All very similar to how Willie described his voting experience in PA for the last presidential election, but even more anonymous. He had to identify himself by giving his name which was matched to a list. I have been served alcohol legally without giving my name or ID. I don't know what you're going on about with the common law marriage thing. You just say you're married no identification that's how it works - not everywhere but in some states. You can then file your taxes as married. No identification is provided when filing taxes. The only place that link you provided said anything about providing identification was when filing a name change, which was not on the original graphic and is also something that is not required when you get married. I suspect many places that ask for ID when filing for a marriage it isn't even really a requirement. The law probably is similar has an age limit so the ID is just proof that both parties are old enough to enter into marriage. A couple senior citizens go in there with the forms filled out and they breeze through. Someone brings a birth certificate instead of a drivers license and they are good to go. Some places might require photo ID too.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean pick something from the list of things the graphic purports ID is required for that it really isn't? An easy one would be getting married. Several states allow for common law marriage. You don't have to show anything to anyone for your marriage to be recognized by the state in a state that allows common law marriage. The two people that wish to be married simply start saying they are married and they are. Some states with common law marriage specify that the individuals need to cohabitate for a minimum period or be of a certain age, but there is still nothing which must be filed for the marriage to be legal and certainly no ID presented. Another one is buying alcohol. I have purchased alcohol many many times without presenting a valid ID. If someone suggested we should require ID for voting in the same way it's required to buy alcohol, that doesn't sound like it would be very secure at all. Underage people buy alcohol all the time in this country, I think almost everything in the list can be done without a valid ID. Which do you think really cannot in any of the United States?

The toughest tournament possible is a theoretical thing that has never been wrestled. I don't think anyone ever said that winning the Olympics without Russia is easy or even that the 74KG bracket will be easier than any 74kg bracket from any other year. You could probably find a 74kg World/Olympic bracket from some year and I would say yes it is tougher in 2024 than that year. It doesn't really matter though because it is easier than it should be and not for sporting reasons, doping, bad performances, objective rules, or a personal decision of any particular athlete to not compete. It is because the IOC doesn't like what some athletes might think about a particular war. So even if you find the easiest 74kg World/Olympic bracket in history I will probably still consider the champion the best wrestler in the world at that weight that particular year. If the Olympic champion this year never beats Sidakov and Sidakov wasn't allowed to compete that probably won't be the case in 2024.

Sidakov had already been selected as the rep before that match. Something like this could happen in the US too. Someone who won the trials in April or May could be beaten by an American at an event in July. It kind of happened in 2019 when Retherford won the trials over Diakomihalis and they both entered Yasar Dogu in July meeting in the first round. Diakomihalis won that match and ultimately the tournament whilst Retherford lost in the repechage finishing 7th. It's not exactly the same because those two met in the finals of the trials and the Yasar Dogu result was a reversal of that. Retherford didn't ultimately win worlds that year anyway. If Retherford had won I think most would have just said that we sent the right guy, but they were really close. Instead some people questioned our selection process and thought we should have sent Diakomihalis, which was in part because of their controversial trials series. Irregardless the World Champ doesn't have to be undefeated the entire year. He just needs to qualify/get selected by his country and then win the tournament. Sidakov did both. Bizhoev did neither. I know some countries might have a different selection processes and it is theoretically possible (not in the case of Retherford/Diakomihalis or even Sidakov/Bizhoev) for one wrestler be the best in the world and consistently winning everything simply to have the country's federation send someone else, but I can't think of a situation where that's happened. Countries have an interest in sending their best guy. When one wrestler is picked over another it's usually for a sporting reason though possibly a more subjective one. I think the US had something like this in the world team procedures one year. It was something like the national team coach could essentially invalidate the trials champ if the person wasn't a past world medalist and send the trials winner and another guy to some international tournament and whoever placed higher would wrestle at worlds. I don't think it was ever used if it was the rep didn't change.

The only one that kind of applies here is the third item in your list. Sidakov wasn't beaten out by someone from his country (1), he also didn't lose in the bracket (2), and he isn't injured (3) all of which are sporting related reasons and would seam to indicate he isn't the best in the world this year. He also didn't refuse to enter or wrestle (5) for any reason personal, political, or otherwise. The IOC told him he couldn't enter because they didn't like how he might think about something which is different. It is not a sporting reason at all and it isn't a decision Sidakov made If you tell the best guy in the world he can't enter because you don't like how he thinks it kind of changes the meaning of winning the event from any other year. Most years the World/Olympic champion is thought of as the best in the world that year. That won't exactly be the case this year and at this weight especially.

Looks like his last competition may have been 2019 in Cuba. Would be past 5 years now. Still probably a little behind some of the other names mentioned in both international and NCAA success. Definitely Askren and Herbert.

Literally half that stuff can be done without a photo ID. Probably over half. The partisan split on the topic of voter ID almost entirely boils down to the demographics of those who would need to get a photo ID in order to comply with the law and don't otherwise have one. This is essentially those without a driver's license which are disproportionately young people and/or residents in urban areas. These individuals have historically voted for Democrats at a higher rate than Republican candidates. If the reverse were true, Republicans might still be worried about election security but they wouldn't be pushing for laws requiring that photo ID be presented.