Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by SetonHallPirate

  1. AnklePicker-Repost your last comment. It was eaten by the page turn gremlins.
  2. My care factor is low. Well, good to hear that your care factor is improving then!
  3. Exactly. Albany is an AHL venue, and Omaha was as of when they had their championship. I believe Des Moines was an AHL venue at the time it was awarded its championship as well.
  4. Wrong, Willie. Varner didn't lose a match that year. You're thinking of his junior year, when he lost twice (to Herbst at Midlands, to Brester at Big 12's).
  5. Burroughs didn't default that match against Steve Brown. He wrestled it to its conclusion.
  6. FYI, the last four years, my picks have been Herbert, Varner, Oliver, and Ruth. Naturally, each of the last three years, I've picked the Hodge winner incorrectly!
  7. Ness won the Hodge in 2010. Metcalf won in 2008, in a weight class with Burroughs. It is fun reading some posts that make no sense based on no logic at all. An for the education I feel confident that you were saying that you feel Varner should of won the Hodge and him winning the gold in the Olympics backs you up. I'm not saying that Varner should or should not have won the Hodge. I'm merely saying that we have more information looking back to suggest that the Metcalf class of 149 pounders hasn't faired all that well when you consider Darrion Caldwell losing to a high-schooler, and that our 66kg weight class hasn't performed well internationally. Back in the day I thought Metcalf was unstoppable and that would carry over to international. Obviously that didn't happen, and consistently the other top 149 pounders have also not performed very well, which raise questions about the 149 class during the Metcalf years. Just a thought. Yes, that weight class where Dustin Schlatter and Lance Palmer wrestled for 7th and 8th at NCAA's was terrible. Excellent point. As for Varner not winning the Hodge (it went to Ness, not Metcalf, something that is really important to keep straight) isn't because he had a loss to Craig Brester? Or was that his junior year that he lost to Brester, can't remember now. FWIW if Varner and Ness were both unbeaten champs then I'd agree that Ness is a controversial choice, although a defendable one because he had a great career and put up a lot of bonus points. Varner's junior year (2008-2009), he lost matches to Dallas Herbst (Midlands final) and Craig Brester (Big 12 final). Varner went unbeaten as a senior (2009-2010).
  8. My biggest fear is this is going to become a blockoff snooze fest for all but the most competitive matches. If your a ranked wrestler lets say between 12-20 and you are wrestling a guy in the top 3; it is likely your strategy quickly becomes, "Don't get majored". In a tournament setting you have little to lose by going after an ACTUAL victory. Now simply getting beat by a decision becomes a victory. The more and more keeping matches close becomes a "Win" the worse wrestling is going to be to watch. In dual meets, especially close dual meets, this tends to become the situation. When a wrestler is thinking "Just don't get stuck" going into a HVY or 197lb match; it makes for some serious snooze-fests..... Dotcom, I don't think we have to perform thought experiments here. After all, we already have a National Duals. All we need to do is look at the last few years and ask the fans, did wrestler pack it in to keep the team score close? I don't think anything will change from what we have had before. I assume, of course, that these individual matches in the NCAA dual championship will count in your individual qualification for nationals, just as they have in the past. As a result, I don't see any wrestler being 'content to lose' as some would say. I recall the National duals having great matches last year. Does anyone recall any duals that were a 'snooze fest?' At the finals, all of them except the third-place dual between Iowa and Illinois went down to 285.
  9. DotCom, please repost your last comment. It got cut off.
  10. This is why I think the collegiate wrestling should be a spring, rather than a winter, sport. Move it away from the high school season, and you stand a better chance of getting the high school kids in the stands. +1,000 to that. I've been hoping for that for some time now. Start the season with the holiday tournaments and have NCAAs the 3rd week of April instead of March. Great, there goes our ESPN contract. Look...the fact is, our sport is most likely helped, not hurt, by the fact that our tournament is the same weekend as the first weekend of March Madness. Why? Because CBS has that contract, enabling our great sport to get onto ESPN virtually unopposed. If we were to push our tournament into April, we'd be fighting with 15 major league baseball games for that Saturday night time slot, likely relegating our individual national championship to ESPNU. Further, we'd be unable to get arenas, in all likelyhood, with NHL and AHL playoffs starting (remember, regular season schedules can be worked around special events like ours, playoff schedules cannot, as Vince McMahon found out with the NBA playoffs a few years back). In other words, we'd likely find ourselves relegated to having our National Championship on college campuses again.
  11. I thought Varner should have won the 2010 Hodge myself, but certainly not because he might win the gold medal at the 2012 Olympics 29 months later if I had a working crystal ball.
  12. Given that the NCAA Wrestling Team Championship would come before the conference tournaments, it would be kind of difficult to have the team standings in the individual tournament determine automatic bids!
