Jump to content

1032004

Members
  • Content Count

    4,138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by 1032004

  1. Ah you're right about him choosing top. So a D1 commit got ridden for 4 minutes by a guy who doesn't know proper referee's position? He may need to work on his bottom wrestling before he gets to college.
  2. Eh, I don't think getting warned with stalling is really a reward, but to each their own...
  3. all Indiana guys moving down, 2 of them named Rooks, ouch
  4. 1032004

    133

    133 is not stacked at all IMO. Good top 5 with Fix/RBY/Desanto/Myers/Phillippi (which I probably would have included Alvarez in that group), but a steeeep dropoff after that.
  5. seems weird that that wouldn't give Woods the autobid, but OK
  6. I don't see an issue with double stalling, honestly I think that's a call that should be made more also. If the top guy doesn't want a restart, then don't stall! Eh I'd disagree, I actually almost made a comment about FS in my earlier reply. I'm not a freestyle expert but to me it doesn't seem like it can really be "passivity" if you're just alternating who you call it on.
  7. Just watched the video. The first caution is at 6:20 when he was on top, for not being behind the elbow, which the ref also explained and then he didn't mess up anymore. The second caution is at 14:35, where the ref explains it then calls the caution AND holds up 2 fingers I assume to indicate that that's his second caution and the next one is a point. Wrestler resets again in the wrong position, and the ref explains AGAIN, WITHOUT calling a caution (surprisingly IMO, no complaints from opposing coaches). They wrestle then go out of bounds. On the restart at around 15:15 is where the 3rd caution happens. You can see the ref crouch down and I bet he was thinking to himself, "man do I really want to call this right now," but ultimately he does which I agree with because it was pretty blatant. Great job by the ref. All the right calls. Also (if we were assuming he knew the proper starting position), why didn't he choose bottom in the 3rd period?
  8. Haven't watched the video yet but how the heck is it unfair to the kid? He's in the f'ing state finals, he should know the proper starting position.
  9. And to answer the OP, the new en vogue call might be the illegal hold for leaving your feet for the "rear double knee kickback"
  10. Why? Why do you look to the bottom guy first? And then hit the top guy if literally the same situation happens? That inconsistency is why fans get annoyed at how stalling is called. That's double stalling. BTW, I don't see anything in the NCAA rule book about "actively scoring." It says "sustain active wrestling." A parallel spiral ride or something similar isn't really "active wrestling." In general, I think stalling should be called more often on the top guy than it is currently.
  11. So on FRL today Bratke confirmed that he thinks Kerk should be ranked higher than Orndoff, but both he and Pyles said he should be seeded 13th. Good thing they're not "journalists"... (although to be fair, Willie also said he should be 13 but then admitted he didn't realize there were multiple winless guys) So in addition to Kappes of Maryland, you have: Streck: 1-5 this year (and 3-16 last year), only win this year 3-1 in SV vs. Kappes Heyob: 1-4 this year (and 2-16 last year), only win this year 2-1 vs. Kappes Keys: 2-4 this year, beat MSU's backup and did wrestle in the dual against NW where he wrestled against Brendan Devine who is not their guy for B10's and is 1-5 this year (with HIS only win coming 3-1 against Maryland's backup Connor Bowes, which was one of the only matches in Bowes' career where he didn't get pinned) There is absolutely zero reason to put any of those 3 guys above Kerk, which would put him at 10 at the absolute worst, so in the same match he's in now. Even still, after that, you have: Colucci: 0-2 this year (and they have him behind Heyob anyway, but he at least has a decent win or two in his career) Rebottaro: 1-4 this year, only win vs. Streck. He was 17-16 last year though, but didn't really beat anyone decent) So there could be a bad argument for these 2 to be ahead of Kerk, but it's not a very good one IMO. The only guy with a good argument IMO for a better seed than Kerk is Orndorff.
  12. Yeah I think 141 is pretty much a coinflip for all 3 spots seeding-wise and it also gets dicey since Eierman didn't wrestle last year. In my opinion (which obviously doesn't matter) 125 should have no bearing on 141 seeding. 133 can being just 1 weight below, and yes Rivera won B10's, but he didn't wrestle that many matches last year and really his only good wins were RBY and Gross (who he also lost to). For that reason I agree with him at 3. I would maybe lean towards Lee should be #1 because Eierman didn't wrestle last year, but I'm OK with Eierman there due to his NCAA results and previous win the last time he wrestled Lee in folkstyle.
  13. So to be clear, are you agreeing that we’re not allowed to call winless D1 wrestlers “bad”? It’s funny when I said that I actually almost put “(even though they’re much better than me)”...just figured that was understood.
  14. Eh, Hoffman spent the first half of the season at 184 (although of course that's where 7 of the 10 losses happened), all of his HWT matches were in open tournaments against mostly backups and non-D1 guys. At first glance I'm not sure if he beat a D1 starter, and in addition to Kerk, he lost twice to Lehigh's backup.
  15. But anyone that’s mad about Kerk’s seed should be even more mad that Illinois entered a backup at 149 that hasn’t wrestled a dual this year and is 2-3 in extra matches (and didn’t wrestle in 2020 and was 4-14 in 2019), yet somehow he was seeded higher than Michael North of Maryland, who despite being winless this year (an injury default and 2 4-point losses to Storr and Omania in his 3 duals) was 19-5 as a redshirt last year.
  16. Fernandes (who beat Slavikouski from Harvard that was seeded 10th at NCAA’s). Pelusi of F&M was probably a better win than Hoffman too, he had 20 wins including over 2x NQ Andrew Gunning of UNC.
  17. I guess you can't figure out the seeding criteria either because there is none for B10's... "Bad" is relative of course. I think everyone that posts here knows that 95% or more of the people wrestling D1 are more accomplished wrestlers than 95% or more of the posters here including myself. Same way people would say Carson Wentz was a bad QB last year. Obviously he's better than any of the fans saying that, but for the role he was in, he was bad. I guess you could argue Rebottaro and Colucci aren't "bad" as they have winning records for their career, but getting back to the argument of if they should be seeded over Kerk, if everyone is so focused on this year, Colucci is 0-2, and Rebottaro's only win is against Streck who has a career record of 8-35. Heyob is 12-29 for his career. Keys and Kappes are true freshmen which isn't easy at HWT (although not sure we want to get into the whole do many heavyweights actually have much skill debate...), Kappes is winless and Keys' 2 wins this year have come against backups. Kerk's win over Fernandes last year was arguably a better win than any of them have had.
  18. Yeah I saw he said that on Twitter after I posted that, I dunno on FRL he seemed more upset. I probably would have put Kerk at 8, but 13 is a joke IMO. After Orndorff the rest of the guys are pretty bad. Honestly the most egregious seed was probably Kemerer over Labriola.
  19. Pyles seems to be hating on these seeds. I actually thought overall they were pretty fair.
  20. Who's the favorite? Gable, next topic. Doesn't mean he's definitely going to win though
  21. yes oops for Rider though. Although I think I heard he had some scholarship $ last year but wouldn't have this year, could be wrong
  22. Cool, since we already had a thread about B10 brackets, we can just merge this one into one of the other Marinelli’s draw threads
  23. If the other guy is better, why does it matter? But not sure that’s the case here...
  24. It’s true, PD3 tweeted it himself...
  25. Has to get by last year’s 3rd place finisher first
×
×
  • Create New...