TylerDurden

Post your unlikely, but bracket-busting upset picks: 133 Bouzakis over Fix

I understand the NCAA criteria and why they decided to seed him there, but it's also asinine that the system they have in place is so rigid and/or the committee is too lazy to actually seed the tournament this way. No sane person thinks that Carter Starocci is the ninth-best wrestler or even had the ninth-best season at 174 this year. I have no issues with knocking him down from the No. 1 seed because of his "losses," but convince anyone that No. 7 seed Lennox Wolak, who lost to Michigan State's Matt Larkin, 7-0, should be seeded higher than Carter Starocci. Neither should No. 6 seed Rocco Welsh, who Starocci beat in the dual...or No. 8 seed Adam Kemp, who got beat by a kid redshirting at Purdue. The seeding committed just f-ed up the entire bracket and screwed the No. 1 seed - who lost to Starocci 11-0 in a match that didn't count.

And it's still asinine to seed him 9th, although it's hard not to mention that they gave him the de facto No. 1 seed after he beats Mekhi.

I know you're trying to be cheeky, but no, he did not. We already went over the semantics.

This is completely asinine. You can't justify this even if you acted like Starocci actually lost two matches at the B1G.

He beat Wilson when they wrestled. You can't say he's better because that's how you feel. The toed the line and Wilson lost. Wilson's problem was Wilson and no one else's. This emphasis on what happened at the B1Gs is ignoring the rest of his underwhelming season. He had plenty of opportunities throughout the year that he didn't take advantage of. It's his fault and his fault alone that the didn't get in.

This. I don't really understand why people use this sort of logic in false outrage. They externalize everything as if they had no control of their own actions. Wilson can only blame Wilson for not qualifying.

You're being kind to Beard.

A regular Lewan.

Typically the rationale for rotations is to help grow the sport and provide incentive for administrations to invest in the program. How much that holds true at the B1G level, I don't know.

One would have to imagine that Cael and Co., asked for and received some clarification prior to making the Starocci/B1G decision, right? The NCAA committees have been known to provide clarifications about the process to the conferences/schools that aren't made public. Perhaps this issue is one of those times.

It's not my framing, it's true: Yes, Zalesky won three titles...in 98, 99, 00, which were his first three years after inheriting the program from Gable, who had won the previous three titles and six of the last seven. That's a far cry from what Brands took over, which was finishes of 4, 7, 2, 8, 4. Your data is using averages and not looking at trends. So no, it's not that close. Besides that, this is a vastly different environment than the late 90s. I won't touch your conspiracies about Brands and the Iowa job, but I don't think that helps Zalesky's case either.

Speak for yourself.

These takes are silly. And no, Zalesky has not "done better" than the Brands Bros. Remember, Zalesky inherited a program from Gable. Brands inherited one from Zalesky. Also, Penn State under Cael has existed all but a couple years that Brands has been the head coach. If you're upset that Cael has outperformed Iowa, fine, but the reality is that what Cael is doing has only been matched one time and I don't personally see another coach out there who can match Cael and Co. in recruiting/development. Brands may not be likeable to everyone, but if you fire him, you're an idiot. Just because he hasn't replicated Gable's success doesn't mean he's a failure. I'm expecting a much better Iowa team next season and I'm saying that expecting them to finish in the top four at this year's NCAA.

Track wrestling showed Riggins with 7 in the stats drop down, but it looks they included the mini-tournament for placements. So my bad for missing that. We still don't know what the suspended guys would have done, but Franek and Kennedy scored more this year than Siebrecht and Brands did last year at the same weights (+5). I agree Iowa was depleted (self-inflicted) and it impacted things, but my larger point was that I don't think this is all on the suspensions. They had big shoes to fill this season regardless of the suspensions. I'm not on the "Iowa is toast" boat, but I do think Iowa has some work to do.

