Jump to content
LifeintheRed

No Love for O'Toole?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ShakaAloha said:

Maybe they should have hired Askren to coach the Wisconsin Badgers college team instead of the RTC.  I bet he would have gotten O'Toole, both Moccos, and Keckstein.  And maybe Buchanan too. 

Could be, could be. 

Do you think he would work well with a boss above him?  Legit question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BadgerMon said:

Could be, could be. 

Do you think he would work well with a boss above him?  Legit question.

So you're saying Ben would have a hard time as a head coach having to answer to an AD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShakaAloha said:

So you're saying Ben would have a hard time as a head coach having to answer to an AD?

I don't know the man...but he HAS been running his own show pretty much since he graduated.

And Alvarez is quite the authoritarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gallison said:

Take a closer look at the low to mid weight wrestlers and who they wrestled.  I think everyone under 157 lost only to All Americans.  Speaks more to the bad draw they got than to poor wrestling.  I do agree that a few of the Mizzou guys wrestled below their seeds, but many did not.  Especially proud of Surtain who was a backup for 99% of the season.  He did well enough at MAC championships to get to the nationals and wrestled tough (but lost) to two AA's.

125 seeded 18 finished 16-24.  

133 seeded 6 and lost in round of 12

141 seeded 6 and lost in round of 12

149 seeded 3 and got 5th

157 seeded 7 and lost in round of 12

165 seeded 6 and got 3rd

174 seeded 10 and lost in round of 16

184 seeded 9 and lost in round of 16

197 seeded 7 and got 5

285 seeded 11 and lost in round of 16

 

So 7 were below seed, 2 above, and 1 on seed.  That's definitely more than a few guys under seed, but I would agree it doesn't necessarily mean they were overseeded.  Iowa had a ton of guys under seed and nobody accused them of being overseeded.  It's possible Mizzou didn't get overseeded and they just way underperformed at Nationals like Iowa did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, boconnell said:

125 seeded 18 finished 16-24.  

133 seeded 6 and lost in round of 12

141 seeded 6 and lost in round of 12

149 seeded 3 and got 5th

157 seeded 7 and lost in round of 12

165 seeded 6 and got 3rd

174 seeded 10 and lost in round of 16

184 seeded 9 and lost in round of 16

197 seeded 7 and got 5

285 seeded 11 and lost in round of 16

 

So 7 were below seed, 2 above, and 1 on seed.  That's definitely more than a few guys under seed, but I would agree it doesn't necessarily mean they were overseeded.  Iowa had a ton of guys under seed and nobody accused them of being overseeded.  It's possible Mizzou didn't get overseeded and they just way underperformed at Nationals like Iowa did.

Talking about seeds when a vast majority of teams didn't hit double-digit duals is a complete waste of time. Since joining the MAC, Mizzou overall has been slightly overseeded, likely due to an easier conference tournament. 

When Mizzou moves to the Big12 in the next year or two, then they will have the second toughest conference tournament and we can stop talking about this once and for all. 

And just a reminder, Coach Brian Smith wanted to stay in the Big12 when Mizzou left for the SEC. But the AD's at Kansas and Texas - two programs that don't have wrestling programs - said no and vetoed it. John Smith wanted Mizzou to stay and that's why he continues to dual them once a year. Luckily for Mizzou and college wrestling, the ADs at those institutions have left and the bad blood has eased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boconnell said:

125 seeded 18 finished 16-24.  

133 seeded 6 and lost in round of 12

141 seeded 6 and lost in round of 12

149 seeded 3 and got 5th

157 seeded 7 and lost in round of 12

165 seeded 6 and got 3rd

174 seeded 10 and lost in round of 16

184 seeded 9 and lost in round of 16

197 seeded 7 and got 5

285 seeded 11 and lost in round of 16

 

So 7 were below seed, 2 above, and 1 on seed.  That's definitely more than a few guys under seed, but I would agree it doesn't necessarily mean they were overseeded.  Iowa had a ton of guys under seed and nobody accused them of being overseeded.  It's possible Mizzou didn't get overseeded and they just way underperformed at Nationals like Iowa did.

Based on seeds, I think Mizzou definitely underperformed more than Iowa.   Iowa had 5 guys finish below seed - Eierman, Young, Marinelli, Kemerer and Brands, with 2 of them seeded 1st and finishing 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Mizzou was alone in being OVER-Seeded or UNDER-performing (pick how you want to characterize it) .  I know that narrative has been a popular topic, but lets look at another Big 10 Team besides Iowa (discussed above).

MICHIGAN

125 :  Ragusin (#11 Seed) ; R24

149 :  Storr (#11 Seed) ; R16

197 :  Amine (#1 Seed) ; 3rd

 

8 qualifiers. 

(3) under-perfomed their Seed, (4) performed to Seed (Mattin, Lewan, Massa, Parris), and only (1) overperformed (#11 Amine - 7th).

Not trying to trash Michigan, rather, pointing out that Mizzou was not alone. 

Edited by Show_Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Show_Me said:

I don't think Mizzou was alone in being OVER-Seeded or UNDER-performing (pick how you want to characterize it) .  I know that narrative has been a popular topic, but lets look at another Big 10 Team besides Iowa (discussed above).

