maligned

@Thor and @The Genius, I'm actually seeing a lot of people on other boards insisting DT would wrestle the Olympics as his last tournament if Brooks can't go. It seems insane to think of in the middle of the transfer portal, needing to move across the country and probably selling a couple of local businesses. ...and probably leaving his training camp.
 
But people insist it would do so much for the notoriety of the Oklahoma State program that he'd do it.
They say, "John Smith wrestled in the Olympics while coaching. Cael Sanderson made a freestyle comeback while coaching. Why can't DT?"
I hear them, but in this day and age of 24/7/365 recruiting and training demands for D1 coaches--seems crazy. To be his best, he needs 6+ hours per day for training, eating, and recovery activities and 8-9 hours of sleep. He then uses 9-10 hours per day for a big-time D1 coaching job, plus family, business, moving, travel, media appearances, etc, with none of the downtime that a high-level athlete's mind needs in preparing for an elite event?  
 
Let me be the first to predict DT doesn't get gold if he is our rep.

One small devil's advocate counterpoint to the idea that a tech is now too easy:
 
Making techs and majors easier moves team scoring closer to representing actual difficulty of earning each type of win.
 
Pins have always been rightfully worth more team points than a tech. However, tech falls have always been much better indicators of the superior wrestler. Upsets by tech don't exist. Rematch victories by someone who previously got teched are very, very rare. However, pins can happen in a variety of circumstances and are not always earned by the season-long best wrestler. 
 
What we saw in college was that tech falls were way up, but that a rematch could be a good match despite the first match having been a tech. This was not the case before. 
 
Related...close duals will now have points more accurately assigned to the deserving team. Before, a team could have 3 dominant wins totalling only 9 or 10 team points, while their opponent had 3 close wins but also got 9 points. Now, those dominant wins can rightfully be 12 or 13 points compared to the 9 for the close wins.

Or at least give a year for adaptation where girls can compete for the boys' or girls' teams during the regular season as long as they meet scheduling rules.

One small devil's advocate counterpoint to the idea that a tech is now too easy:
 
Making techs and majors easier moves team scoring closer to representing actual difficulty of earning each type of win.
 
Pins have always been rightfully worth more team points than a tech. However, tech falls have always been much better indicators of the superior wrestler. Upsets by tech don't exist. Rematch victories by someone who previously got teched are very, very rare. However, pins can happen in a variety of circumstances and are not always earned by the season-long best wrestler. 
 
What we saw in college was that tech falls were way up, but that a rematch could be a good match despite the first match having been a tech. This was not the case before. 
 
Related...close duals will now have points more accurately assigned to the deserving team. Before, a team could have 3 dominant wins totalling only 9 or 10 team points, while their opponent had 3 close wins but also got 9 points. Now, those dominant wins can rightfully be 12 or 13 points compared to the 9 for the close wins.

The biggest potential issue I see is if the girls are limited with events like the boys. Currently there are 18 points allowed with a minimum 6 duals and a maximum of 6 tournaments(3 or more teams). Currently most teams don't have enough girls for a dual meet and the girls are better off going to "tournaments" in which there are 5+ teams there so everyone can get matches.

One small devil's advocate counterpoint to the idea that a tech is now too easy:
 
Making techs and majors easier moves team scoring closer to representing actual difficulty of earning each type of win.
 
Pins have always been rightfully worth more team points than a tech. However, tech falls have always been much better indicators of the superior wrestler. Upsets by tech don't exist. Rematch victories by someone who previously got teched are very, very rare. However, pins can happen in a variety of circumstances and are not always earned by the season-long best wrestler. 
 
What we saw in college was that tech falls were way up, but that a rematch could be a good match despite the first match having been a tech. This was not the case before. 
 
Related...close duals will now have points more accurately assigned to the deserving team. Before, a team could have 3 dominant wins totalling only 9 or 10 team points, while their opponent had 3 close wins but also got 9 points. Now, those dominant wins can rightfully be 12 or 13 points compared to the 9 for the close wins.

