Incentivize Better Matchups

[Sean Harp]

Fair Warning: The following is not recommended for inflexible thinkers.

NCAA Wrestling should incentivize wrestlers to seek ranked wins rather than avoid losses.

Let’s use the Journeyman Classic as an example of loss avoidance.

No bracket so no team or individual champions. Not even a round robin. What we got was called “pool play” where wrestlers had a limited number of potential opponents. The coaches, much like helicopter parents, arranged appropriate “playdates”.

Had it been available only on pay-per-view, would you have bought it? Probably not. Would you cough up ten bucks to watch a tournament with these potential finalists?

LB​	NAME 1​	Rk​	Rk​	NAME 2​
125​	NOTO​	1​	2​	FIGUEROA​
133​	CROOKHAM​	1​	2​	ARAJAU​
141​	BARTLETT​	2​	7​	JACK​
149​	VAN NESS​	2​	3​	PARCO​
157​	HAINES​	1​	4​	TEEMER​
165​	RAMIREZ​	7​	NR​	MESENBRINK​
174​	STAROCCI​	1​	2​	FOCA​
184​	TRUAX​	2​	9​	NOLAN​
197​	BROOKS​	1​	5​	HIDLAY​
285​	KERKVLIET​	1​	4​	SCHULTZ​

Not too shabby, eh? For all the lip service about “growing the sport”, this lost opportunity might appear hypocritical but it is understandable. Why?:

Postseason seeding incentivizes coaches to avoid potential losses.

Solution: Ignore losses altogether. Maybe just use the average ranking of a wrestler’s top three wins?

This would incentive the higher ranked matches that we, the fans, crave.

Need proof? Take a gander at the All-Star Classic lineup. There is a simple reason all those studs signed on. It doesn’t count towards their record. Loss avoided.

I have no delusions of being the smartest guy in the room so if you have another way to incentivize better matches, please share.

PS Apologies if this idea has already been suggested. I am not a regular at his bar.

 

[AndEEss]

Looking at the actual competitors: Figueroa, Jack, Parco, Teemer, Foca, Nolan, and Schultz didn't wrestle at the Journeyman Classic.

Brooks/Hidlay and Ramirez/Messenbrink were the only "big" matches that didn't happen.

 

[RB-Old]

Fair Warning: The following is not recommended for inflexible thinkers.

NCAA Wrestling should incentivize wrestlers to seek ranked wins rather than avoid losses.

Let’s use the Journeyman Classic as an example of loss avoidance.

No bracket so no team or individual champions. Not even a round robin. What we got was called “pool play” where wrestlers had a limited number of potential opponents. The coaches, much like helicopter parents, arranged appropriate “playdates”.

Had it been available only on pay-per-view, would you have bought it? Probably not. Would you cough up ten bucks to watch a tournament with these potential finalists?

LB​	NAME 1​	Rk​	Rk​	NAME 2​
125​	NOTO​	1​	2​	FIGUEROA​
133​	CROOKHAM​	1​	2​	ARAJAU​
141​	BARTLETT​	2​	7​	JACK​
149​	VAN NESS​	2​	3​	PARCO​
157​	HAINES​	1​	4​	TEEMER​
165​	RAMIREZ​	7​	NR​	MESENBRINK​
174​	STAROCCI​	1​	2​	FOCA​
184​	TRUAX​	2​	9​	NOLAN​
197​	BROOKS​	1​	5​	HIDLAY​
285​	KERKVLIET​	1​	4​	SCHULTZ​

Not too shabby, eh? For all the lip service about “growing the sport”, this lost opportunity might appear hypocritical but it is understandable. Why?:

Postseason seeding incentivizes coaches to avoid potential losses.

Solution: Ignore losses altogether. Maybe just use the average ranking of a wrestler’s top three wins?

This would incentive the higher ranked matches that we, the fans, crave.

Need proof? Take a gander at the All-Star Classic lineup. There is a simple reason all those studs signed on. It doesn’t count towards their record. Loss avoided.

I have no delusions of being the smartest guy in the room so if you have another way to incentivize better matches, please share.

PS Apologies if this idea has already been suggested. I am not a regular at his bar.

Mark Hall would like a word about the All-Star Classic not counting.

 

[HCS3Seasons]

Mark Hall would like a word about the All-Star Classic not counting.

As would Quentin Wright... As I recall, he spent virtually the entire season at #2 as a result.

