Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Pletcher's got some heat. It's been said, but dang, he's looking tough this year.
  2. I’m honestly not uptight abt it; just find it interesting and enjoy thinking abt this type of stuff. But to yr question: A Flo vid that captures moment-to-moment discourse in an intense situation (like a higher stakes wrestling match or tournament) is very different than a coach tweeting out a petty comment on social media abt another coach in the middle of competition. The situations just aren’t analogous in this context. To be clear: I don’t care abt Paulson and am not interested in calling him/anyone out; I’m also not interested in defending other coaches hijinks—I simply think it was a strange thing to do, and perhaps a little vindictive.
  3. I see your point, but tweeting a more or less petty comment, to the world, about a colleague/all time great/top level coach is clearly different than sharing a moment with a fan or another coach at the tournament. The choice to vent like that, during a tournament, in a public forum, just seems strange to me, if only from a professional POV. Similarly: I don’t really care for Nick Saban, but he’s a great coach, and I think it’d be odd for another coach to be tweeting during the game about his sideline antics. To complete the thought: I do think it’s cool when coaches tweet out comments when it relates to their guys getting a big win, etc.; I just don’t get the airing of grievances from one coach to another, especially in the thick of competition.
  4. Another possible way of looking at the Tweet: Brands was legit trying to be funny in the moment and was messing with the VA coaches. These guys have been in these situations literally thousands of times; it may be that Paulson really thought it was funny. That said, I think RScout has a point: maybe spend more time focusing on your guys rather than Tweeting in the middle of the tournament.
  5. Quick question/thought on that first takedown and the 3-second rule: Glory was awarded the takedown, more or less in the middle of a scramble, and after a bunch of time on Picc's ankles, rolling around, etc., the ref calls stalemate. I wondered why that wouldn't be called stalling. I'm probably missing something.
  6. I get your angle here and understand the fight you're fighting re: your position on the message board. Still: you're choosing to amplify a ridiculous/basically stupid point of view regarding a really good wrestler who seems to be a really good human being. There's a better way; elevate the discourse.
  7. I do wonder how much or to what extent elite wrestlers like Cox are looking to adjust their approach based on insider knowledge. Style match-ups matter; but imposing one's will (in itself a combination of factors) I think would be the greater consideration. I'd watch Taylor, Cox, and Snyder wrestle all day--but if I had to pick, I'd take Cox above the others based on mentality, athleticism, and technique. Dude believes in himself, and whatever time he may spend with the tOSU RTC probably has less to do with figuring out his competition and more to do with putting himself in a situation where he can gather experience and, generally, expand his repertoire. Getting a feel with different coaches and different partners seems nothing but positive for someone at his level.
  8. My take on Dernlan's logic: universities and programs invest in student athletes (in a number of ways), and the athletes in turn have an obligation to respect that investment and stick it out with the program once they get past the first year. The principal critique I see him making relates to integrity: i.e., Eierman is lacking because he's broken trust, etc., by not following through on what he started with Smith and Mizzou; Brands and Co. because they may have been communicating with Eierman prior to him entering the portal, etc. There's potential consequences here, too, for the 'rich' getting richer by siphoning away talent from schools who don't have RTCs. Dernlan offers some fair points, but I think he comes across as pretty hard on Eierman--who, like it or not, wants to take a shot at the Olympics this cycle and thinks his best chances at making the team are in the Iowa room. One could argue that he stuck around MO as long as he did because he has integrity, and in this moment, in this cycle, he's made a difficult life decision to start anew.
  9. Fair enough--I support getting the calls right as well. That said, I do think it opens a can of worms given that coaches only get a select number of challenges and given that, in this case, the table overturned the call of a highly qualified official (which may or may not have been challenged). I'm not looking to belabor or argue the point really--I think there's some genuine gray area here worth thinking about.
  10. I think that's a good point. Still I wonder (with no dog in the fight): how does the coach's challenge circumscribe what gets reviewed? In this case: if Zain's corner challenged a possible exposure that occurred within the final 10 seconds (which I'm interpreting the challenge to be), why would the refs go back and reverse an earlier call, even if technically part of the same sequence? Maybe I'm not clear on where the points came from specifically. EG: if they came from that final/final flurry, then the timing of the brick seems well within reason. But, if they came from the earlier 2/2 flurry, and accepting the possibility of continuous action,I still would like to know what discretion refs have, beyond a specific challenge, to give/take points in that way.
  11. Sorry if this has been brought up, but in one of the FLO videos, the announcers say that Zain's corner was challenging exposure at the end of the match (not the earlier 2/2 call). If that's the case, there's going to be leniency on whether the brick comes after the buzzer, because some flurries, etc., simply happen at the end of the match. The question for me is why the other sequence got reviewed at all if it wasn't technically what was being challenged. (I don't know the rules well enough to answer that myself.) If it were completely at the table refs discretion, rather than a direct challenge from Cael, the '5 second' question is beside the point--the brick basically just opened the door for the refs to review an earlier call that doesn't seem to be have been challenged by either corner. Again, sorry if this has been covered or if I'm missing the point.
  12. Bo definitely shoots/goes to both sides. A well-rounded technician!
  13. I appreciate your perspective, and I think I follow, but I wouldn't say that a premise needs to be true or false (at least in the social world). They can also be starting points for deliberation that we can show to be more or less valid in a particular time and place. In this case, even looking beyond the woman shown, we can verify that a black man was escorted from the building by authorities. And, if the original post (by Jetlife Dre) has any validity, which I realize would be difficult to verify, there are other instances that do suggest race has been an issue in this particular community--and ways, specifically, that signify intent (e.g., racial slurs). All that said: the media environment makes it very difficult to get at the reality of situations like this, and ultimately, it's difficult to know what 'really' happened. It's still worth discussing in my mind.
  14. I think I get what you're suggesting, and I agree that it's a complicated subject. I also agree that it's super-heightened right now for other reasons, which makes it even more difficult to discuss without getting into a shouting match. That said, I don't think it's counterproductive to engage with these issues in a civil way and see if we can learn something from them, whether personally or as a community. This forum doesn't have to represent the same sh*t show we see on other parts of the web--maybe we can do better.
  • Create New...