One small devil's advocate counterpoint to the idea that a tech is now too easy:
 
Making techs and majors easier moves team scoring closer to representing actual difficulty of earning each type of win.
 
Pins have always been rightfully worth more team points than a tech. However, tech falls have always been much better indicators of the superior wrestler. Upsets by tech don't exist. Rematch victories by someone who previously got teched are very, very rare. However, pins can happen in a variety of circumstances and are not always earned by the season-long best wrestler. 
 
What we saw in college was that tech falls were way up, but that a rematch could be a good match despite the first match having been a tech. This was not the case before. 
 
Related...close duals will now have points more accurately assigned to the deserving team. Before, a team could have 3 dominant wins totalling only 9 or 10 team points, while their opponent had 3 close wins but also got 9 points. Now, those dominant wins can rightfully be 12 or 13 points compared to the 9 for the close wins.

One small devil's advocate counterpoint to the idea that a tech is now too easy:
 
Making techs and majors easier moves team scoring closer to representing actual difficulty of earning each type of win.
 
Pins have always been rightfully worth more team points than a tech. However, tech falls have always been much better indicators of the superior wrestler. Upsets by tech don't exist. Rematch victories by someone who previously got teched are very, very rare. However, pins can happen in a variety of circumstances and are not always earned by the season-long best wrestler. 
 
What we saw in college was that tech falls were way up, but that a rematch could be a good match despite the first match having been a tech. This was not the case before. 
 
Related...close duals will now have points more accurately assigned to the deserving team. Before, a team could have 3 dominant wins totalling only 9 or 10 team points, while their opponent had 3 close wins but also got 9 points. Now, those dominant wins can rightfully be 12 or 13 points compared to the 9 for the close wins.

One small devil's advocate counterpoint to the idea that a tech is now too easy:
 
Making techs and majors easier moves team scoring closer to representing actual difficulty of earning each type of win.
 
Pins have always been rightfully worth more team points than a tech. However, tech falls have always been much better indicators of the superior wrestler. Upsets by tech don't exist. Rematch victories by someone who previously got teched are very, very rare. However, pins can happen in a variety of circumstances and are not always earned by the season-long best wrestler. 
 
What we saw in college was that tech falls were way up, but that a rematch could be a good match despite the first match having been a tech. This was not the case before. 
 
Related...close duals will now have points more accurately assigned to the deserving team. Before, a team could have 3 dominant wins totalling only 9 or 10 team points, while their opponent had 3 close wins but also got 9 points. Now, those dominant wins can rightfully be 12 or 13 points compared to the 9 for the close wins.

Hockaday looking insane. Kaleb Larkin beat Jesse Mendez when he won a Senior level freestyle tournament in November. He just teched 2-time AA Kolodzik and went to the wire with Yianni D at Olympic Trials. Hockaday falls to him, 8-7. Dude's becoming a bona fide beast

He's not a huge medal favorite. He'll come in as the 4th best guy and capable of beating anyone--but if brackets work out with him on the same side as 2 of the Big 3, he has to get an upset to medal.
 
AMENDMENT: I just researched and saw that ranking points should be locked in with Mason and the Big 3 as the 4 seeds. That will mean he can medal without beating one of them and that he's a clear medal favorite. I disagree that a loss would be a "huge" upset because the rise of new, young monsters, along with upsets by savvy vets, are commonplace internationally--but him not medalling would be an upset if the draws hold.

IU picks up 2023 Columbia 133-lb national qualifier, Angelo Rini. He's a grad transfer who was out much of this season with injuries. 
Avon's own Cheaney Schoeff (IU redshirt at 133 this year) enters the portal in a possibly not unrelated move.

Wow, so sorry! Get well soon!

Wow, so sorry! Get well soon!

Team sports vs individual sports are very different. If you aren't winning titles eventually as an individual, you're losing matches and can't be considered the best. In team sports, you could lose games but still be clearly the best individual. 
 
