Wrestleknownothing

BTW, SocraTease does make an excellent point about Flo's Hodge watch list. It is absurd that Hendrickson is not on the list. But is it? Record is a factor and officially Hendrickson is undefeated. But as Rader points out in his article, since the Hodge is now based on a broad vote, voters have a tendency to not ignore the results of the All-Star Classic. So, strike one. That said, based on just D1 official matches he would probably be top of their list. He is currently fourth on Wrestlestat's list (which uses completely different criteria). But, all Hendrickson needs to do, apparently, is win a title to become a Hodge finalist. Last year all 10 titlists were finalists, even though three of them had a loss (Diakomihalis, Arujau, Brooks) and one of them had two losses (O'Toole).

Your complaint is with PIAA, not Flo. PIAA sold the rights. They did not have to, they chose to.

Maybe it is just me, but it seems like more often than used to be the case, we are voting against a candidate rather than voting for a candidate. I know that has been the case for me in the past several presidential elections. But I am of the opposite view. I will hold my nose and vote for Biden because I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Trump.

People want to demonize Flo for purchasing the broadcast rights to PIAA, but they can only buy what the PIAA was willing to sell.

No, unless the cancellation causes the entity that is owed money to become bankrupt, once a debt is cancelled it is cancelled. And the government is not eligible for bankruptcy protection. One thing to note is none of these cancellations are through new programs created by the Biden administration. In some cases they are just being proactive with existing programs and in others they are just claiming credit for things that have always happened and would have happened no matter who was president.

You contradict yourself so many times here, it is hard to respond. For example, how do you "make them weighted as a percentage" and not "reflect narrow statistical goals"?

https://www.win-magazine.com/win-awards/hodge-trophy/nick-ackerman-2001-hodge-trophy-winner/

If you want to send your $ Trump you are already too late: https://gettrumpsneakers.com/

Neither his division nor his losses were the most interesting thing about him.

I'm potentially dangerous is gold.

the only stuff I have is at the tournament. nothing for the regular season. I will look later.

I was hacked

Steveson really is not an exception anymore. Of the last 10 Hodge winners, half did not lead in pinfalls among the finalists. I chose 2012 as the starting point because that appears to be when the voting method changed. It went from a handful of people as part of a committee to a committee plus the vote of past Hodge winners. Ultimately, a fan vote was added to.

Steveson won with 1 pin. Pins have been de-emphasized for some time.

Bodybag as a verb? A+.

This is not without precedence. Martin Shkreli spent 4 years in prison for securities fraud even though no one lost money, and some investors made money. Sam Bankman-Fried has been convicted of fraud even though there may be a full recovery in the FTX bankruptcy. In short, it has never been the case that the lack of losses means there was no fraud. Yes, it is typical in cases of fraud that there are investors you can point to and say they lost money. But, if you are lucky enough to make money for investors despite your fraud, it does not negate the fraud. Never has. Never will. Luck is no defense. It is just a horrible idea to have an "investors must lose money" test to establish fraud.

There has been a #1 seed lose in the first round as recently as 2007, so......

There is no set criteria for seeding the B1G tournie. Instead it is based on a coaches' vote. So hard to say for sure which matters more. Also hard to say if they just consider conference results. If so, then the Smith win over Ramos would not matter as it was at CKLV. With Ramos 8-0 in conference I have to believe he is the top seed. But after that it gets messy. You have five guys with 2 conference losses (Ayala 5-2, Barnett 6-2, Davis 6-2, DeAugustino 5-2, McCrone 5-2) and two guys with three conference losses (McKee 4-3, Smith 4-3). But, both three loss guys have each beaten two loss guys and Ayala did not wrestle Barnett. Smith has beaten 2 two loss guys (Davis, DeAugustino) and lost to 2 two loss guys (Ayala, Barnett) and the other three loss guy (McKee). McKee losses are to the lone conference undefeated (Ramos), one of the two loss guys (Barnett) and a four loss guy (Peterson). I think that loss to Peterson is what causes him to be seeded below Smith. But the real question is do they put any of the three conference loss guys ahead of any of the two conference loss guys? Among the 2 loss guys, McCrone clearly has the weakest resume. I can see them elevating both McKee and Smith above McCrone. With wins over Davis and DeAugustino, maybe Smith even bumps over them. But with conference losses to Ayala and Barnett, I do not see Smith being above those two. So call it a range of 4 to 8 for Smith's seed.

Awesome stuff, @bracketbuster

Indeed, but we have some newbies, so I thought I would give them some context. But if I recall correctly they didn't have first place that year because PSU wasn't trying. Isn't that right?

PSU bonus points in the Sanderson era. Last year was their lowest other than the punt year and first year.

As a huge PSU fan I can confirm that they are getting all the calls because that is what is right and just.

Yes, 2022

You must be new around here.