Iowa wants an asterisk 😂
- Thread starter Psubiomed
- Start date
Love this post from an ok State guy on the mat re: parity
The other factor is the rules NCAA put in place to increase parity (scholarship limits, walk on etc) we threw out the window after Cael went to PSU. “
A fan of a team with 34 titles - many of them complete whitewashings - longing for the “parity” of yesteryear that never was.
ionel
Posted 32 minutes agoThe other factor is the rules NCAA put in place to increase parity (scholarship limits, walk on etc) we threw out the window after Cael went to PSU. “
A fan of a team with 34 titles - many of them complete whitewashings - longing for the “parity” of yesteryear that never was.
Love this post from an ok State guy on the mat re: parity
ionel
Posted 32 minutes ago
It was not the same. We had parity before Cael went to PSU and bent the rules. We still have parity amongst those not PSU, look at the scores. Gable era, yes he bent some rules, he came in when it had been almost always OSU. OSU, ISU and OU were almost always top 3-5 before Iowa and Gable and the b10 wasn't in the conversation. Those top 3 programs could always beat anyone else nit top 3 in a dual. Gable era it was pretty much always Iowa 1st & OSU 2nd. Its why Seay was brought in tired of 2nd. Not the same now, quite different.
The other factor is the rules NCAA put in place to increase parity (scholarship limits, walk on etc) we threw out the window after Cael went to PSU. “
A fan of a team with 34 titles - many of them complete whitewashings - longing for the “parity” of yesteryear that never was.
Yah, another excuse clown. They're winning because they're cheating!
They are actually referencing 1986 now, and someone actually did the calculations that they would have had 173.5.
In 1986.
Yep. That's how permanently we have broken them.
In 1986.
Yep. That's how permanently we have broken them.
Proving for the 50 billionth time that idiots can be taught to type.Love this post from an ok State guy on the mat re: parity
ionel
Posted 32 minutes ago
It was not the same. We had parity before Cael went to PSU and bent the rules. We still have parity amongst those not PSU, look at the scores. Gable era, yes he bent some rules, he came in when it had been almost always OSU. OSU, ISU and OU were almost always top 3-5 before Iowa and Gable and the b10 wasn't in the conversation. Those top 3 programs could always beat anyone else nit top 3 in a dual. Gable era it was pretty much always Iowa 1st & OSU 2nd. Its why Seay was brought in tired of 2nd. Not the same now, quite different.
The other factor is the rules NCAA put in place to increase parity (scholarship limits, walk on etc) we threw out the window after Cael went to PSU. “
A fan of a team with 34 titles - many of them complete whitewashings - longing for the “parity” of yesteryear that never was.
LOL.....what rules did Cael bend? Talk about sour grapes and fans from waning programs longing for the past.Love this post from an ok State guy on the mat re: parity
ionel
Posted 32 minutes ago
It was not the same. We had parity before Cael went to PSU and bent the rules. We still have parity amongst those not PSU, look at the scores. Gable era, yes he bent some rules, he came in when it had been almost always OSU. OSU, ISU and OU were almost always top 3-5 before Iowa and Gable and the b10 wasn't in the conversation. Those top 3 programs could always beat anyone else nit top 3 in a dual. Gable era it was pretty much always Iowa 1st & OSU 2nd. Its why Seay was brought in tired of 2nd. Not the same now, quite different.
The other factor is the rules NCAA put in place to increase parity (scholarship limits, walk on etc) we threw out the window after Cael went to PSU. “
A fan of a team wit
How about largest margin of victory which is more likely to fall? We get an asterisk there? Isn’t everyone wrestling with a 3pt takedown or just PSU?
This is so pathetic. It’s like there’s no awareness of a little thingy called behavioral economics. In the words of former cms administrator Tom scully, Show me the incentive, and I’ll predict the behavior. You want takedowns to be worth 3? Welcome to the world of catch and release. You want them to be worth 2? Fine, say hello to zain Rutherford.
Record talk is fun, frivolous, and fabulous all at once. The chance exists, but barely.
Beau and MM have pick ‘em matches, and Hidlay (love those brothers) will give AB all he can handle. Lovett should be a raging bull after his loss, though Kasak is working his own special Vision Quest (lose round 1 and still take 3rd). Backside Bernie’s knee is an unknown plot twist.
If it happens, Iowa will likely commission a concrete statue of "the asterisk", placing it outside Carver with a plaque explaining how theirs is the real record. It’ll bemoan the 3-point TD as an artificial scoring steroid but likely never mention the meaningful points added by two true freshmen Lions.
Ah, the issues you have when leading a tournament by 80+ points with six queued up for Finals, and two still scrapping below deck.
Beau and MM have pick ‘em matches, and Hidlay (love those brothers) will give AB all he can handle. Lovett should be a raging bull after his loss, though Kasak is working his own special Vision Quest (lose round 1 and still take 3rd). Backside Bernie’s knee is an unknown plot twist.
If it happens, Iowa will likely commission a concrete statue of "the asterisk", placing it outside Carver with a plaque explaining how theirs is the real record. It’ll bemoan the 3-point TD as an artificial scoring steroid but likely never mention the meaningful points added by two true freshmen Lions.
Ah, the issues you have when leading a tournament by 80+ points with six queued up for Finals, and two still scrapping below deck.
They want an asterisk?
They already have one.
For years Gable cheated the scholy limit. And don't think the string of championships that occurred while they were violating the limit didn't affect those years after they got busted, even the success of a tainted dynasty carrys forward.
They already have one.
For years Gable cheated the scholy limit. And don't think the string of championships that occurred while they were violating the limit didn't affect those years after they got busted, even the success of a tainted dynasty carrys forward.
