Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Brands'.
Found 3 results
All of the conference tournaments are complete and there is only one tournament left. The big one, the NCAAS. Iowa appeared to be the best team early on, but with the unexpected 2nd place finish at national duals and tie for the Big 10 championship, they appear to be fading a bit. Ohio State wrestled their best at the conference tournament and seems to be coming on strong. Missouri has been consistently strong throughout the year. Minnesota was seen by many as a serious contender for the title before the season, but they haven't yet lived up to the hype. Although PSU has a decent team, it doesn't look like they'll be winning their 5th consecutive team title. Early favorite Edinboro returns the most team points from last year's ncaa tournament but appear to be on the outside looking in. Cornell hasn't looked great all season but has a few top notch individuals. Although Iowa seems to be fading imo, I think they still are the tournament favorites. I'm not betting, but if I had to, I would wager on the 1996 Olympic Gold medalist, 1993 World Champion, 3x ncaa champion great coach of the University of Iowa, Tom Brands leading his team to another national title! So who do you all see winning the team title in two weeks?
Hello all, Over the past few weeks I've been thinking about some of my past threads here on TheMat. Specifically, I was thinking about the threads where I discussed my criterion for coaching greatness. For those who don't know already, I believe you need to win ncaa team titles to be considered a great coach. Several posters disliked my criteria and felt that my standards were too strict. Because I wouldn't allow guys like Koll and Flynn into my "great" category as exceptions to the rule, I got a lot of heat. I kept hearing about all of the struggles that these coaches had to deal with and how that it was unreasonable for me to expect ncaa titles from their teams. Lack of highly ranked recruits and less than 9.9 scholarships were the common reasons given for why schools like Edinboro, CMU, American, and many others are at a severe disadvantage. As many of you know, I countered by saying that I hold the coaches responsible for their situations. I believe that many in the wrestling community fail to consider that just maybe a lot of the coaches who always have less are actually in that predicament due to their own shortcomings as a coach. Maybe a lack of scholarship money is due to poor fundraising strategies? Or maybe a lack of effort? Maybe the reason for not being able to secure highly ranked HS studs is because the studs looked back on the coaches record and realized the poor job that was done with other wrestlers in the past? I remember pointing out a few shortcomings of a very popular small school coach and the responses that I received. You'd have thought I was committing blasphemy by the way I was verbally attacked. But what really stood out to me was that the facts I pointed out were rarely, if ever, addressed directly. They were simply swept under the rug. I guess this is what should be expected when you challenge the popular narrative that everyone assumes, or wants to be true. All of this makes me think of how it seems that the only coaches who seem to have clear, identifiable standards are the top coaches. Cael, Smith, Brands, Jrob, etc. We expect these guys to produce national championship teams. 1st place at ncaas. When they fail, we hear about how their programs are struggling and that maybe some changes need to be made at, or near the top. At many (maybe most) other universities, the standards are very ambiguous. What are the standards at Buffalo, Clarion, or Wyoming? If schools like these ever make their way into the top 10, we hear about how good of a job the coach is doing. That he's doing so much "more with less". It seems to me that no one ever mentions what's considered to be underachieving at places like these. What type of performance should get a coach fired from a place like NDSU? I'd like to go through all of the teams in D1 and try to see what everyone believes is expected from each school. To be clear, I expect ALL programs to be going for the ncaa team title. I'm not backing away from my standards one bit. But since so many others believe that all coaches shouldn't be held to championship standards, what standards should be used then? I guess national champions, all americans and ncaa qualifiers would be a good place to start?