Dogbone

24 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Seeds and rankings aren't the same but I get your point.  

Agree, since we were discussing the potential NCAA seeds, I didn't make that distinction in my mind. 

EDIT: My response was in regard to a seed situation. I realize there is also a ranking discussion occurring that may have caused confusion

35 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

That's assuming he won't wrestle Hamiti in the Big 10 finals 

No its not.

32 minutes ago, ionel said:

 

He can wrestle Hamiti and still not have a win over a top wrestler. 

If he beats Hamiti the top 4 seeds will likely be Carr, KOT, Ramirez and MM.   If Carr wins Big 12s he will have a win over a top 4 seed and the same Hamiti win MM will have as B1G champ.  

3 hours ago, JimmyCinnabon said:

I have mentioned this before but how would this be different from last year when Aaron Brooks lost to Coleman of Cornell but won the B1G and was ranked #3 because two other guys were conference champs and undefeated? Everyone knew Aaron Brooks was the best guy at 184lbs but his loss dropped him to three. If Carr wins the conference and so does MM then Carr would be in the same position as Aaron Brooks last year, with a conference title but has a loss. How could they justify putting Carr at #1 when they did not give that benefit to a 2x defending champion last year who was in an identical situation? Since we have precedent (last year) what is the argument here to put a 1-loss Carr who won the Big12 over an undefeated Mesinbrink who won the B1G?

That isn't the same precedent and neither Hidlay nor Parker were undefeated.   Parker and Hidlay split with Parker winning the 2nd match.   All 3 had one loss.  

MM won't have a win over another top 4 guy. The Big 12 champ will.   I am not saying it is how it will play out but it was not same. 

28 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I wasn’t commenting on the difference in injuries.  Just that the poster said Cael was optimistic.   History shows that does not necessarily mean much.   Especially like a few hours after the injury.  

^^^ This ^^^ The reality is we may not know anything with regard to how healthy he is until NCAA 1st round, good or bad. 

Wishful thinking.   

Barring injury I don't see how Beau can finish as low as 7th.   

You still have them with 6 AAs and at least 2 finalist and a 3rd.   I don't think anyone can top that.  

Outside of getting the same flu Mizzou got, PSU will have it locked up before Saturday night. 

I'll take 125 lbs - all of them and none of them at the same time.  

55 minutes ago, KLCarnegieTech_1969 said:

 The absence of scoring is not stalling. 

That was your takeaway from my comments??

37 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I wouldn’t have hated if they called that, but gun to my head I’d say that TD was not imminent

I agree it was not imminent.  Was using it more of an example with regard to the stoppage. 

2 minutes ago, KLCarnegieTech_1969 said:

In most cases a claw ride, or a figure four and a power half are used to "break, incapacitate, or wear down the bottom man.  This, in my opinion is not stalling.  It's working to maintain an advantage over your opponent.  Parallel hips, not working to improve is stalling.  

I don't see the different between figuring four the leg and staying parallel.  Neither is trying to turn or break a guy down and both could be said you are incapacitate or wearing a guy down, heck if you are parallel you at least have already broken the guy down.    Both are stalling in my opinion. 

7 minutes ago, KLCarnegieTech_1969 said:

Refs did not assert themselves in the 70s and 80s like they do now.  They do more now to justify their existence.  It isn't necessary to constantly be told where to wrestle on the mat, to keep it legal, to get out of the fingers and to work to improve.  Refs were there to make sure the wrestlers were safe and followed basic rules of engagement.  Now that they are mik'ed up they probably play to the listening audience.  

I think you are hearing that more because Refs are mik'ed up.   Refs have been saying work to improve, keep it legal, etc. forever.  You just couldn't hear it as much before. 

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I think the official explanation for Bartlett/Hardy was technically that the ref thought Bartlett was indicating he was injured…

Different situations of course but I believe Askren’s argument was potentially dangerous shouldn’t exist at all.   Starocci kinda just proved it should. 
 

Edit:  but you should be called for stalling if you put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation more than once.

 

Not to re-litigate the Hardy/Bartlett call but if a guy calls out for injury time and the TD is imminent then I think the points should be awarded.  Okay with stopping the action to prevent injury but not points.  

Some injuries are not preventable by PD, but I am not sure that means we should eliminate PD.

What I think is stalling on top is clearly not in NCAA.  As mentioned, it is not called consistently either.

Hopefully it was just precautionary and he was freaking out a bit and it's not that serious.   

I don't know how anyone can relate this to the potentially dangerous call in the Hardy/Bartlett match.  This one happened so fast and Star does put himself there while going for the pin.  

5 minutes ago, Threadkilla said:

 

I agree,  but Lovett had nothing to gain by a pushout.   It was odd but Nebraska didn't dispute it.  