 

[PSU Mike]

Wouldn’t differences in opposing coaches’ feelings about the relative benefit of familiarity play into this as much as seeding consideration?

 

[psumacw]

i think we've seen from UWW's attempts at encouraging participation that the top guys simply don't care about seeding. so if the #1 guy doesn't mind getting dropped in the bracket at random then the incentive for #2-6 to compete a lot and get seeded highly is rightfully diminished.

 

[Sean Harp]

As would Quentin Wright... As I recall, he spent virtually the entire season at #2 as a result.

Looking at the actual competitors: Figueroa, Jack, Parco, Teemer, Foca, Nolan, and Schultz didn't wrestle at the Journeyman Classic.

Brooks/Hidlay and Ramirez/Messenbrink were the only "big" matches that didn't happen.

Perhaps they might have participated if they were incentivized to seek ranked victories instead of avoiding losses.

 

[Sean Harp]

Wouldn’t differences in opposing coaches’ feelings about the relative benefit of familiarity play into this as much as seeding consideration?

Perhaps this might explain the absence of Keegan O'Toole and David Carr at Journeyman?

 

[Sean Harp]

i think we've seen from UWW's attempts at encouraging participation that the top guys simply don't care about seeding. so if the #1 guy doesn't mind getting dropped in the bracket at random then the incentive for #2-6 to compete a lot and get seeded highly is rightfully diminished.

perhaps your example is more applicable to the international stag? just a thought.

 

[Sean Harp]

Perhaps this might explain the absence of Keegan O'Toole and David Carr at Journeyman?

Apologies. I meant to say the All-Star Classic, not Journeyman.

 

[rmg78]

Apologies. I meant to say the All-Star Classic, not Journeyman.

They were both at the all star classic last year, albeit not wrestling each other. But, as for the PSU guys, they wrestle in the Big10, they do not need to seek out ranked opponents as they will come when the conference season starts. Cornell also wrestles a difficult schedule, no need to seek out. That event provides what many of the coaches are looking for, a relaxed event to get their guys some matches in with maybe one or two ranked guys. It was not called a tournament and the coaches knew it wasn't going to run that way either.

 

[nerfstate]

Cool idea--will have to sit on it a bit. There's bound to be some unintended consequences lurking, but my Wednesday brain isn't finding 'em.

When Adam Tirapelle brought up the confusing format of the Journeyman Classic, and the missed "big matchups" on X, he kinda hit the nail on the head WRT to making meaningful change here:


Otherwise, any change to the format of this event, and Cael, Mike Grey, and others simply look to book a different event on their schedule (maybe another dual w/ Sacred Heart and Drexel, for example). And for a first-weekend event, I think the lack of the premiere matchups was less about seeding risk, and more about a reasonable on-ramp to competition (and not duplicating matches w/ the classic). Cael at least has a long (and successful, duh) history of the first major challenges of the season appearing in late December or early January (Collegiate Duals/Southern Scuffle). Apart from the Lehigh tradition, we generally dual (or tourney) with lesser comp until then. The formula seems to work from a competitive standpoint, but perhaps it's not ideal for fan intrigue. I think mostly people just mistook the marketing for the event, and assumed we'd get Brooks vs. Hidlay twice in a week--but the fine print made it pretty clear that was not really in the cards.

 

[Folkstylefan]

From the cheap seats come the 2 championship guys again. Dual championship will not work. Unless you’re having 8 teams from big ten in the brackets NOT.

 

[SpikingWhamos]

From the cheap seats come the 2 championship guys again. Dual championship will not work. Unless you’re having 8 teams from big ten in the brackets NOT.

I do wonder what would have happened to the "BCS / B1G vs the world bowls" versions of the NWCA Dual Championships if Suriano hadn't gotten hurt / FLO wouldn't have been a disaster / Brands wouldn't have oranged VA Tech. Seemed like a good compromise and was a fun weekend of wrestling in both 2016 and 2017

NWCA National Duals Championship Recap – The Guillotine

By Gary R. Blockus MANHEIM, Pa. - Unbeaten and top-ranked Penn State claimed the crown jewel in the 2016 NWCA Division I National Championship Dual Series prese

theguillotine.com

NWCA National Duals Championship Series pairings set

MANHEIM, Pa. -- The National Wrestling Coaches Association and the National Duals Selection Committee is pleased to announce the matchups for the 2017 NWCA National Duals Championship Series presented by Theraworx and the United States Marine Corps. In the second year of this format, teams from...

www.ncaa.com

 

[El-Jefe]

Fair Warning: The following is not recommended for inflexible thinkers.

