TylerDurden

If Brands is your standard-bearer...

Lincoln McIlravy is one of my all-time favorite wrestlers. Thanks for posting.

They failed at that task.

You aren't addressing me, but I think he's going to bonus everyone he sees. The B1G tournament stuff was all Cael voodoo, Jedi mind tricks.

Sneaky, sneaky

The side of the bracket isn't the issue. It's the actual seed line.

Notably, being a conference champion is not subjective. Neither is the performance in the last five matches, being outside of the top 30 coaches rank / RPI top 30, nor a "bad loss" to a wrestler with a <.500 win percentage. The only relatively subjective things on the "Subjective Considerations" list are best quality win (unless that's defined elsewhere) and wrestler availability. Perhaps is was a poorly labeled slide, but all but of couple of these are objective considerations.

I'll be honest, after seeing the draws I jumped right to Noto as a sleeper. But you're right, 125 results shouldn't surprise any of us.

Here goes nothing. Also, I get bonus points for being the first entry, yes? 125 | 18 DeAugustino 133 | 24 Chlebove 141 | 23 Fongaro 149 | 20 Williams 157 | 18 Zerban 165 | 21 Fish 174 | 22 Mocco 184 | 18 Rogotzke 197 | 21 Stout 285 | 26 Catka

I do appreciate how you couldn't give Brooks an L, even in a 2/10 troll.

On that note...Here are the lowest seeds I can see making the final. I don't necessarily think they will, but I do think these guys have the draws to make it happen if things go their way. 125 | 12 Noto 133 | 12 Latona 141 | 7 Happel 149 | 9 Swiderski 157 | 11 Lee 165 | 6 Caliendo 174 | 9 Starocci 184 | 14 Foca 197 | 3 Sloan 285 | 4 Schultz

Post your unlikely, but bracket-busting upset picks: 133 Bouzakis over Fix

I understand the NCAA criteria and why they decided to seed him there, but it's also asinine that the system they have in place is so rigid and/or the committee is too lazy to actually seed the tournament this way. No sane person thinks that Carter Starocci is the ninth-best wrestler or even had the ninth-best season at 174 this year. I have no issues with knocking him down from the No. 1 seed because of his "losses," but convince anyone that No. 7 seed Lennox Wolak, who lost to Michigan State's Matt Larkin, 7-0, should be seeded higher than Carter Starocci. Neither should No. 6 seed Rocco Welsh, who Starocci beat in the dual...or No. 8 seed Adam Kemp, who got beat by a kid redshirting at Purdue. The seeding committed just f-ed up the entire bracket and screwed the No. 1 seed - who lost to Starocci 11-0 in a match that didn't count.

And it's still asinine to seed him 9th, although it's hard not to mention that they gave him the de facto No. 1 seed after he beats Mekhi.

I know you're trying to be cheeky, but no, he did not. We already went over the semantics.

This is completely asinine. You can't justify this even if you acted like Starocci actually lost two matches at the B1G.

He beat Wilson when they wrestled. You can't say he's better because that's how you feel. The toed the line and Wilson lost. Wilson's problem was Wilson and no one else's. This emphasis on what happened at the B1Gs is ignoring the rest of his underwhelming season. He had plenty of opportunities throughout the year that he didn't take advantage of. It's his fault and his fault alone that the didn't get in.

This. I don't really understand why people use this sort of logic in false outrage. They externalize everything as if they had no control of their own actions. Wilson can only blame Wilson for not qualifying.

You're being kind to Beard.

A regular Lewan.

Typically the rationale for rotations is to help grow the sport and provide incentive for administrations to invest in the program. How much that holds true at the B1G level, I don't know.

One would have to imagine that Cael and Co., asked for and received some clarification prior to making the Starocci/B1G decision, right? The NCAA committees have been known to provide clarifications about the process to the conferences/schools that aren't made public. Perhaps this issue is one of those times.

It's not my framing, it's true: Yes, Zalesky won three titles...in 98, 99, 00, which were his first three years after inheriting the program from Gable, who had won the previous three titles and six of the last seven. That's a far cry from what Brands took over, which was finishes of 4, 7, 2, 8, 4. Your data is using averages and not looking at trends. So no, it's not that close. Besides that, this is a vastly different environment than the late 90s. I won't touch your conspiracies about Brands and the Iowa job, but I don't think that helps Zalesky's case either.

Speak for yourself.

These takes are silly. And no, Zalesky has not "done better" than the Brands Bros. Remember, Zalesky inherited a program from Gable. Brands inherited one from Zalesky. Also, Penn State under Cael has existed all but a couple years that Brands has been the head coach. If you're upset that Cael has outperformed Iowa, fine, but the reality is that what Cael is doing has only been matched one time and I don't personally see another coach out there who can match Cael and Co. in recruiting/development. Brands may not be likeable to everyone, but if you fire him, you're an idiot. Just because he hasn't replicated Gable's success doesn't mean he's a failure. I'm expecting a much better Iowa team next season and I'm saying that expecting them to finish in the top four at this year's NCAA.