Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Wrestleknownothing

  1. 3 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

    It was a Major Decision loss.

    I am all for up to three Lee brothers wrestling as starters for the season.  I also believe we will see Facundo rather soon too.  If Penn State wants to win a Natty Title they won't do it without him as their 165lber.

    Again. You say it like you have some first hand knowledge. Which I doubt.

  2. 1 hour ago, lu1979 said:

    It appears that PSU and Cornell are in the same pool (Pool C) next week and will wrestle at College Duals  at the end of December (this was discussed in detail in the ranking 165 thread)  If both teams use the lineups they had in their season openers (Army & Stanford) it should be a very close match.  I would say that Cornell is favored at 4 weights and PSU at 5 with 133 a pick em match.  

    125 - Shunk vs Greg D - Favors Cornell

    133 - RBY vs Vito -  I call this a toss up - RBY is defending Champ and legitimately ranked # 1 but Vito has won their only meeting (in FS)

    141 - Nick Lee vs Handlovic - Strongly favors PSU - bonus opportunity

    149 - Bartlett vs Yianni D - Strongly favors Cornell - bonus opportunity

    157 - Barraclough vs Yapoujian - Favors Cornell

    165 - Edsell vs Rameriz - Favors Cornell

    174 - C Star vs Foca - Favors PSU

    184 - A Brooks vs Loew - Favors PSU - Possible bonus but Loew is pretty tough

    197 - Dean vs Cardenas - Favors PSU but it is closer than ranking make it appear - I was thinking of calling this a toss up but JC has to prove he is on that level 1st.

    285 - Kerk vs Fernandes - Strongly favors PSU - bonus opportunity

    So that is my take on the dual with those lineups - either team could come up with some variations to their lineup.  I think it would be pretty amazing if the match came down to the winner at 197.



    Kind of wild to think that over the course of 6 days Julian Ramirez loses to RSF Matt Lee and then beats returning champ Shane Griffith.

  3. On 11/17/2021 at 5:31 PM, hammerlockthree said:

    You don't have to, i'm just not gonna take a bunch of snarky remarks on the subject.

    Someone get back on the topic jeeze


    On 11/17/2021 at 5:53 PM, ionel said:

    I take that as an insult!  Pistols at dawn?

    Back on topic...

    Why is it always at dawn?

  4. 1 hour ago, Antitroll2828 said:

    Could Ferrari possibly bump up and take on Gable, it’s Minnesota home opener , I’m sure WWE will be in attendance bc they are documenting gables season and by the time their weights are up the dual should be in the bag for ok st …both Ferrari and gable are showman , I could 100 percent see Ferrari wanting to do it question is would John smith allow it?

    I think if Ferrari bumped up he would get humiliated.

  5. 4 minutes ago, SetonHallPirate said:

    No. RT is reset at the end of regulation. If RT at the end of the first SV is one minute or more (possible, but will be rare), then the wrestler who has RT gets the RT point and the match.

    If RT at the end of the first set of tiebreaker periods is one second or more, whoever has RT wins the match.

    Now I am confused. You are much more well versed in these things than I. I was under the impression that the SV1 started in neutral and ended with first score. If so, how do you accrue riding time in the SV?

  6. 6 minutes ago, Jim L said:

    Really not understanding riding time criteria. so score is tied after end of regulation then two minute sudden death, that makes sense.

    And then if in the rare case that riding time is exactly tied, then they go to 30 second rideouts?

    1.) Riding time from regulation is wiped out (I believe, but someone check me on this).

    2.) SV1 for 2 minutes - any score wins

    3.) Two 30 second tie-breakers where each wrestler chooses their starting position. If at the end of the two tie-breakers the score is still tied, the wrestler who has any riding time advantage wins. If no riding time advantage then...

    4.) SV2 for 1 minute. - any score wins

    5.) repeat steps 3 and 4 until there is a winner.

  7. 5 minutes ago, Crotalus said:

    I haven't read up on the changes before, but using my powers of deduction, that would mean only one overtime period unless riding time is tied?

    I definitely like the 2 min overtime. And I'm fine with the riding time, too. Similar to freestyle rules, it basically gives a criteria for who is leading and would be known prior to the overtime period beginning. Whoever is behind will have to go out and score, and the other guy can't risk stalling for 2 mins so they will have to engage (theoretically).

    Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

    The subtle difference to freestyle rules is that other than the initial 0-0, there is never a point in a freestyle match where it is tied. Someone is always behind.

    These rule changes did not affect that dynamic for SV1. In addition to adding a minute to SV1, it only moved the riding time advantage portion of the old rule from the second set of tie-breaker periods to the first set of tie-breaker periods. That means there can still be extended periods where there is a tie in folkstyle, even in the overtimes.

    I do prefer the freestyle idea that someone is always trailing in a match after the mandatory shot clock actions or the first score. 

  8. 3 hours ago, MSU158 said:

    That transitive property thing is LAUGHABLE.  In no world can you say a guy who has AA'd EVERY time he has competed is closer to losing in the R12 than being top 4,  especially when one of the years he PLACED top 4.

    1.  The TF loss to Sloan happened in 2018, which will be 5 calendar years before this upcoming NCAA's.  Since then, he placed AA'd at NCAA's both times and Sloan has yet to AA.

    2.)  You went back to the year Warner redshirted to get his 2nd loss to Brucki.  So, do you now count Sanderson as having a loss since he lost as a redshirt?

    Can he lose to the guys you named?  Absolutely.  Would it be fair to so he is "likely" to lose to many of them?  Absolutely not...

    Interesting formulation. By your logic December 31, 2020 is two calendar years before January 1, 2021. By my formulation that is one calendar year before and one day, but nice try.

  • Create New...