Wrestleknownothing

One more I like:

With the World Championships wrapped up and the College season about 6 weeks away, it is time to start revving the NCAA engine a little. Let's start by looking at All-Americans. And let's get this out of the way up front. Yes, I include the top 8 seeds from the cancelled 2020 tournament. So sue me. AA Trivia There have been 190 schools with at least one All-American. A total of 5,590 All-American honors have been shared by 3,307 wrestlers (or perhaps fewer if I have some mis-spellings). In 1981 there were only 79 All-Americans as there was no 8th place awarded at 134. Oklahoma State, at 480 AA's, is a full 32.6% ahead of Iowa's 362. The longest active streak of consecutive years with at least one All-American belongs to Iowa at 52 years. The longest dry spell is Army at 15 years. They last had an AA in 2008 (Matt Kyler, 141). The Top 5 At each team's current pace (average of 2022 and 2023): Iowa will overtake Oklahoma State for the all time lead in 2057. Penn State will overtake Iowa in 2101. Cael Sanderson will be 121 years old and still wondering if Christian Pyle has a plan. AA's By Total Wrestlers with 5 AAs: 6 Wrestlers with 4 AAs: 171 Wrestlers with 3 AAs: 447 Wrestlers with 2 AAs: 852 Wrestlers with 1 AAs: 1,830 Probability of AA by Year We are used to 33 man brackets with 8 AA's per bracket (~24%), but it wasn't always that way. Using the rules that existed at the time and @Jason Bryant's participation stats by year, the most difficult year to AA was 1970 when only 15% of wrestlers earned AA status. Where the AA's Come From Not every AA was a top 8 seed to begin with. Below is the percentage of AA's by seed (left column) and broken into the seeding eras. What Is A Top 8 Seed Worth? Seven of the past nine years have been hard on Top 8 seeds. From 2014 to present, only 2017 and 2019 saw them perform above trend.

Making up for Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher?

Yes, Kerk spent the prior year getting bigger, not smaller.

Instinctively I did stand. And then I thought, "what the hell am I doing?" And the Afghan gentleman to my right was busy telling me how much better Afghanistan is since the Americans left, so I was too diatracted to throw a collar tie on my wife.

Those franks on the fire Are getting bigger and higher They're Ball Park Franks They plump when you cook 'em Ball Park Franks

"Everyone stand for the UWW anthem" was the funniest thing I saw this week.

I get it. Do as we say, not as we do. There is nothing you can say to convince me that the NCAA has any moral authority to take a season of eligibility from someone who gambled with $195 and his winnings on $195. It is not the right punishment for breaking the rule in the way he did. If they were worried about him being led down a wayward path over $195 they would not be standing silently by while their member institutions signed deals with gambling sites and casinos to recruit kids on campus to become gamblers. It is like a bunch of posters on here have Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to the NCAA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/20/business/caesars-sports-betting-universities-colleges.html It seems there are a number of universities that disagree with you. "After Louisiana State University signed a similar deal in 2021 with Caesars, the university sent an email encouraging recipients — including some students who were under 21 and couldn’t legally gamble — to “place your first bet (and earn your first bonus).” "So far, at least eight universities have become partners with online sports-betting companies, or sportsbooks, many in the last year, with more expected." "In addition, at least a dozen athletic departments and booster clubs have signed agreements with brick-and-mortar casinos." It's not about the money. It's about the f'n money.

Length of time for the rule has nothing to do with anything I said. What I expect is prosecutorial discretion. Which, by the way, is exactly what the NCAA did in this instance. I just disagree with what they chose as the punishment for what is parallel to a moving violation in my opinion. But make no mistake that the punishment portion of the rule is brand new and it was decided upon AFTER the NCAA was alerted to this investigation and then made retroactive to BEFORE they knew certain violations had occured. The NCAA is absolutely conflicted (there are billions involved for them and their member institutioms) and hypocritical (they decided the punishment after they knew the crime, but pretend it is otherwise while also pretending it is not about the money).

You weren't wrong about 3, just 1 and 2. Now do the part where you admit that. And 1 and 2 are categorically different than 3. No one disputes that the rule against gambling exists. No one thinks that Nelson Brands is not guilty of breaking NCAA rules. I do think the NCAA penalty is too harsh. That is partially because I think the NCAA is conflicted and hypocritical on this issue. I do not think this is directly about the purity of sport as they would have you believe. I do think this is about the long term, existential threat to TV rights contracts if the NCAA is perceived to not be tough on gambling.