I do agree that being a 4-timer or being undefeated for a career is overrated. Mason Parris losing a match as a freshman at a big guy weight or Howe losing early to a fellow all-timer shouldn't mean anything when compared to 4-timers that were at low weights and/or didn't face royalty as freshmen. 

Team sports vs individual sports are very different. If you aren't winning titles eventually as an individual, you're losing matches and can't be considered the best. In team sports, you could lose games but still be clearly the best individual. 
 
I do agree that being a 4-timer or being undefeated for a career is overrated. Mason Parris losing a match as a freshman at a big guy weight or Howe losing early to a fellow all-timer shouldn't mean anything when compared to 4-timers that were at low weights and/or didn't face royalty as freshmen. 

Team sports vs individual sports are very different. If you aren't winning titles eventually as an individual, you're losing matches and can't be considered the best. In team sports, you could lose games but still be clearly the best individual. 
 
I do agree that being a 4-timer or being undefeated for a career is overrated. Mason Parris losing a match as a freshman at a big guy weight or Howe losing early to a fellow all-timer shouldn't mean anything when compared to 4-timers that were at low weights and/or didn't face royalty as freshmen. 

Iran 190 (5 gold, 8 medals)
Japan 130 (2, 5)
Kyrgyzstan 121 (1, 4)
Kazakhstan 118 (1, 4)
Mongolia 92 (0, 4)
Uzbekistan 85 (0, 3)
India 84 (0, 3)
Bahrain gets the 10th gold and 3 other medals...4 for 4 in medals from their import participants.

CP alum Frazier hits the portal out of Va Tech.. Wrestlestat has him at #49 among all 133s on D1 rosters. He'd have immediate national qualifier potential in the right spot.

CP alum Frazier hits the portal out of Va Tech.. Wrestlestat has him at #49 among all 133s on D1 rosters. He'd have immediate national qualifier potential in the right spot.

I agree with the sentiment of narrowing the gap between 197 and 285, but I would be disappointed if we narrowed the low-middle weights, where the highest numbers of guys naturally fall. The international weights don't make sense at all. They were created by choosing the 6 weights we wanted most--and then trying to squeeze 4 additional ones in somewhere (and accidentally skewing way too heavily toward big guys). They would be structured differently if we were allowed 10 weights at the Olympics.
 
Something like this would include bigger guys better than we currently do, while catching as many college wrestlers' natural sizes as possible, in my opinion. Including KGs for your benefit, @SIACfan  :
126 (57kg)
134 (61kg)
142 (64.5kg)
150 (68kg)
158 (72kg)
167 (76kg)
177 (80kg)
190 (86kg)
210 (95kg)
285 (129kg)

He will be at 197 for sure next season 

D1 Qualifier data is a limited way of evaluating who produces the top talent, but it's a decent starting point. 
 
Top 20 D1 Qualifiers, combined 2023 & 2024:
 
1    pa    89
2    il    54
3    oh    50
4    nj    49
5    ca    39
6    ny    33
7    ia    29
8    mn    28
9    mi    24
10    ok    23
11    wi    21
11    fl    21
13    mo    18
14    in    17
15    va    16
15    ga    16
17    co    13
18    nc    10
19    id    8
19    ks    8
 
Top 20, per capita (Qualifiers for 2 years, per 1 million residents):
 
1    ia    9.0
2    pa    6.9
3    ok    5.7
4    nj    5.3
5    mn    4.9
6    il    4.3
7    oh    4.2
8    id    4.1
9    wi    3.6
10    ne    3.5
11    mo    2.9
12    ks    2.7
13    in    2.5
14    mi    2.4
15    co    2.2
16    va    1.8
17    ny    1.7
18    ga    1.5
19    ct    1.4
20    al    1.4
(no CA or FL)

Interesting. There have been so many successful smaller heavies the last 25 years, I would have thought he'd push through and make a run at getting elite against big boys. It'll be fun to see how he evolves.

That's true. I agree that we shouldn't put much value on populations or enrollments to evaluate relative success. 😉