Ponzi

Well, if the singlets are sometimes the same color, the wristbands could have a letter, too. For instance, Iowa could use a black band with a yellow "I". Penn State could have a dark blue band with a white "P."

Speaking of a non-problem that should be solved: Can we do away with ankle bands? They are so amateurish. Instead of each wrestler having to don the bands pre-match, each team could simply supply the ref with a wrist band that matches their singlet. (At tournaments, each wrestler could hand the ref a matching wrist band.

One might way Ramirez over Monday was an upset based on ranking, though Ramirez beat him before.

Deep in a NY Times article about administrative furor at an Idaho community college, it is noted that the board fired the president and installed the schools wrestling coach as his successor. Not the football coach, the AD or even the hoops coach. The wrestling coach. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/us/politics/north-idaho-college-republicans.html

Sorry, it looks like SetonHallPirate got it.

But, so far, no correct answers.

This is a question--I don't know the answer. What is the team with the smallest number of qualifiers to win the NCAAs? Or place in the top 4?

51% idiots. What can I say.

Williamsport Little Leaguers makes more sense. Almost nothing makes less sense.

That's very impressive, of course. But it does not make you the best college wrestler. Only college titles can do that.

Seriously? That's an insane mascot for high school OR for any level.

That makes it worse (or less good).

Seems to me he is equating 3Xers and 4Xers ans they are both 100%ers. But his won chart belies that idea as it shows that ALL on the 75%ers won as seniors, all but 2 won as juniors, and TWO-THIRDS did not win as freshman. That shows the winning as a freshman is the hardest thing to do by far. That's why being a 4Xer is way more impressive than winning three (even if the some of the 3Xers had no opportunity to win 4).

Not sure where above you have in mind, but where WKN says, "Of the thirty 75%ers, twenty-two went X, 1, 1, 1," that confirms my point: The hardest year to win is as a frosh. Thus most of the 100% guys who who 3 titles would NOT have won 4 since they would not have won as freshmen.

But the OP suggests that 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era are basically the same at 4-time champs who wrestled as freshmen and won. I think that's wrong because my guess is that most 3-time champs in the frosh-ineligible era would NOT have won as freshmen had they been eligible. The hardest title to win is as a freshman.