BAC

You lost me as well, especially with the injury stuff. You seriously don’t think Lee practices with 133lb’ers? Probably 141lb’ers at times too. You’d think I were suggesting that Lee bump up to get bow and arrowed by Dean at 197. It’s especially crazy considering RBY’s style. If Lee loses, it’ll be because RBY is too fast, cutting him after TDs, and Lee never gets on top. RBY will want nothing to do wrestling with Lee on the mat, size difference or not. And the “risking his reputation” stuff may matter to insecure Iowa fanboys but I think Lee is too prideful to let it impact him, especially when it may help the team. And it isn’t like Lee hasn’t taken losses before — he has several, but always gets it done in March. I don’t see why this is any different. No one will say “he is a 4xer but he lost to RBY” — not when he has worse losses already on his resume. It’s more likely people would say “he is a 4x’er AND he bumped up a weight to put it on the line against a 2/3x’er when the team needed him.” He doesn’t even need to win for that to be another feather in his cap. And if you are Brands, do you really want to instill doubt in your thoroughbred by telling him you don’t think he can compete with RBY? Brands should be careful how he plays his cards here. Yes, as a fan I want to see it, but it’s easy to see why it makes sense from Lee and Iowa’s perspective too. I see lots of PSU fans urging Lee to stay at 125, which I get because they are used to giving up 5 or 6 at that weight anyway, only for RBY to even the score. But I hope Cael and company welcome the challenge and agree to start the dual at 141 if Iowa asks, to give this a chance to happen.

Well he beat Kemmerer. Hopefully you don’t have him buried down in tier 4 too. He and Lewis are easily the two best 174bers in the past 2 years and Labriola has wins over both. And wins over other top 10 guys like Lautt, Smith, Truax, Romero, Bullard, Massa, etc., with 3 AA finishes including a 3rd. So yeah… those wins. (That, and he is undefeated this year and ranked #2 by all ranking services.) The only guy he is arguably not on the same tier as is Starocci, and even that is debatable as Labriola has wins over every guy to have ever beaten Starocci (Kemmerer, Washington) or taken him to OT (Lewis), and Labriola himself took Starocci to OT. That suggests they are in reaching distance of each other, which is what a tier system is about. Trying to find a marginal bad loss or two for Labriola from prior seasons does not magically pull him out of a tier of guys he has *proven* on the mat he can beat. Especially when, as someone pointed out, Starocci lost to Washington, which by your “bad loss” theory should drop Starocci to tier 3.

Responding to some criticisms … — fair point about Ayala’s shirt but throw out Ybarra instead, who is still a heavy favorite over Steen. Ybarra just beat Cory Land up at 133 and Steen is way undersized at 125. I have to think Brands has been keeping Ybarra’s weight within reaching distance in the event of a Lee injury. Ybarra likely bonuses Steen. — Iowa likely needs this. PSU has 4 champs, another #1 guy, and is favored at 157. Iowa likely needs to take 2 of those to win. Maybe Cass/Warner can take one between them, maybe, but they need another. It’s a huge swing if Lee pulls it off. — if they aren’t sure they can have the dual end at 133 so they have the option. Cael could say no but I doubt he would. Neither he nor Tom are big on duals but both are advocates of filling up the arena. — whoever suggested I am questioning Lee’s toughness or team loyalty, you are mistaken. I think Lee would consider doing this precisely because he IS tough and willing to make sacrifices for his team. I’m a big fan. The only hits his reputation have been from inside the Iowa bubble (eg that he is a prima donna who won’t practice with the team and/or is resentful over having to wrestle a teammate), and this is a good way to silence those ungrateful critics. — the only one with anything to lose here is RBY. Lee is poised to be a 4x’er, but even Iowa fans aren’t picking him over RBY. If RBY wins, people will have expected it. It Lee wins he has the Hodge locked up, if he loses, it gets thrown out as an off-weight loss, or at worst leads to him sharing the Hodge with Yianni as 1-loss 4xers. Lee should want this. But I don’t think RBY ducks Lee if he comes for him. — the reasons to make this happen are countless. Duals don’t matter, but this is effectively the dual meet championship. They are both seniors. The two most decorated wrestlers in a single NCAA match ever. Whatever the outcome, there would be an outpouring of respect for both. It should happen.

Happy to discuss. The results you are ignoring are wins. If a guys tier is only as good as his worst loss, that means Brooks and Griffith are tier 3. Smith is no worse a loss than Coleman or the ND State kid — and Smith was LAST year. It makes no sense. Labriola’s wins are way too impressive and recent to put him anywhere other than tier 1, or at worst just below Starocci.