@Jason Bryant Thank you for filling in so many blanks. And for everyone who wasn't in the arena, I got a chuckle from the Serbian announcer. He started out fairly monotone, but the began to mimic JB's more weatern style (or maybe it was a different announcer). Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But you win the announcing game by pinfall.

@D3 for LU, @ILLINIWrestlingBlog, @nhs67 Yeoman's work this past week and a half. Thank you for all the commentary, pbp, and info.

Allow me, a PSU fan, to quote myself @Jimmy Cinnabon Sweep those generalities somewhere else.

I think Brands was 23 when he started gambling and I do not recall anyone claiming he used alias.

Casinos don't like people to play wisely

I don't think inside information is applicable here. Most people think inside information in the US is about fairness, but it is actually about theft. Using information that does not belong to you to profit in capital markets is the crime. The idea is that it harms capital formation if it is allowed to happen. And capital formation is valuable to an economy. I do not think that applies in any way to betting markets which are not viewed as having a similar importance. I am not aware of any laws that disallow betting based on an information advantage. As a matter of fact it is legal in some jurisdictions to "cheat" at casino games. But it is also legal for casinos to ban you if they think you are doing things like counting cards.

57kg: Arujau - Arujau is just too fast and too technically sound for the field, even a helathy S. Lee 65kg: Lee - Lee has Diakomihalis' number, and now he has shown he can figure McKenna out. He may have been 7th at Worlds, but he was the third best 65 wrestler there. 74kg: Dake - this one worries me a bit. Something looked a tad off to me at Worlds. Is that what it was? Just a tad off. Or is time starting to move in the same direction for Dake as it is the rest of us? 86kg: Taylor - Too big, too strong, too fast for anyone in the world right now, and I do not see that changing in the next year. 97kg: Snyder - I do not see anyone domestically close to Snyder. 125kg: Parris - Parris showed his chops in Belgrade. The real deal internationally and a clear number one domestically. Rumor has it that there is a minor league, pretend wrestler who can challenge him, but for that to happen he would need to get a permission slip signed by his boss.

Seems like a Non Wrestling Topics post

I Iove that this thread is now at 95 pages.

It never ceases to amaze me that in a sport where 100% of athletes get injured, some do not want to believe it when an athlete says they are injured.

Should read 2-1

chef's kiss

Ok, I have wasted my entire lunch thinking about this. By weight the entrants in the MFS were: LARGE BRACKETS 57 kg, 65 kg, 74 kg, 86 kg, 97 kg, and 125 kg (the Olympic weights) are essentially 64 man brackets. In all cases when semifinals are complete, the repechage brackets can be constructed by best record, with tie breakers, to determine the six eligible wrestlers. Using 65 kg and 86 kg as examples, the records this year break down as follows: In both cases all wrestlers with 3-1 records make the repechage. We then use the current tie breaker system for places 7-10 to choose which two wrestlers at 65 kg, and four wrestlers at 86 kg, among those with 1-1 records makes repechage. Sticking with the easy example, 65 kg would result in Kazakhstan, Bahrain, and Belgium (all 0-1) being replaced with Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and USA (all 3-1) in the repechage. This is probably the most egregious example, 37.5% of the wrestlers eligible to finish third got there by failing to win a match. Said another way, more than half of the wrestlers at 65 kg outperformed these three wrestlers, but were blocked from placing third by them. Silliness. Note: it is also possible Japan at 2-1 would be replaced, depending on the tie breakers. In 92 kg two 0-1 wrestlers would be dropped for two 2-1 wrestlers. And perhaps there would be some swapping of 2-1 wrestlers, again tie breaker dependent. SMALL BRACKETS For 61, 70, 27, and 92 the math works out differently because they are essentially 32 man brackets with different possible records. Using 92 kg this year it looks like this: Note: while it did not happen in these brackets, it is possible to be 5-0 in large brackets or 4-0 in small brackets after semis. In 92 kg this year it is not clear that anything would change as all repechage participants won at least one match in the championship brackets (2 in the Qualifying/Pig Tail round / 2 in the 1/8 Final round). It would depend on the aforementioned tie breakers.