NCAA Wrestling should incentivize wrestlers to seek ranked wins rather than avoid losses.

Let’s use the Journeyman Classic as an example of loss avoidance.

No bracket so no team or individual champions. Not even a round robin. What we got was called “pool play” where wrestlers had a limited number of potential opponents. The coaches, much like helicopter parents, arranged appropriate “playdates”.

Had it been available only on pay-per-view, would you have bought it? Probably not. Would you cough up ten bucks to watch a tournament with these potential finalists?

LB​	NAME 1​	Rk​	Rk​	NAME 2​
125​	NOTO​	1​	2​	FIGUEROA​
133​	CROOKHAM​	1​	2​	ARAJAU​
141​	BARTLETT​	2​	7​	JACK​
149​	VAN NESS​	2​	3​	PARCO​
157​	HAINES​	1​	4​	TEEMER​
165​	RAMIREZ​	7​	NR​	MESENBRINK​
174​	STAROCCI​	1​	2​	FOCA​
184​	TRUAX​	2​	9​	NOLAN​
197​	BROOKS​	1​	5​	HIDLAY​
285​	KERKVLIET​	1​	4​	SCHULTZ​

Not too shabby, eh? For all the lip service about “growing the sport”, this lost opportunity might appear hypocritical but it is understandable. Why?:

Postseason seeding incentivizes coaches to avoid potential losses.

Solution: Ignore losses altogether. Maybe just use the average ranking of a wrestler’s top three wins?

This would incentive the higher ranked matches that we, the fans, crave.

Need proof? Take a gander at the All-Star Classic lineup. There is a simple reason all those studs signed on. It doesn’t count towards their record. Loss avoided.

I have no delusions of being the smartest guy in the room so if you have another way to incentivize better matches, please share.

PS Apologies if this idea has already been suggested. I am not a regular at his bar.

Ultimately what you're proposing is changing the NCAA seeding criteria.

The current process is a gigantic simulated round-robin using these scoring criteria:
- H2H 25
- Quality Wins 20
- Coaches Rank 15
- Conference Tournament Placement 10
- Common Opponent 10
- Win % 10
- RPI 10

IMO 3, 4, and 6 are stupid. Their points could be reallocated.

I'm not sure how much it would affect regular season matchups. Coaches will always limit the number of high-intensity matches, for both physical and mental health.

Also, how do coaches schedule vs. guys who have breakthru years? For example: last year at this time, nobody had Levi and Paniro Johnson getting top 5 seeds at nationals.

 

[El-Jefe]

BTW, the new MFF rule disincentivizes participation in tournaments where better matches could occur.

 

[nerfstate]

From the cheap seats come the 2 championship guys again. Dual championship will not work. Unless you’re having 8 teams from big ten in the brackets NOT.

I don't think anyone here is advocating for a dual championship. I think what Adam was alluding to was finding ways to make in-season matches and matchups matter more. Haven't seen the silver bullet for that yet, but OP's idea is one approach.

 

[jtothemfp]

I'm with Nerf & will have to give your suggestion more mulling time.

But I'm already crystal clear on appreciating this as the killer open many blog posts need: "Fair Warning: The following is not recommended for inflexible thinkers." Lol, great stuff.

 

[WexfordWarrior]

I'm with Nerf & will have to give your suggestion more mulling time.

But I'm already crystal clear on appreciating this as the killer open many blog posts need: "Fair Warning: The following is not recommended for inflexible thinkers." Lol, great stuff.

 

[Folkstylefan]

Why would a coach want to put guys in a gringvright out of the gate? Especially a big ten coach knowing the big ten dual season is a grind and the big ten tourny even more

 

[Folkstylefan]

Or to use a baseball analogy the more you see the good pitcher the better your odds on winning the match up

 

[tullfan68]

no worries this will all be settled in March at the NCAA finals till then who cares!

 

[tikk10]

Wow, rare @Sean Harp drive-by! I met up with Sean a few years ago for a BJC dual, great guy.

I agree the seeding formula needs to be tinkered with to better incentivize matches. I think from a coaches' standpoint the fear of losing isn't the issue so much as the fear of losing to certain opponents--head-to-head is a high seeding criteria. Removing H2H as a criteria can't happen b/c it's only fair that H2H counts for something.