Even with the suspended guys, I'm not sure Iowa does better than third. They finished 7.5 points behind Nebraska and 13 points behind Michigan for second. Cassioppi is obviously the one who had the most potential to outscore the replacement, as he was +6.5 last year versus what they got from Hill. He was a big scorer at 3rd place last year and he was a potential finalist. They would have been in a battle for third. I don't think they would have caught Michigan, but we'll never know. 157 Siebrecht (8.5 points in 23) vs Franek (4th, 11.5 points) 174 Brands (9 points in 23) vs Kennedy (5th, 11.5 points) 184 Assad (7.5 points in 23) vs. Riggins (10th, 7 points) 285 Cassioppi (16.5 points in 23) vs Hill (5th, 10 points) Regardless of what might have happened, it was always going to be a slight rebuild in Iowa City this year. You can't replace Spencer Lee. It's also not easy to replace Max Murin or Jacob Warner.

That was a fun match. Carr took a bad shot and paid for it, but I'd love to see that match 10 more times. It's technical, strategic and chaotic all at the same time. 165 at NCAAs is going to be amazing.

He took one with about 30 seconds left in the match. Mendez defended it and got his takedown during the subsequent exchange. Mendez looked pretty darn good in that match. He looks the part of a national champ.

Speaking of Lewan...how in the world does he not get more stalls called against him? Are his blocking with his butt to the center and half-hearted waves of his arms really enough to fool the officials? Even the pin against Blockhus started with him backing up.

I don't think this is the case. I think he's just sharing what he's heard. Nothing more, nothing less. I read his post as implying that the views he's sharing come from people outside of the athletics department based on the language he used, thus my comment about interacting with them in their professional capacities and the emotional involvement. His reply to that seems to imply that these opinions are from people inside of an athletic department. Fair enough. I'm sure he felt that was the best way to share his info. To each their own. Regardless of the who is talking, there are legitimate concerns about the ultimate impact on collegiate wrestling if/when they B1G and SEC figure out the legal and political maze they'll need to navigate to do their own thing. When people are unsure about where the money comes from and how much is coming, they tend to panic. For as much abuse as the NCAA takes, they are a known entity. People know what to expect, how the money flows, and how sports function in that structure. When you take that away, every outcome becomes viable, including elimination.

So you're saying that athletic department officials are telling you these things?

Perhaps, but you aren't dealing with them in their professional capacities. Collegiate athletics are an emotional endeavor.

How many of the 13 No. 7 seed finalists beat the No. 2 seed? My assumption is that it's unlikely, but it would be interesting if they all wrestled exactly to the assumed seed after beating the No. 2.

I see these as explanations about why he could win any one match - which I don't necessarily disagree with - not why he could win five in a row at the NCAA tournament from a double-digit seed. I don't really buy the idea that 20 guys have a shot to win the title, even at 125 this year. The early-season chaos happened, so I understand the viewpoint but I think it has jaded our view of the contenders. Beating DeAugustino, Spratley, Kaylor and Davis doesn't make the guy a title contender. It makes him a low AA threat where he'll have to beat someone like Volk, who has beaten Smith twice this year. If Smith had beaten Richie Figs, Ayala, Barnett, or McKee didn't tech him, I could see the rationale a bit more. If you want to say 20 guys have a shot to AA, I'll buy that, but they aren't all title contenders. His early-season, sudden-victory win against Ramos is noteworthy and we can't take that away from him, but the subsequent results from both guys suggest that was an aberration. As it always does, it will work itself out because they have to step on the mat. I've been wrong before and if Smith wins the title, I'll be wrong again. We can revisit after the B1Gs and see if opinions have changed.

I'm not being flippant and I think Smith is a very entertaining guy to watch, but what has he done to make you believe he could put together the five consecutive matches that it will take to win the NCAA title? Perhaps I look at these hypotheticals too literally, but I consider his seeding at the B1G and NCAAs before I'd put him up as a title contender - even at 125 this year. At the B1G, his seeding is probably 6-7-8 seed range. At the NCAA, he's a double-digit seed which means he's running into a top 8 seed in round two and each round after that. He was the No. 5 seed last year and was two and BBQ. Yes, I realize a year in the Nebraska room is better than one at App State, but I just don't see it.