It’s Iowa’s only real chance to win the dual. They can throw in Ayala to get the major at 125. Even if Lee loses by dec, it is a wash, but if he wins Iowa can pull off the upset. This should happen. I realize there are lots of excuses in the Iowa camp why it won’t happen. Lee has only been back from injury for a few weeks; he is too small; it might hurt his confidence for NCAAs; it hurts his legacy. But about that legacy. How does Lee want to be remembered? As the guy from the other weekend, who got salty at his coaches for having to wrestle a teammate, and bow isn’t willing to bump up to help his team win a dual? Or as the “excuses are for wusses” guy who put it on the line for glory and a big dual win? It’s their last year. Their last big dual. They can mail in techs or they can do something memorable — for the ages. It would be a new record for the most NCAA titles on the mat at the same time. I’m sure RBY would welcome it. What about you Spencer?

It seems to me you're using a definition of "tiers" that no one else uses, and you're allowing your subjective opinion of who's likely to beat who override the actual facts of who's beaten who. But the last time I checked the internet wasn't giving out prizes for winning arguments, so lets agree to disagree. I'd have Starocci/Lewis/Labriola tier 1, and the guys ranked #4-12 in tier 2. I could be convinced to give Starocci his own tier, but there's not enough separation between the others to create any other tier levels within the top 12 or so.

Yeah I don't understand that. I'd have Foca with the group you have in tier 4. What has Foca ever done to outshine the guys in your tier 4? Lewis and Starocci are defensive-minded wrestlers. Wrestling them close is no great accomplishment; beating them is. Foca's elite-win list is paper thin, with one career win at NCAAs. Its debatable whether he even deserves to be in O'Malley's tier, a guy who's owned Foca for years. I'd also have Labs in the same tier as Lewis. The guy is a 3x AA including a 3rd place finish, is unbeaten this year, has a win over Lewis barely a month ago, countless other top-10 wins (including Kemerer), and is the undisputed #2 ranked guy behind Starocci. What else does he have to do to show he's enough in the same ballpark as Lewis to be in the same "tier"?

I feel like a shout-out to ND State is overdue too. They have 5 guys in the top 20, and are coming off a 2nd place finish at the Scuffle. This Caliendo kid is just a redshirt freshman. Coach Kish and his team must really be coaching these kids up. Kudos.

Starocci aside, I'm surprised to see so many guys putting Foca in the same tier as Labs and Lewis. Lewis is a NCAA champion and 2x finalist. Labriola is 3x AA, unbeaten this year with a win over Lewis. Foca? He's a 0x AA with only one win in his *career* over a top 10 guy (ranked #8). He's a solid wrestler and may well AA this year, but jeez, lets let him get on the podium at least once before we start putting him in the same "tier" as NCAA champs.

I’m surprised to see so much support for a rule change. What injury has taken place that would justify rules that have worked for decades? Is pain-avoidance really reason enough to abolish a move, even where injury risk is low and it has been part of the sport for countless years without incident? I disagree it is a “punishment move.” If that is all it is, it would be stalling. I also disagree it works only if your opponent succumbs to the pain. Like a power half, an effective bow and arrow is about leverage and technique. The pain is a little extra encouragement, but better wrestlers can resist that. The move works if done properly because, pain aside, they have no choice. True, if done poorly it can seem like your are just torquing on the opponent, but the novel likely won’t work unless the other guy is a fish. A bow and arrow is infrequently seen because few do it well. Eric Guerrero was very effective with it internationally, Zain and Max are more recent effective practitioners, and I think it is very unfair to say they are somehow using brutish tactics. If other wrestlers were as good with it as they are, they’d use it too. All that said, it is always fair to discuss this at the margins — eg what angle merits a stoppage, when you move the ankle after posting it, etc. We can always refine and improve. Rule differences between HS and NCAA, and UWW for that matter, always merit reexamination. But to those advocating abolition because it is “cruel” or a “punishment” and nothing else, I’m sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more.