I've advocated in the past a stick (as opposed to carrot) approach, whereby a wrestler healthy enough to weigh in will, for the exclusive purpose of seeding relative to another opponent, be found to have "lost" a match he could have wrestled against an opponent ranked within, say, 10? of that wrestler.

A few years ago Cohlton Schultz opted (more likely Zeke chose for him) not to wrestle Greg Kerkvliet at the Collegiate Duals for the sole purpose of protecting his seed; a loss would've risked him dropping to a 4 seed and on Gable's side of the bracket, but with a weak schedule right through to the NCAAs, ducking Kerk guaranteed him a 2/3 seed. And it worked--Schultz got the 2 seed and made it all the way to the finals. If the seeding committee had treated Schultz' duck of Kerk like a H2H "loss" to Kerk, the 2022 NCAAs are seeded differently.

There are two reasons this won't happen: (a) coaches would be ceding power--a tactical weapon--from their arsenal; and (b) it penalizes wrestlers who are legitimately injured, and there's no good/easy way to distinguish legitimate injuries from seed-protecting medical forfeits.

 

[El-Jefe]

Wow, rare @Sean Harp drive-by! I met up with Sean a few years ago for a BJC dual, great guy.

I agree the seeding formula needs to be tinkered with to better incentivize matches. I think from a coaches' standpoint the fear of losing isn't the issue so much as the fear of losing to certain opponents--head-to-head is a high seeding criteria. Removing H2H as a criteria can't happen b/c it's only fair that H2H counts for something.

I've advocated in the past a stick (as opposed to carrot) approach, whereby a wrestler healthy enough to weigh in will, for the exclusive purpose of seeding relative to another opponent, be found to have "lost" a match he could have wrestled against an opponent ranked within, say, 10? of that wrestler.

A few years ago Cohlton Schultz opted (more likely Zeke chose for him) not to wrestle Greg Kerkvliet at the Collegiate Duals for the sole purpose of protecting his seed; a loss would've risked him dropping to a 4 seed and on Gable's side of the bracket, but with a weak schedule right through to the NCAAs, ducking Kerk guaranteed him a 2/3 seed. And it worked--Schultz got the 2 seed and made it all the way to the finals. If the seeding committee had treated Schultz' duck of Kerk like a H2H "loss" to Kerk, the 2022 NCAAs are seeded differently.

There are two reasons this won't happen: (a) coaches would be ceding power--a tactical weapon--from their arsenal; and (b) it penalizes wrestlers who are legitimately injured, and there's no good/easy way to distinguish legitimate injuries from seed-protecting medical forfeits.

Related to (a) or maybe its own category: it would prevent coaches from bumping wrestlers up during a dual -- either to win the dual or to give the fans an unusual great matchup.

Neither happens often, but Koll and Dresser have done it occasionally in the past few years; maybe others? And would the Gross-Meredith match have happened?

Would Lord Spencer have bumped up to face RBY?

 

[amattaro]

Would Lord Spencer have bumped up to tech RBY?

FTFY

 

[Chickenman Testa]

Related to (a) or maybe its own category: it would prevent coaches from bumping wrestlers up during a dual -- either to win the dual or to give the fans an unusual great matchup.

Neither happens often, but Koll and Dresser have done it occasionally in the past few years; maybe others? And would the Gross-Meredith match have happened?

Would Lord Spencer have bumped up to face RBY?

Looking back on Lord Spencer’s shaky year - getting put on his back a handful of times during the season but avoiding calamity until the Semi - a bump up to face a bigger RBY probably would have been a disaster for Team Lee. RBY likely slaps a cradle on in the first and crunches him up

 

[Str8DBLz]

Personally I'd like to see all pool winners at journeyman enter into an actual bracket and wrestle it out to place accordingly.

 

[NittanyChris]

Related to (a) or maybe its own category: it would prevent coaches from bumping wrestlers up during a dual -- either to win the dual or to give the fans an unusual great matchup.

Neither happens often, but Koll and Dresser have done it occasionally in the past few years; maybe others? And would the Gross-Meredith match have happened?

Would Lord Spencer have bumped up to face RBY?

Fair point, but IMO, as you noted, it happens so rarely that it wouldn’t stop me from being in favor of a better seeding system if it incentivized better regular season matchups and better regular season tournaments.

 

[backdrft76]

Kinda along the same subject. Personally I like this idea...

 

[Sean Harp]

Cool idea--will have to sit on it a bit. There's bound to be some unintended consequences lurking, but my Wednesday brain isn't finding 'em.

