Jump to content

DJ

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. It's so cute to see Iowa fans fawning over a high school sophomore. I guess the new Iowa style is to recruit heavily from PA. "Oh, so that's a take down and tilt series... Interesting, Spencer, but we push here. Push. Push. Push. And try to get a cheap stall call from our douche-bag fans. And don't forget to be "a dick". That's the most important thing to remember. Be "a dick" always."
  2. What point? That Iowa acts the bully then cries to their mommy that nobody likes them after they get punched in the face? Maybe Iowa Wrestling as an institution should do a little soul searching...
  3. The more boorish of the Iowa "fans" are responsible for the anti-Metcalf sentiment. How many "Metcalf broke Bubba, etc" threads did we have to endure through the years? I liked Metcalf coming out of high school, unfortunately he got caught up in the classless Iowa mentality. Good riddance...
  4. Iowa peaked against Grand Canyon back in November.
  5. That's not your argument ref Gantt. Your argument is Gannt seeded over Nolf because Martinez has a "dominating" loss, however, you ignore the fact that it came via Nolf. Under your logic Nolf would've been better off beating Martinez in a less "dominating" fashion.
  6. So Gantt benefits from Nolf's "dominating" (your word) result over Martinez but Nolf is penalized by it and drops to a #3 seed? That's illogical. Nolf should be no lower than a #2 seed.
  7. Cool. Using your criteria we'll seed Gulibon over Jordan because second is better than third.
  8. In the "Match of the Year" thread you posited "The fact that Martinez was dominated and pinned counts for nothing?" Aren't we arguing the same case here?
  9. What this boils down to is Imar won less convincingly but more recently so he's #1, and that's just silly.
  10. Thanks. I understand your logic but that's a precedent argument and I believe seeding criteria has changed since Metcalf vs Palmer.
  11. Considering you were advocating for Nolf in another thread using basically the same criteria as I, I don't believe you're interested in my reasoning. You're simply being contrarian. With respect to "Dominance," it's a stat the NCAA developed so you'd have to take it up with them with respect to two loss Nolf vs Gannt.
  12. Now you're getting into hypotheticals. Was Imar better than Nolf this year? Yes or No?
  13. I thought the "Dominant" stat was tracked by the NCAA. Maybe I'm wrong about that....
  14. It will hardly be "intense," Vak. I understand how the seeding usually pan out, but from a strictly rational assessment of Nolf & Imar, Nolf was better this season. Do you not agree? I read your blog so give me something here.
×
×
  • Create New...