The first stalling call on Lovett in the 1st period was worse as I don't think Parco had taken a shot, yet, so when the 2nd one was called it was a point and allowed Parco to stall out the rest of the match.  

I don't think the 2nd stall call was that bad as Lovett is just trying to push out, but it would nice if that was called consistently as that happens 90% time when someone gets to the edge.  It is even worse in top/bottom position in my opinion. 

Angel making sure everyone knows he is reffing.  Is there an award for the most questionable calls? 

Just now, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Does Cael's loss from his redshirt year count?  Does "undefeated" have an asterisk next to it?  He was enrolled, at Iowa State, there was a referee, they had a match at a collegiate tournament.

No... because they both wrestled under the rules of the day.

If KOT would of RS this would be a good argument but he didn't.  He entered the NCAA tournament and will get 5 chances to win 4.   We can't say he hypothetically would of RS'd so we are just ignoring the result. 

IF he wins 4 titles he will be in the discussion with the other 4 timers.  People have ranked Logan lower (of the 4 timers) due to his freshman year and argued Dake's 4 in 4 years makes his more impressive than the others who didn't RS. No one is going to take away any KOT titles but it will be looked at differently. 

If you get 5 chances and win 4 of them and everyone else had 4 chances and won all 4, it is absolutely an asterisk. 

I know they have said he only went because it was a free year, but we don't know that faced with a normal eligibility rules they would of kept the RS on the 3rd best wrestler in the country that year.    Sure when the year didn't count it is a no brainer, but the decision to sit a high AA caliber guy isn't as easy. 

Gabe Arnold isn't even at his ideal weight and there is discussion about pulling his RS because he very well could be a high AA finish. 

7 minutes ago, charmon55 said:

Im surprised so many people are picking Ayala to win. Spratley has looked really good as of late while Ayala has been battling an illness. I still give the edge to Ayala but would not be surprised at all if Spratley wins

Its 125 so who really knows.    I debated picking the upset for the reasons you listed but picked Ayala because I think he is a tier above, if there is such a thing as tiers at 125 this year. 

Ayala dec. Spratly 3-0 IA

Fix md. Iowa 4-3 OSU

Woods dec. Jamison 6-4 IA

Rathjen dec. Williams 9-4 IA

Travis dec. Franek 9-7 IA

Olejnik dec. Caliendo 10-9 OSU

Kennedy dec. Thomspon 12-10 IA

Plott dec. Arnold 13-12 OSU (Plott Majors Riggins 14-12 OSU, if he goes)

Glazier dec. Surber 15-13 IA

Doucer dec. Hill 16-15 OSU. 

I got it 5 matches to 5 with the only bonus at 133 unless Riggins goes at 184.  Lot's of toss ups, but give me the home team.    I won't be shocked if I am wrong on 125, 149, 157, 165, 174, 197, or HWT. 

Should an undefeated Big 12 HWT get the #1 seed?   I know Kerk is ranked #1 and he is my pick but he has only wrestled 11 matches. 

The Big 12 has currently 3 undefeated guys all with at least 19 wins.   Elam and Batista should go this weekend and of course Kerk beat Henderson at the All-Star dual, which doesn't "count."

With the Big 12 having #2, #3, #5, #10 and #11 in Intermat's current rankings, does an undefeated Big 12 champ deserve the #1 seed at NCAAs?

14 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I think he burns the shirt if he beats Plott.  If he does, then while it’s not guaranteed, he’d have a good shot at placing top 4.

It makes sense.  

I think I am just assuming if he is that good up a weight he could be a finalist contender at 174 (not beating Star, imo).

To say it another way, if they decided at the beginning of the year he was going to go, it would probably of been at 174 and to wait unit after the last dual to decide and do it up at 184 seems like an odd decision.    Especially considering Kennedy does not seem like a high AA threat at 174. 

I am not saying Iowa is doing anything wrong and Kennedy at 174 and Arnold at 184 is probably their best dual team, but I am not sure it is best for tournament scoring or for Arnold.  But if he wants to go, then more power to him. 

11 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

Iowa is supposed to trophy. thats the explanation. 

Then why would the decision be his alone?   As @dragit mentioned there is no guarantee he AAs even if he keeps it close with Plott in the dual.  

I don't think I understand the logic of burning his RS to wrestle up a weight.  If he can beat Kennedy in the room and wants to go, shouldn't he have the chance at 174 or is Kennedy beating him?  

If he burns his RS it will be with 3 matches at 184.   I am surprised Iowa coaches aren't taking a long term view with him.   I think he is going to great and his team points might matter in 3-4 years. 

3 minutes ago, jchapman said:

George Mehnert won two Olympic Golds.

Evey one knows the 1904 games have an asterisk due to the Russo-Japense war. 

3 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

Who would it be for New Jersey? Jordan Burroughs right?

I would think only Bruce Baumgartner could make an argument against JB.