When Adam Tirapelle brought up the confusing format of the Journeyman Classic, and the missed "big matchups" on X, he kinda hit the nail on the head WRT to making meaningful change here:

View embedded media

Otherwise, any change to the format of this event, and Cael, Mike Grey, and others simply look to book a different event on their schedule (maybe another dual w/ Sacred Heart and Drexel, for example). And for a first-weekend event, I think the lack of the premiere matchups was less about seeding risk, and more about a reasonable on-ramp to competition (and not duplicating matches w/ the classic). Cael at least has a long (and successful, duh) history of the first major challenges of the season appearing in late December or early January (Collegiate Duals/Southern Scuffle). Apart from the Lehigh tradition, we generally dual (or tourney) with lesser comp until then. The formula seems to work from a competitive standpoint, but perhaps it's not ideal for fan intrigue. I think mostly people just mistook the marketing for the event, and assumed we'd get Brooks vs. Hidlay twice in a week--but the fine print made it pretty clear that was not really in the cards.

Cool idea--will have to sit on it a bit. There's bound to be some unintended consequences lurking, but my Wednesday brain isn't finding 'em.

When Adam Tirapelle brought up the confusing format of the Journeyman Classic, and the missed "big matchups" on X, he kinda hit the nail on the head WRT to making meaningful change here:

View embedded media

Otherwise, any change to the format of this event, and Cael, Mike Grey, and others simply look to book a different event on their schedule (maybe another dual w/ Sacred Heart and Drexel, for example). And for a first-weekend event, I think the lack of the premiere matchups was less about seeding risk, and more about a reasonable on-ramp to competition (and not duplicating matches w/ the classic). Cael at least has a long (and successful, duh) history of the first major challenges of the season appearing in late December or early January (Collegiate Duals/Southern Scuffle). Apart from the Lehigh tradition, we generally dual (or tourney) with lesser comp until then. The formula seems to work from a competitive standpoint, but perhaps it's not ideal for fan intrigue. I think mostly people just mistook the marketing for the event, and assumed we'd get Brooks vs. Hidlay twice in a week--but the fine print made it pretty clear that was not really in the cards.

"Unintended consequences." You, Sir, are a man after my own heart. Consider me a fan. You might enjoy Great Moments of Unintended Consequences from Reason magazine. "What could possibly go wrong?"

As for the format of Journeyman, there was no issue with truth in advertising. It was easily discernable beforehand that it was to be selected matchups from various pool.

My concern, as mentioned in the Twitter feed that you kindly provided, was a lost opportunity to grow the sport. It has been a Quixotic mission of mine to increase the fan base one newbie at a tine. That could have been a riveting event but was probably only enjoyed by the existing hardcore fanbase that doesn't mind whipping around ten mats.

 

[Sean Harp]

I'm with Nerf & will have to give your suggestion more mulling time.

But I'm already crystal clear on appreciating this as the killer open many blog posts need: "Fair Warning: The following is not recommended for inflexible thinkers." Lol, great stuff.

Nice. Glad you enjoyed the opener. It's just the mature of thing that most folks are black & white thinkers and this board is no different. Haven't been on the board in some time but whenever someone went off-road and attempted to steer a conversation into the gray area, someone was sure to use this board's version of "Nope,. Next Topic" and it's a term we are all too familiar with.

"In Cael We Trust."

It's one of those terms that masquerades as well-meaning but isn't, kind of like a person from the south declaring "Bless their little heart..."

Wow. I'm really bitchy this morning. Apologies, Mate.

 

[Sean Harp]

Why would a coach want to put guys in a gringvright out of the gate? Especially a big ten coach knowing the big ten dual season is a grind and the big ten tourny even more

Excellent point. A question for you: Should scheduling be taken out of the coaches hands and be centralized? Would like to know your thoughts on that if you have the time and inclination. Cheers.

 

[Sean Harp]

no worries this will all be settled in March at the NCAA finals till then who cares!

Methinks "until then who cares" is the problem I am attempting to address. Perhaps you consider it to be a non-issue. I would imagine that many are quite happy with the status quo. Do you fall into that camp?

 

[WexfordWarrior]

Methinks "until then who cares" is the problem I am attempting to address. Perhaps you consider it to be a non-issue. I would imagine that many are quite happy with the status quo. Do you fall into that camp?

 

[Sean Harp]

Wow, rare @Sean Harp drive-by! I met up with Sean a few years ago for a BJC dual, great guy.

