1032004

Agree, but technically I believe Brands was basing his speculation on his quote that apparently the NCAA has found that 56% of athletes gamble or something like that.

Yeah that maybe bugged me the most, that this rant was in response to the reporter literally just asking him what his thoughts were about the ruling

Guess we're assuming Coleman wants to rent a 2 bedroom apartment ? Doesn't he have like 4 kids? Based on the house prices listed and a 30 year loan at current rates, the difference would be more like $1,400 per month, plus $47K more needed for a down payment.

I was referring to Iowa State. Paniro was the only name I had heard previously.

Thanks for the link. He does ask a similar question of “why was it only Iowa and Iowa State,” albeit more calmly of course. He also alludes to that Paniro will lose a year of eligibility (I thought there was still question around that). I’m also not sure if I realized there were more guys than just Paniro involved, but I guess the rest are backups?

Correct, my point is that actual crimes by other sport athletes were being investigated. And it looks like Iowa then reported the NCAA, but non-criminal violations as a result of that

Maybe, I edited to add the DOJ. But based on my prior link they were investigating actual crimes which goes against Tom’s claim that everything was legal, although maybe he was only referring to the wrestlers. But still, as far as I can tell it was as a result of those criminal investigations that Iowa found further NCAA violations

I’ll answer my own question - looks like yes: https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/former-iowa-kicker-charged-gambling-sting-allegedly-won-101957643 But it states that after Iowa was notified about the allegations, that they then notified the NCAA about additional potential NCAA violations. It doesn’t seem that ISU did this. So really it seems like Tom’s ire, if he’s not going to place any blame on the athletes, should more be directed at the University of Iowa and not the NCAA or DOJ?

Were there any criminal charges filed against anyone in other sports at University of Iowa?

Was there a link between “the original suspect(s)” at Iowa and Iowa state? Or even “the original suspect(s)” and the other athletes at the same school on different teams? Who even was the “original suspect(s)”? I don’t really know the specifics of what started it, although IIRC there was something about someone using a family member’s account (don’t think it was originally Paniro, but not sure). If the Iowa wrestlers for example all had their own accounts on the betting site(s), I’d presume all the investigators had to do was look through the site records for athletes’ names. I guess we don’t know for sure if they did that for UNI or not, but it seems not.

Yeah I get it, you’re the third person to say this. But there was a statement made (not sure by who, but reported by a journalist and not just a message board poster) that UNI did not have anyone being investigated. And like the poster above just said, while I think people are exaggerating with the “but everyone’s doing it” rhetoric, it’s highly unlikely that not a single UNI (or Iowa D2 or D3 school) athlete gambled.

Again, for the record I think these comments are a bad look for Brands. He even pulled the "but it's legal if you're over 21" line. Aren't there multiple things that are "legal" but against NCAA rules? But I think it's fair to ask why UNI at least was seemingly spared.

Tom Brands?

I just wrote up a big bashing of Brands but to be fair one could ask why were Northern Iowa or any of the non-D1 schools not targeted as well?

Yeah literally saying it was the media’s fault was odd. I usually love Brands interviews, but the whole premise of “you’re not asking the right questions” was also odd because the question that prompted that response was “what are your thoughts on the ruling” which would have allowed him to say just about anything. Then after his ramble he doesn’t really allow follow-ups to perhaps “ask the right questions” and says “let’s talk about Oregon State.” Then someone does try to get clarification on the specific wrestlers and he just goes back to “you’re asking the wrong questions.” I would think getting official confirmation on who’s suspended and for how long would be a “right question” but apparently not. He earlier had made comments about 174, 184, and 285 “not being the guys on the poster” for Oregon State, and did say that 2 of the suspended guys still have open appeals.

Princeton doesn’t have a team do they? Ayres is listed on the mens roster

I did't realize he was teammates with Bryan Synder...I guess that explains the username?

I do think Fix should be #1

Gable wrestling in a non-Olympic year WTT got them headlines? Who besides (real) wrestling fans even knew he was in it? What exactly are they looking for as far as "progressing"? Charisma? I think most people could've told you before he signed with WWE that he didn't really have charisma, which most people don't but it's not usually something that is learned. I have a hard time believing he's having much trouble with the athletic aspects of the WWE but I guess it's possible. When I've read some of the social media posts following his appearances, not sure if WWE cares (or maybe they like it if they want him to be a heel or whatever), but there certainly seems to be a large contingent of WWE fans that don't like him because of his previous criminal allegations. I would've thought AJ Ferrari would be a natural for WWE (and a rivalry between him and Gable could've been cool), but I assume fans will make the same comments about him as well.

Possibly. Nothing wrong with a little speculation, that’s what message boards are for. Maybe he’s redshirting because he got a sweet NIL offer after winning the Clarion Open?

Cutting down from 133 to 125 and then redshirting in your 5th year of school seems unlikely, but I guess it’s possible.

Kaylor dec Ayala 3-0 OSU Teske dec Whisenhunt 3-3 Woods maj Belton 7-3 Iowa Voinovich dec Tolentino 10-3 Franek tech Menke 15-3 Caliendo dec Oguin 18-3 Wittlake dec Riggins/Arnold 18-6 Munoz maj Swafford 18-10 Rademacher dec Glazier 18-13 McDermott maj Hill 18-17

Intermat

LOL, honestly this is probably a better question than why is Crookham #1

I think the overall question is how exactly do last year's wins get factored in? I'm sure there are different schools of thought but I thought typically they form the basis for the preseason ranking, but shouldn't really be factored in after that, but it seems that's what Willie's doing for example, as he mentioned Crookham's loss to Cannon. But that was in response to a good point by Kozak, who pointed out that just based on Crookham's season last year, he would have been ranked 10 or 11 to start the season, so him jumping to 1 after beating #6 and #1 isn't all that crazy.