My theory isn't the only explanation, but I do think its part of it. You said it yourself in the other thread, when commenting snarkily on Smith's explanation that they are fighting sickness/injuries: "Apparently only returning AA’s are susceptible to such ailments." Indeed. Quite a statistical anomaly, isn't it, that its always the most accomplished wrestlers who suddenly get banged up or sick over the holidays? And always the highest-ranked teams who can't be troubled to bring travel to an out-of-state tournament with their starters over the holidays? You never wondered why? There's other factors driving this too, of course. Coaches want their best guys healthy in March and, with the RPI system, wrestlers and coaches know with more certainty what they need to do to qualify for Nationals -- which makes it easier to rationalize bailing out over the holidays. But Smith himself, in his interview on Flo, says he's far more deferential now than he used to be when guys come to him saying they want to take a pass on a dual or tournament. (And he does NOT say his three scratches wanted to come to the Scuffle. He says it was day to day and that it was a joint decision, but implies it was initiated/driven by the wrestler and it isn't his place to question it.) Smith also rebuts your comment that "Athletes having more leverage would mean more competing, not less." He was commenting that his newer wrestlers preferred a shortened season with fewer competitions. And in general, I think you're overstating how much wrestlers spend their holidays cutting weight and traveling to some far-flung place, as opposed to seeing family, getting some rest and maybe nomming on some turkey. But again, its the top wrestlers who have the most bargaining power. Not only can they enter the portal on the drop of a dime, coaches also know that other schools' boosters could be dangling NIL money in front of them. Coaches know this. So if the wrestler has the leverage to skip the holiday tournament without any blowback, there's a good chance he'll use it.

On Flo radio, they were saying the procedures are being changed this year, such that they'll only have a WTT for weights in which there wasn't a medalist. Instead, Final X will consist of the returning medalist, and the winner of the US Open. As a result, WTTs will only be contested for 61kg and HWT in men's freestyle. Do I have this right? Maybe that's common knowledge but if so I missed it. Is the plan that the two US Open finalists (plus the returning medalist) will comprise the "world team members" for the other 8 weights? Kind of a bummer since WTTs is one of my favorite events, and part of me hates to see it watered down to that extent. But I also see the logic, since the US Open has slipped in relevance these past several years, where it seemed like its only real point in attending for many was to nab a top-8 spot to qualify for trials -- and those who were already qualified would skip it.

Another Midlands name that deserves a shout-out is WVU's true freshman Brody Conley at 174. Lost early 3-1 SV to Illinois' #1 seed Edmund Ruth (who won), and came back for third -- easily. He's 15-1 on the year and though he hasn't faced anyone in the top 20 outside of Ruth, he hasn't had many close matches either.

I feel ya. A little less depth means a less excitement. My theory what we're seeing is the natural result of the power-shift between schools and top athletes that's taken place over the last few years. Between NIL and the transfer portal, the best athletes have a lot of bargaining power. And if they want to go home for the holidays, its harder for schools to say no. Why do I say that? Because the guys who aren't traveling to holiday tournaments are the very best guys/teams. Everyone else is still going. Look at last year's top 3 teams. Michigan hasn't competed since 12/3 -- over a month off. PSU hasn't competed over the holidays in a while, and the Scuffle hasn't been the same since. Iowa competed, but could no longer be troubled to travel, insisting on staying home for the glorified intra-squad wrestle-off that they tried to pass off as a tournament. Look at two other top teams this year, ISU and Missou -- both at the Scuffle. A few days, everyone was talking about 3 national champs going at it, including Carr and O'Toole. Then ISU announces its best starters are staying home. And then Missou announces it, too, will keep 3 of its top guys at home. Both coaches refer to guys being "banged up" but who are they kidding. I suspect all these coaches know that if they don't keep their top guys happy, they can easily be lured by some big donor from another school with a sweetheart NIL deal, and they're gone with the click of a button on their phone.

Thanks for the feedback on the Hilger match. Sounds like it could've gone either way. Re the redshirt... beats me. Their starter, Jake Slinger, is a .500 kind of guy. Serviceable, but not apt to score points for them at NCAAs (or qualify), and went 2-and-BBQ at Midlands as the 11 seed. That said, he's listed as a senior ... maybe he has an extra year of eligibility, but if he's planning to graduate, I could se Pitt having Slinger finish out his career and keep Pitzer on redshirt to bulk up a bit more. Pitt has a nice team, but I'm not sure swapping in Pitzer would move the needle much at ACCs/NCAAs from a team placement standpoint. I don't envy Gavin in fending off the NIL-vultures come March, though.

I'm thinking this guy deserves his own thread. True freshman, takes out Cohlton Schultz 4-0, pinned Trent Hilger in the semis, now has Davison in the finals. Can he take out 3 top 10 HWTs? I'm curious how the Hilger match went (it was a late pin). Especially surprising since Pitzer wrestled 215 in high school last year, and Schultz/Hilger are BIG boys. I assume Pitt was planning to redshirt him, but Gavin may need to rethink that. As an aside, check out Pitzer's impressive collection of first period pins last year: PA-Wrestling.com : Mount Pleasant Vikings Wrestling : Dayton Pitzer. 45-0, with only 4 guys making it past the first period (and only 2 past the 2:40 mark).