I agree the seeding formula needs to be tinkered with to better incentivize matches. I think from a coaches' standpoint the fear of losing isn't the issue so much as the fear of losing to certain opponents--head-to-head is a high seeding criteria. Removing H2H as a criteria can't happen b/c it's only fair that H2H counts for something.

I've advocated in the past a stick (as opposed to carrot) approach, whereby a wrestler healthy enough to weigh in will, for the exclusive purpose of seeding relative to another opponent, be found to have "lost" a match he could have wrestled against an opponent ranked within, say, 10? of that wrestler.

A few years ago Cohlton Schultz opted (more likely Zeke chose for him) not to wrestle Greg Kerkvliet at the Collegiate Duals for the sole purpose of protecting his seed; a loss would've risked him dropping to a 4 seed and on Gable's side of the bracket, but with a weak schedule right through to the NCAAs, ducking Kerk guaranteed him a 2/3 seed. And it worked--Schultz got the 2 seed and made it all the way to the finals. If the seeding committee had treated Schultz' duck of Kerk like a H2H "loss" to Kerk, the 2022 NCAAs are seeded differently.

There are two reasons this won't happen: (a) coaches would be ceding power--a tactical weapon--from their arsenal; and (b) it penalizes wrestlers who are legitimately injured, and there's no good/easy way to distinguish legitimate injuries from seed-protecting medical forfeits.

Duuuuuuuuuuude! How the hell are ya, Tikk? Good to hear from you, Mate! I hope all is well with you and your very cool lady friend.

You caught me. I try to post on here every couple of years whether I need it or not. Seriously, my preferred social medium is a campfire with close friends, a few of which you met during pregame at the lodge. The best part of the campfire is when everyone has drank enough truth serum that their filters erode and the "factually accurate" supersedes the "politically correct".

Your avatar always makes me think of when Tikkanen was a young 'un with Edmonton and would baffle interviewers with what they though was some pidgin hybrid of Finnish and English. It wasn't until the played the tape to teammate and countrymen Jari Kurri for translation that they realized Tikkanen was just making words up as he went.

To your response (To the ramparts!): You actually make good cases both for and against H2H consideration. Not certain where I land on the matter just yet.

As for the "stick" approach, I like the intent but wonder if wrestlers would game the system by feigning injury? Oops. Neb'mind. You addresses this.

Apropos of nothing, Cohlton Schultz would make a decent "heel" in "professional" wrestling. Just a guess but I am probably not the only fan that struggles to like him.

PS Thanks for the "great guy" compliment. I knew I hired the right publicist. Your check is in the mail.

 

[Sean Harp]

Ultimately what you're proposing is changing the NCAA seeding criteria.

The current process is a gigantic simulated round-robin using these scoring criteria:
- H2H 25
- Quality Wins 20
- Coaches Rank 15
- Conference Tournament Placement 10
- Common Opponent 10
- Win % 10
- RPI 10

IMO 3, 4, and 6 are stupid. Their points could be reallocated.

I'm not sure how much it would affect regular season matchups. Coaches will always limit the number of high-intensity matches, for both physical and mental health.

Also, how do coaches schedule vs. guys who have breakthru years? For example: last year at this time, nobody had Levi and Paniro Johnson getting top 5 seeds at nationals.

Hmm. Good points and definitely food for thought.

Allow me to ask you, should coaches have a choice in the matter?

True, we could not anticipate breakthrough years. (thinking) Okay. What do you think of this?: Since the rankings need only be known at the end of the regular season, just use the final rankings... which begs another question.

Whose rankings? Perhaps something algorithmic akin to WrestleStat but without the data from earlier seasons maybe. Just spitballing.

 

[Sean Harp]

You'll have to use your words like a big boy. I don't speak Bottom.

 

[WexfordWarrior]

You'll have to use your words like a big boy. I don't speak Bottom.

You'll have to use your words like a big boy. I don't speak Bottom.

I was referring to the poster you asked the question of. Get over yourself.

 

[Sean Harp]

I was referring to the poster you asked the question of. Get over yourself.

Why post it at all? What does it add to the conversation? Why do people use internet anonymity like their own personal glory hole to get their rocks off without recourse? This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[WexfordWarrior]

Why post it at all? What does it add to the conversation? Why do people use internet anonymity like their own personal glory hole to get their rocks off without recourse? This is why we can't have nice things.

If you dropped by more than once a year, you would know the answer.