JVStateChamp

197 Rocky Elam

157 Austin O'Connor

Lets get ready to Rumble

Just for clarification, we submit our picks on here and lu inputs them on the doc?

Spencer Lee is a great option for the squad but not a necessity. I must admit Spencer Lee is a great adversary for any opponent that is willing to toe the line with him.

As the JvStateChamp I've made several calculations in anticipation of picking a team that will be a surefire dynasty to reign for the next decade.

Actually PSU waited so long to make the decision that Suriano was not wrestling so there was no reseeding and the person Suriano was supposed to wrestle recieved a M. Forfeit

If there is room for one more participant I would like to join and will pay immediately

I personally think that Michael Caliendo from NDSU has built up a sneaky good resume this season and has not been talked about enough.

125: Lee 133: Fix 141: Woods 149: Yianni 157: AOC 165: O'Toole 174: Starocci 184: Brooks 197: Elam HWT: Parris

1. Lee 2. Carr 3. RBY 4. Starocci 5. Fix Most of the reasoning is because I find it difficult to put a wrestler that has a loss this year in the top 5 P4P.

There are many arguments you can make that moves are done solely for the reason of no scoring, how about an ankle ride on top? Or my pet peeve when a top wrestler has double legs in and has no intentions of scoring while the bottom wrestler gets hit for stalling because he physically cannot build his base. I am okay with calling stalling, but it should be for the reason that an opponent has shown they are merely preventing scoring so ankle grabs, chest wraps, etc. should not be called stalling on first offense.

So if an individual locks hands from top or say illegal slam, the other wrestler gets to just restart from whatever position they may want?

What is your solution? So the wrestler should get no points awarded for illegal holds or stalling?

I think the stalling should be applied because one individual is shooting and creating offense, the defensive wrestler grabbing an ankle is not stalling because of the ankle grabbing but more because he is constantly on defense. The argument that he should be hit for stalling because hes holding an ankle is tough, you are pretty much saying he should just let go and give up a take down.

I am not sure how the financials go in terms of a B1G team wrestling a mid-major like a SoCon or some of the MAC schools, I do know typically they do a two year agreement the B1G school will be home one year and away the other. The benefit for the mid-major is that they are able to promote their product during a home dual and get a larger crowd than normally attended. Not sure if this answers your question at all but it is a cool aspect to scheduling

I have to believe the Rutgers staff did this intentionally with the belief of possibly get healthy? Or taper off for a week before ramping back up training to peak for B1G and NCAAs. Cannot think of any other reason.

Riding on top is a skill and very hard to do at the higher levels. But the difficulty to be in control goes down when their is no intent to turn. When a wrestler ankle rides or has double boots in without any intention to turn riding becomes less difficult and is really a way to waste time. My pet peeve while watching college wrestling is when a top wrestler who has double boots in and in full control is showing minimal intention to turn but yet bottom man gets hit with stalling.

Unsportmanlike conduct could have been if the wrestler was taunting or mocking their opponent, I have seen this happen in positions such as a leg cradle. That position is 100% legal and should not be stopped. But with an unsportmanlike conduct rather than an illegal move hold that sounds as tho this could be the case. I was not their so I could be wrong.

This hypothetical would crush the smaller schools like a Lock Haven, Campbell.. etc. But like everything else wrestlers will find loop holes and I imagine move to the state of the school they would like to attend in high school.

Should the scales be equally balanced? Should the coaches have some more power than the athletes? Or should the athletes have more power than the coaches i.e. when they want to wrestle, what weight class, or how hard the practice is?

I agree with your stand on many points, I am more just playing devils advocate for possible reasoning's that the PIAA may point out. To your three points I agree with you but the PIAA will respond or try to give reasoning that... 1. PIAA will argue that they are Pennsylvania Interscholastic ATHLETIC Association, so any transfer that are connected to academic achievement or academic resources are not under their jurisdiction to make a ruling on. 2. I agree with your point that if a family cares enough to move their family and pays into the school districts taxes then that should student should be eligible to compete for the school district the family pays into. "PIAA believes that the student-athlete is best served by a system which emphasizes the amateur, educational, and character-building aspects of high school sports and which recognizes that athletics is not the driving force. The students are in school primarily to obtain an education." This quote off their website will be their argument, and they will state that the student athlete moved or transferred for the sole purpose of athletics and not primarily to obtain an education. I do not know the ins and outs of how the PIAA would prove that logic but that would be their argument. 3. I completely agree with you, that a school that does not have any boundaries or any restrictions that a public school has is a huge disservice to the PIAA and other public schools. My stance is that they do not care about boundary and non boundary because every school that participates in the PIAA pays into the PIAA, so like everything else it boils down to money which is a shame. I am again playing devils advocate for the sake of discussion and I do not agree with many of the transfer policies that the PIAA has implemented .

The PIAA is very flawed and not transparent in their rulings for transferring but their response to your argument is that the student athlete is still allowed to compete for that school but may not participate in post season. Which as everyone knows is the reason for most of these athletes to compete for their high school. The goal is to be a PIAA state champion which the student has the ability to do at their high school before transferring. I do not agree in all cases but what the PIAA is attempting to prevent is power teams taking completely taking over and taking numbers away from the other public school teams.

That was the PIAA ruling for this particular instance. I am unaware if this is the norm similar scenarios but it does seem to be a bad policy.

Without going too far back, Michael Macchiavello had 36 career losses.