Not that anyone cares, as I realize this has been beat to death already, but here's my handful of thoughts on the topic. Its sort of a mixed verdict. 1. Wisconsin/Bono's public statements on the topic are misleading -- at best. Wisconsin is being disingenuous when its athletics department issues a statement saying they are actively working with the Nebraska to support his "immediate eligibility," and when Coach Bono sends out a tweet suggesting that the NPO option isn't available. The original statement had a grain of truth insofar as they supported his appeal to the NCAA based on lack of awareness of the deadline, but implies support of his NPO efforts which is untrue. And Bono's tweet was straight up untrue. 2. Wisconsin's hesitance to sign the NPO form is defensible. My annoyance with Wisconsin's duplicity notwithstanding, I don't think its fair to criticize Wisconsin for not signing the NPO, since Wisconsin would have to certify Burwick "was no longer given an opportunity to participate." Though I can see why a lay person might think that it "counts" that Burwick was recruited over and lost his starting spot, that's not what those terms actually mean, according to NCAA definitions. Per NCAA by-law 14.02.9, "participate" means the "student-athlete either practices in a sport (see Bylaw 17.02.1) or competes in a sport, as defined in Bylaw 17.02.8," (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=8787), and those latter definitions make clear that they have nothing to do with whether you're a starter or on scholarship. If I were Wisconsin's GC, I wouldn't let them sign the form as-is (without explanation). 3. Manning isn't helping. I get his passion to defend a student-athlete, but saying the "statement they put out was the biggest fraud I’ve ever seen,” as quoted in Hamilton's article on Flo, is definitely not the right approach. Yes, its misleading, but it has enough truth to not be called "fraud," and that sort of accusation is counterproductive. (From the Flo interview, I think Manning realizes he sort of stepped in it.) 4. Wisconsin should sign the form with explanation. What I would advise Wisconsin to do if they asked me is to sign the form, and to check the box saying he didn't have an opportunity to participate, but to put an asterisk by the latter box -- and to add an explanatory sentence or two at the bottom. Say Burwick wasn't forbidden from being on the team but did have his spot jeopardized by a transfer student brought at his weight without his knowledge, after the transfer deadline -- and that Wisconsin supports him not losing his eligibility. That's honest, and if the NCAA still says no, that's on them, not Wisconsin. Anyone who still criticizes Wisconsin after that (e.g. saying that they shouldn't had given the explanation/asterisk) is basically saying Wisconsin is morally obliged to lie to the NCAA -- and I'm sorry, but F anyone who says that. 5. The NCAA rule needs to change. If an athlete wants to transfer to a new school after a given deadline, and the original school has zero objection to their doing so, they ought not lose a year of eligibility. Period. I'm fine with the NCAA requiring the original school's consent if the transfer is after a certain deadline, but who is the NCAA to forbid the original school from granting consent? The idea that the NCAA should be telling athletes they lose a year of eligibility even when both schools consent is preposterous.

Okie State had that Russian heavyweight a decade ago with legit freestyle creds. Gelogaev I think, aka "Z." I wanna say he took 3rd at Russian Nationals and did well here, had some insanely slick stuff, and I'm pretty sure he AA'd a couple times, but was capped by his limitations on top and bottom (and injuries). I'd expect about the same from Masoumi, though I don't doubt he could finish on top of the podium if he had long enough to work out the kinks in his top/bottom game.

Here's what kills me about that. If you scroll down, you get: Kenneth Allen is the 282nd ranked of 291 Who are the 9 guys ranked LOWER than this guy?

For the record, I hate Ohio. Sorry. Normally I crap on Ohio every chance I get. But the wrestling population there is enormous, knowledgeable, passionate, and lets face it, there's not much else to do there other than sit at home and OD on fentanyl. Cleveland set an attendance record when NCAAs were there (as did Philly and Pittsburgh, two other places high on my list), its dirt cheap, and it borders on criminal that USA Wresting has ignored it as a venue for decades. I'm surprised Ohio folks still pay their USAW membership dues; they should've gone on payment strike a decade ago.

