Like most of you I will not be in attendance. The ticket situation is grim and the press allocations seem difficult. Also, having just been in Rome for the Matteo Pellicone I'm smarter than to leave my family for another weekend. However, for those who are attending, I hope that there is some semblance of normalcy. There won't be loud cheers and pulsing crowds, but there still can be those unexpected conversations and light moments of connection that we've all been missing this past year.
Wrestling is about community and the NCAA tournament is our annual gathering spot. I've covered this in previous years, but in the late 19th and early 20th century there was something called "March Meetings" where farmers from across Vermont, New Hampshire, and other states would gather to discuss how best to get their goods to market and utilize each other's resources to cut costs. Travel to the event would take several days, as would travel home, so the men and boys would stay for a week or so chatting and plotting. However, as men left alone are prone to do, they also consumed a gargantuan amount of alcohol and challenged each other to wrestling matches.
The style of the day was Irish inspired collar-and-elbow so there were fun throws and plenty of pins. There was also gambling, fighting, and other crude side shows. As the meetings became more and more popular and necessary the extracurricular wrestling became a showcase for small communities to promote theirs as the toughest of local lots. Enter wrestling promotions!
There were posters, nicknames, and costumes of sort, but from what is known, the matches did not seem to be rigged. In fact, it was the bragging rights many famers sought and not the extra cash for competition.
Alas, all that is old is new again and this March as those who can migrate from their villages, towns, and cities they too will look to the center of the mat and see their representative taking battle for not much more than bragging rights. It's a simple sport and a simple concept, but it's fundamental to who we are and complaints about seeding and bracketing and COVID aside, it's our moment to connect, to cheer and to celebrate.
To your questions …
Gable Steveson is undefeated and seeded No. 1 at the NCAAs (Photo/Sam Janicki, SJanickiPhoto.com)Q: Is Gable Steveson the Hodge frontrunner after what he did to Mason Parris in the Big Ten finals?
-- Mike C.
Foley: Yes and I think he's the frontrunner to represent the United States at the 2021 Olympics in Tokyo.
Q: Any takeaways on the NCAA tournament seeds/brackets?
-- Mike C.
Foley: Bracketology is a sub-market of the larger sports industrial complex. It's profitable, exciting, and ultimately pointless but there are few things that get more thumbs rattling than a bad seed or a good draw.
The main takeaway is that there was a lot more parity among the conferences than I would have expected. The ACC is far better than its allotment and the Ivy-less EIWA was gifted a large number of spots. That's maybe not fair, but the NCAA did the best they could given COVID and the uncertain nature of the season.
A positive side effect of the wacky allotments was that some non-traditional programs were able to earn qualifications, including Sacred Heart and the newbie program Little Rock. That's an incredible opportunity for those programs to lift their profile in their respective athletic departments and possibly fundraise for their future.
MULTIMEDIA HALFTIME
Day 3 Matteo Pellicone Highlights
Vicky had a monster tournament
Q: What did you think of the calls/refereeing in the Burroughs vs. Chamizo match at the Matteo Pelicone?
-- Mike C.
Foley: The call was always going to be difficult. Once Chamizo starts scrambling he's constantly changing his points of contact and simultaneously endangering his opponent in ways that most fans and referees don't see very often. I think that the initial exchange was just so complicated to understand in real time (and wasn't reviewed) that there was no way a referee and fans could agree on what they were seeing.
Chamizo had three points of contact on the mat, but he also had Jordan's leg wrapped in his arm. The former is almost always a takedown. However, the latter prevents almost all takedowns from being called. Initially I thought it was a takedown and would have been called IF Chamizo hadn't made an explosive movement at the end of the exchange. If instead Chamizo had stalemated the position or they'd gone out of bounds together then Burroughs would have been given the exchange. As it was, the over-the-back throw was the difference maker.
As we were flying back I had the opportunity to chat with referees who all believe it should have been reviewed. In their estimation it would have either been white paddled for points or Burroughs would have been given two points. But without the benefit of the review, it wasn't possible to change the call. To be fair to the coaching staff it was so early and the expectation was for a lot of points to be scored so it wasn't seen as the most critical exchange, as it later became after very little offense.
I will say that Chamizo controlled the center and earned the passivity calls against Jordan. He set the tempo and walked Jordan back. He didn't take as many shots, but also remember that half shots aren't normally counted as heavily as control of the center.
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now