Cael is always so called bending rules and always zero proof~LOLLove this post from an ok State guy on the mat re: parity
ionel
Posted 32 minutes ago
It was not the same. We had parity before Cael went to PSU and bent the rules. We still have parity amongst those not PSU, look at the scores. Gable era, yes he bent some rules, he came in when it had been almost always OSU. OSU, ISU and OU were almost always top 3-5 before Iowa and Gable and the b10 wasn't in the conversation. Those top 3 programs could always beat anyone else nit top 3 in a dual. Gable era it was pretty much always Iowa 1st & OSU 2nd. Its why Seay was brought in tired of 2nd. Not the same now, quite different.
The other factor is the rules NCAA put in place to increase parity (scholarship limits, walk on etc) we threw out the window after Cael went to PSU. “
A fan of a team with 34 titles - many of them complete whitewashings - longing for the “parity” of yesteryear that never was.
LOL iowa fans always forget they get 3 for a TD as well then Tom says what's 3 points??
Exactly. They apparently feel like a 3 point takedown only applies to Penn State. When they get a takedown it's only worth 2. 😂
Go read the thread. A few are defending the old record. Most are stating you give credit where credit is due.
Don't know why anyone is complaining. The race for 2nd through 10th is REALLY competitive. 😂
Just stop, let us be the victims for a little bit please...
Ok it's over please continue.
You guys need it with that subpar performance your team put up the last 2 days. 😂😂
Now that’s comedy. Though I thought you were going down the Covid path.
And the best part is, even the hypothetical 173 isn’t a lock.
Yeah but In a two point td world the iowa style of wearing the opponent down reflects greater dominance. You know, like messenbrink calliendo.
What’s particularly crazy is that depending on how things break tonight, psu could end up closer to 3x the nearest competitors’ score than 2x.
Lol. Half are in denial and the other half are already replacing the entire roster with transfers.
Wonder what it would look like if they hadn’t leveled the playing field?
Love this post from an ok State guy on the mat re: parity
ionel
Posted 32 minutes ago
It was not the same. We had parity before Cael went to PSU and bent the rules. We still have parity amongst those not PSU, look at the scores. Gable era, yes he bent some rules, he came in when it had been almost always OSU. OSU, ISU and OU were almost always top 3-5 before Iowa and Gable and the b10 wasn't in the conversation. Those top 3 programs could always beat anyone else nit top 3 in a dual. Gable era it was pretty much always Iowa 1st & OSU 2nd. Its why Seay was brought in tired of 2nd. Not the same now, quite different.
The other factor is the rules NCAA put in place to increase parity (scholarship limits, walk on etc) we threw out the window after Cael went to PSU. “
A fan of a team with 34 titles - many of them complete whitewashings - longing for the “parity” of yesteryear that never was.
Does Oklahoma State still have a wrestling team? (I’m kidding cowboy fans
). I find it funny, (and highly hypocritical), when Oklahoma State and Iowa fans start whining that Penn St is winning and taking away the “parity”. What they really mean is ‘they are beating us and we can’t have that’.
Between 1954- 2011, (when PSU started their run), there were 57 years. Iowa and Oklahoma state won 41 of the 57 titles. 41/57. Where was this “parity”?
During that time Oklahoma St won 10 titles in 15 years. Iowa had runs of 9 titles in 10 years and 11 titles in 12 years.
Penn State is now in a run of 11 titles in 14 years.
The only difference is there’s a new kid on the block and the 2 old guard teams don’t like it.
well earlier I did say they would lose by 100 but I didn't think that was possible!MY BAD
This may not be a popular take, but I agree with them.
The asterisk would signify that it is harder to do today with all the transfers PSU had to compete against. When Iowa achieved their now 2nd place record, the next best wrestlers were stashed on their roster. This year, the PSU wrestlers had to face these guys as transfers. And with the 3 point takedown rule, there is less incentive for pins. I figure PSU would have had 8 more points from pins and 13 more points without facing transfers. So the asterisk could be put on PSUs record for doing it in a more difficult era, or on the 2nd place on down for doing it in the easier era.
Barry W.
The asterisk would signify that it is harder to do today with all the transfers PSU had to compete against. When Iowa achieved their now 2nd place record, the next best wrestlers were stashed on their roster. This year, the PSU wrestlers had to face these guys as transfers. And with the 3 point takedown rule, there is less incentive for pins. I figure PSU would have had 8 more points from pins and 13 more points without facing transfers. So the asterisk could be put on PSUs record for doing it in a more difficult era, or on the 2nd place on down for doing it in the easier era.
Barry W.
The asterisk crap is just ridiculousness.
Should we go back and rescore for when there were no Tech Falls? When only the first takedown earned 2 points? When the bracket had 16 wrestlers? When freshman couldn’t compete? Etc.
Should we go back and rescore for when there were no Tech Falls? When only the first takedown earned 2 points? When the bracket had 16 wrestlers? When freshman couldn’t compete? Etc.
Last edited:
Yup - and there were a lot of years of consecutive huge victory margins of 30+ points. They act as if all those titles were scraps - like a lot of ours to be honest in the 2010sDoes Oklahoma State still have a wrestling team? (I’m kidding cowboy fans
I find it funny, (and highly hypocritical), when Oklahoma State and Iowa fans start whining that Penn St is winning and taking away the “parity”. What they really mean is ‘they are beating us and we can’t have that’.
Between 1954- 2011, (when PSU started their run), there were 57 years. Iowa and Oklahoma state won 41 of the 57 titles. 41/57. Where was this “parity”?
During that time Oklahoma St won 10 titles in 15 years. Iowa had runs of 9 titles in 10 years and 11 titles in 12 years.
Penn State is now in a run of 11 titles in 14 years.
The only difference is there’s a new kid on the block and the 2 old guard teams don’t like it.
I say sign him for at least ten more years
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-