Convention bureaus showing interest would be great but lets not overstate their role: they aren't gatekeepers, they're marketers. Whether a venue hosts an event isn't their call. If venue owners or their agents don't go to USA Wrestling then USA Wrestling must go to them. Its not enough for USA Wrestling to just wait for bids to float in when they have an event to plan -- that's not doing their job nor fulfilling their organizational mission. When corporations want to attract diverse talent, they go to where the talent is and sell themselves to solicit an application. USAW should do the same. Most venues have an RFP link on their website. If they struggle, there's plenty of brokers out there with the relationships and knowhow to get it done. Or apparently you, since it sounds like you're neck-deep in this stuff right now. Agree with your options. Tempe is a strong choice out west. In NJ, Newark is horrifying but there's multiple shore options and the Cure arena near Trenton draws on the wrestling-rich Lehigh Valley population, and of course NJ wresting fans are already used to going to AC to see wrestling.

I've seen sporadic attendance figures but not sure if they're collected anywhere. JB is right that none of them are going to be all that high. Some of the possible venues I mentioned would draw more. Some would draw less. But the point isn't as simple as maximizing attendance. It is spreading around events to various parts of the country to make sure everyone gets a fair chance to see good wresting, to make sure that travel costs aren't always borne by the same areas every single time, and to draw in new fans. For example, if the Coralville attendance was around 2K, how many of those were also at OTTs and the World Cup last year? Probably the vast majority. Put it somewhere else and you're drawing in new fans. I should also clarify that I'm not sure how the selection process works. I'm dumping on USAW, but the World Cup is UWW. But its a good guess that USAW played a significant role in convincing UWW that somehow the Iowa City area should host *another* major freestyle event. Sigh.

On what basis? Dude. Read the rest of my post, just not the first sentence. Other cities to target? Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Chicago, Fresno, Atlantic City, Minneapolis, Bethlehem, Suffolk, Tempe...

JB, you know I like and respect you and your work. And I agree with much of what you wrote. But I strongly disagree on the venue issue, particularly as it pertains to USA Wrestling. There is no excuse whatsoever for USA Wrestling to shoehorn so many domestic wrestling events into Iowa, time and time again. Why does USA Wrestling exist? Yes it coordinates programming, but to what end? To make money, like a corporation that answers to shareholders? No. Their own mission statement gives the answer: "to create interest and participation in these programs." (https://www.teamusa.org/usa-wrestling/about-us/our-mission). You don't grow the sport when you jam wrestling events in the same 20-mile radius time and time again, with the same 70,000 people. That's how you kill a sport. You are gaining no new fans as almost all attendees have been there, done that. And that doesn't even address the basic fairness that USA Wrestling owes to its members, only a couple percent of which are based in Iowa. They have a duty to make these programs available to everyone, but it isn't even close. The west coast gets virtually nothing, virtually ever. The east coast virtually nothing, virtually ever. How many USAW events have there been in the entire states of California or Pennsylvania (the two biggest wrestling states, combined population: 52 million) in the past 25 years? Answer: Fewer than Iowa City area (population: 70,000) got in the last 2. USA Wrestling has over 200,000 members and it is blatantly shirking its duty of fairness to the vast majority. And that's to say nothing of the racial tone-deafness of jamming every almost wrestling event in an area that is virtually all white, despite "diversity" ostensibly being a USA Wrestling "core value" per the above link. Am I say its all self-dealing by USA Wrestling? No, though I need to bite my tongue here. But at best its gross negligence. I get that some of these remote venues make a more active, concerted effort to secure these events. Good for them. And they may offer a better financial deal. Again, great. And some venues in preferred areas may not respond to RFPs. Rut-row. So if you don't care about your job or mission, its easy to just take the deal you get from the guy you know and move on. But USA Wrestling's job isn't to just to take the best financial deal, from those who push hardest. That's just lazy, and will only land us in the most remote regions of the country, time and time again -- which is EXACTLY what has happened. They need to get off their butts, think about where wrestlers actually are, aggressively and actively solicit bids from those areas, and put events there -- fairly and evenly distributed among the USAW constituency, with additional outreach to targeted growth areas. (A good albeit rare example: Bout at the Ballpark dual in Arlington TX in Feb this year.) I'm not saying this sort of branching out is easy to execute, and I'm not saying attendance will suddenly explode if we do. But we must end these years of jamming events into Iowa (and occasionally other forlorn places). If we branch out more, sometimes the attendance figures will be higher, sometimes lower, but at least it is fair to the membership and reaches a new audience. Sometimes the revenue will be lower, or venue cost higher -- sometimes much higher -- but again, USAW's charge isn't to send dividend checks to shareholders, but to grow the sport. And it is an investment in the growth of the sport: more new viewers and participants means more USAW members and more money. Reasonable people can differ on which venues are ideal, but this much is evident: dragging the same 500 lookalike Iowans to the same events in the same slingshot radius, year after year, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the growth, fairness and outreach that USAW must do. End of shout into the void, and sorry to hijack a college-oriented topic.