MICHIGAN

125 :  Ragusin (#11 Seed) ; R24

149 :  Storr (#11 Seed) ; R16

197 :  Amine (#1 Seed) ; 3rd

 

8 qualifiers. 

(3) under-perfomed their Seed, (4) performed to Seed (Mattin, Lewan, Massa, Parris), and only (1) overperformed (#11 Amine - 7th).

Not trying to trash Michigan, rather, pointing out that Mizzou was not alone. 

Well I think 7 guys underperforming vs their seed is worse than 3...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be a David Taylor in the making.  A guy who probably won't hit his physical maturity until his mid 20's but is so technically good that he wins anyway.  After how he did at nationals up at 165 I have to think he would have been a title threat at 157.  I could also see him being even heavier and making a Kemerer/Hidlay/Realbuto move from 157-174 in the next few years.  He obviously hasn't had the same kind of results, but Ridge Lovett is another guy who I think falls into this category.

Edited by Konquest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Konquest said:

This could be a David Taylor in the making.  A guy who probably won't hit his physical maturity until his mid 20's but is so technically good that he wins anyway.  After how he did at nationals up at 165 I have to think he would have been a title threat at 157.  I could also see him being even heavier and making a Kemerer/Hidlay/Realbuto move from 157-174 in the next few years.  He obviously hasn't had the same kind of results, but Ridge Lovett is another guy who I think falls into this category.

They should both go to the Treigning Lab.  It works wonders for those who physically mature a bit later than their peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Konquest said:

This could be a David Taylor in the making.  A guy who probably won't hit his physical maturity until his mid 20's but is so technically good that he wins anyway.  After how he did at nationals up at 165 I have to think he would have been a title threat at 157.  I could also see him being even heavier and making a Kemerer/Hidlay/Realbuto move from 157-174 in the next few years.  He obviously hasn't had the same kind of results, but Ridge Lovett is another guy who I think falls into this category.

What’s even crazier is he walks around 170, so he wasn’t even a big 157, and still placed 3rd as a true freshman at 165. He only went up to make room for Jacques 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Housebuye said:

What’s even crazier is he walks around 170, so he wasn’t even a big 157, and still placed 3rd as a true freshman at 165. He only went up to make room for Jacques 

This is not exactly true. O’toole is not and never will be a weight cutter. If you ask him what he’d prefer, he’d say 165. He BELIEVES in the get better, not lighter philosophy. It was obvious, in several matches, that he was getting overpowered and had trouble finishing positions he’s easily converted to points all season. Until he achieves a singularly next level technical advantage, similar to Askren, he will not see Askrenesque results. That said, another 10 lbs of lean muscle and he becomes scary good at 165. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gantry said:

If O'toole preferred 165, why did he start the season at 157? 

This year was about setting the foundation for a National Title run for Mizzou. The best lineup long term includes having Jacques, O'Toole and Mocco. It's no different than why didn't Rocky go 184. He could have made it, but his long term natural weight is 197lb and it also helps the team. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Rocky never started at 184, if O'Toole wanted to wrestle from the beginning at 165 all year and he knew that he was going to end the year at 165 cutting to 157 at the beginning of the season made no sense.  Would have been smarter to get bigger all offseason to prepare for 165, not do a cut to 157 and move up after the season started. 

I don't disagree the best long term lineup gets them all in there, I just don't think O'Toole preferred 165 from the get go. 

Edited by Gantry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gantry said:

But Rocky never started at 184, if O'Toole wanted to wrestle from the beginning at 165 all year and he knew that he was going to end the year at 165 cutting to 157 at the beginning of the season made no sense.  Would have been smarter to get bigger all offseason to prepare for 165, not do a cut to 157 and move up after the season started. 

I don't disagree the best long term lineup gets them all in there, I just don't think O'Toole preferred 165 from the get go. 

Your presumptions are flawed. 

1.) Coach Smith said O'Toole and the rest of the freshman would have redshirted if not for the COVID free eligibility. 

2.) The Covid free year was not passed till October 15 for winter athletes. 

3.) Mizzou resumed wrestling in September after Labor Day weekend, but with limited access to training partners. Therefore, from October 15 to mid-January, O'Toole only had 3 months to get bigger.

4.) There was no "offseason to prepare for 165". The wrestlers weren't allowed in the weight room till September. To build 10-15lbs of lean muscle, you need a good 6-9 months of intense weightlifting. Throughout the Midwest, most gyms were closed from mid-March through June. Show me someone who can pack on 15lbs of lean muscle in three months and I'll show you a positive HGH or steroid test.

5.) As demonstrated, O'Toole had only 3 months for himself to gain weight and Mizzou coaches to evaluate the team with limited reps between training partners.

6.) Mizzou coaches dealt with limited competition outside of Jrs/U23s, making it more difficult to determine what the best lineup was. That's why Mizzou experimented with lineups throughout January. 

7.) After multiple duals, Coach Smith determined the best near term and long term lineup was for O'Toole & Mocco to move up. 

You can disagree with the logic of having O'Toole move up from 157, but your entire premise is built around the idea that the global pandemic did not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll agree to disagree on whether or not O'Toole would have preferred 165 to 157 this year, I don't like beating discussions to death especially when I sure as heck don't know.  Enjoy your insights on the topic and all things Mizzou though, have a good one.

Edited by Gantry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...