  13. Here's a thought, and one that I'd just throw out there, rather than endorse right off the bat... Here goes: The first wrestler to go out of bounds gets a point against him (ie. the other wrestler scores) ONLY if both of them end up going out of bounds. Obviously, this would probably have to be developed further, but thoughts are greatly appreciated. (note: this only works in neutral. In mat wrestling, whoever is at a disadvantage vis-a-vis a change in position when they go out of bounds should be docked, ie. the top man to defend a standup, or the bottom man to defend what would otherwise be near-fall points or a fall)
  14. North: Briar Cliff, Concordia, Dakota Wesleyan, Hastings, Midland, Morningside, Northwestern, Waldorf, York Central: Bacone, Baker, Benedictine, Bethany, Central Baptist, Grand View, Hannibal-LaGrange, Missouri Valley, William Penn East: Calumet-St. Joseph, Campbellsville, Cumberland, Cumberlands, Indiana Tech, Lindsey Wilson, Missouri Baptist, Shorter, Truett-McConnell West: Dickinson State, Embry-Riddle, Great Falls, Jamestown, Menlo, Montana State-Northern, Oklahoma City, Southern Oregon, Wayland Baptist Source: http://www.naia.org/fls/27900/1NAIA/Championships/CoachesCorner/Wrestling/WR_Manual.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=27900#page=26
  15. B. Dual Meet. A tournament may tell you which team is more top-heavy, but the dual meet will tell you more about your entire lineup, and not just the wrestlers that can place at NCAA's. Remember, in NCAA tournament scoring, bonus points notwithstanding, the difference between first and sixth is greater than the distance between sixth and 77th. Further, in NCAA scoring, losing by a decision and losing by fall are identical, whereas in dual scoring, losing by a decision is three points better than losing by fall in the team score.
  16. Check and mate. Attendance for Midlands did not top 2,000 in any session this past year. (Session I: 1,787; Session II: 1,520; Session III: 1,871; Session IV 1,972) I was at quite a few duals where attendance topped that, in fact, I believe every one-dual meet I was at last year except UNI/Air Force and Lehigh/Bucknell drew more than that)
  17. I think an eye has to be kept on eventually expanding to 24, but I don't think it's financially feasible right now, particularly for the teams that would have to pay their own way to fly to one of the eight first-round sites. Remember, however, the NCAA Basketball tournament started at eight (as in, seven plus one), and look at what it's grown to now! (even until the mid-70's, it was no more than 25 teams...automatic bids and nobody else, except maybe a few independents who might be invited)
  18. Pinnum, I did something similar, only with two minor changes: 1. I didn't include Chattanooga in the field, as the worst team with an automatic bid. Bear in mind that 50% of the field has to be at-larges, per NCAA bylaws, although this would become moot as of the 2013-2014 year, as the EWL would fall below automatic qualifying eligibility (the Big 12 is already below that threshold) 2. I used the February 6th dual-result rankings. (I can't tell which dates you used) Maryland at #1 Penn State Kent State at #8 Oklahoma Oregon State at #4 Iowa Hofstra at #5 Cornell Nebraska at #2 Oklahoma State Missouri at #7 Illinois Wyoming at #3 Minnesota Pittsburgh at #6 Ohio State
  19. I think one residual thing that would have to go along with the push-out in folkstyle is the removal of the escape point. Otherwise the cumulative effect of the takedown and release would be identical to the pushout.
  20. Because Cornell is never going to have a decent dual team? Oklahoma? Ohio State? Any others?
  21. Men's and women's fencing, men's golf, men's rifle, men's soccer, men's tennis, men's volleyball, and men's water polo. Baseball can be argued as well, because nine is a farcical number, given that a college baseball team generally requires at least four starting pitchers (three or four for each weekend series, and at least one, perhaps two, for midweek games). As for the topic at hand, I have no comment on the matter at this time.
  22. Better yet, for the sport of wrestling, would be Leaders/Followers divisions, if you catch my drift, particularly when you consider that rivalries in this sport have more to do with competitiveness than geography. Note sure I do follow. The split is not pure geography and I don't think you have one division too much stronger than the other. Looking at this past year: Divisions with Big Ten dual finish LEGENDS (average rank of 5.5: top three finishes are 1, 3, & 5): 3 Iowa 7 Michigan 10 Michigan State 1 Minnesota 5 Nebraska 7 Northwestern LEADERS (Average rank of 6.6 top two finishes are 1, 3, & 5): 3 Illinois 11 Indiana 5 Ohio State 1 Penn State 9 Purdue 11 Wisconsin Divisions with NCAA finish:LEGENDS (average finish of 9.2; top three finishes are 2, 3, & 9): 3 Iowa 11 Michigan 37 Michigan State 2 Minnesota 21 Nebraska 9 Northwestern LEADERS (Average rank of 13.1; top two finishes are 1, 5, & 7): 7 Illinois 37 Indiana 5 Ohio State 1 Penn State 28 Purdue 41 Wisconsin You clearly don't follow. The point was to have the top six teams (based on some criteria, based either on historical data or perhaps in some adjusted form accounting for graduation) be in one division, and the bottom six teams based on that same criteria be in the other division. The Leaders/Followers reference was meant tongue-in-cheek, of course, but that was the point. The football divisions would be a terrible idea for college wrestling to use, particularly as rivalries for football have largely no resemblance to rivalries for wrestling.
  23. Better yet, for the sport of wrestling, would be Leaders/Followers divisions, if you catch my drift, particularly when you consider that rivalries in this sport have more to do with competitiveness than geography.
  24. http://www.gophersports.com/sports/m-wrestl/sched/minn-m-wrestl-sched.html November 9: Hofstra November 10: Bison Open, Fargo, ND November 16: at Nebraska November 18: Boise State November 24: at North Dakota State and with Campbell, Eastern Michigan, and Stanford December 2: Oklahoma State December 8: Oregon State December 9: Northwestern January 1-2: Southern Scuffle, Chattanooga, TN January 11: at Ohio State January 13: at Indiana January 20: Illinois January 27: Iowa February 3: Michigan State February 10: at Wisconsin February 24: National Duals Finals Big Ten misses: Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
  • Create New...