Roar's Big Ten Seeding - 2019

[RoarLions1]

157
#1 J. Nolf PSU 9-0
#2 T. Berger NEB 8-1
#3 R. Deakin NU 7-2
#4 A. Pantaleo UM 6-2
#5 K. Young IA 5-2
#6 S. Bleise MN 6-3
#7 K. Hayes tOSU 4-4
#8 E. Barone ILL 3-6
#9 J. Danishek IND 5-3
#10 J. Van Brill RUT 4-5

Ahhhh…this is the way it should be. The top four settled it on the mat at 157. #1 Nolf (PSU) beat #2 Berger (NEB), #3 Deakin (NU), and #4 Pantaleo (UM). Berger beat Deakin, and Deakin beat Pantaleo. None of these four lost to anyone lower seeded, and while every match-up didn’t happen, enough HTH bouts did to make it clean (come on, B1G, don’t blow it!). Pantaleo’s move from 149 to 157 happened 1/5/19, and he did get nine bouts in, meeting the requisite eight for Silver Standard. He will earn the Big Ten an allocation slot.

As tidy as it is at the top, the next four were brutal to get through. I suspect the Big Ten Committee will look solely at conference record, and this is one of those cases where I did too, but before listing my seeds, I want you to see the facts. The conference records range from 5-2 (Young, IA) to 3-6 (Barone, ILL), with 6-3 (Bleise, MN), and 4-4 (Hayes, tOSU) in between, but using the records alone is misleading;
-- Young beat Bleise, lost to Barone. Best record (5-2), but four of five wins were to the bottom five guys.
-- Bleise beat Barone, lost to Young. Similar record (6-3), but other five wins were to bottom six guys.
-- Barone beat Young, lost to Bleise. Worst record (3-6), but four losses were to top four guys.
-- Hayes beat Barone, and only lost to the top four guys (he is 4-4), didn’t wrestle Young or Bleise. He also lost to Barone at Cliff Keen. Other three wins were to bottom six guys.

Doubt many dig this deep, and look for differentiation the way my process does. I suspect a Young, Bleise, Hayes, Barone order from the Big Ten. Even though it’s lame, I’m doing the same, as not a shred of evidence points otherwise. As a group, they lost every match to those in front of them, beat everyone below them, and beat up each other enough to call it the closest "group of four" I’ve seen in my decade plus of doing this. So, it’s #5 Young, #6 Bleise, #7 Hayes, and #8 Barone…and after looking at this to exhaustion, I’m moving on.

#9 Danishek (IND) had a nice record, 5-3, but it’s misleading as he had wins against back-ups (van Anrooy vs UM, and Glosser vs IA), when he could have battled two top five guys. He had no other good wins, and lost to #10 Van Brill (RUT). #11 Parriott (PUR) does own a win vs Van Brill, but lost to #12 Tucker (MSU), a guy with only one other conference win, so Parriott’s fate was sealed with that loss. My last two are guys that joined in late, hence their low match count, as #13 Model and #14 Diehl wrap it up. Same Ryan Diehl that handed Jason Nolf his only High School loss, by the way…now one is seeded first, the other last, years later.

 

[Cowbell Man]

157
#1 J. Nolf PSU 9-0
#2 T. Berger NEB 8-1
#3 R. Deakin NU 7-2
#4 A. Pantaleo UM 6-2
#5 K. Young IA 5-2
#6 S. Bleise MN 6-3
#7 K. Hayes tOSU 4-4
#8 E. Barone ILL 3-6
#9 J. Danishek IND 5-3
#10 J. Van Brill RUT 4-5

Ahhhh…this is the way it should be. The top four settled it on the mat at 157. #1 Nolf (PSU) beat #2 Berger (NEB), #3 Deakin (NU), and #4 Pantaleo (UM). Berger beat Deakin, and Deakin beat Pantaleo. None of these four lost to anyone lower seeded, and while every match-up didn’t happen, enough HTH bouts did to make it clean (come on, B1G, don’t blow it!). Pantaleo’s move from 149 to 157 happened 1/5/19, and he did get nine bouts in, meeting the requisite eight for Silver Standard. He will earn the Big Ten an allocation slot.

As tidy as it is at the top, the next four were brutal to get through. I suspect the Big Ten Committee will look solely at conference record, and this is one of those cases where I did too, but before listing my seeds, I want you to see the facts. The conference records range from 5-2 (Young, IA) to 3-6 (Barone, ILL), with 6-3 (Bleise, MN), and 4-4 (Hayes, tOSU) in between, but using the records alone is misleading;
-- Young beat Bleise, lost to Barone. Best record (5-2), but four of five wins were to the bottom five guys.
-- Bleise beat Barone, lost to Young. Similar record (6-3), but other five wins were to bottom six guys.
-- Barone beat Young, lost to Bleise. Worst record (3-6), but four losses were to top four guys.
-- Hayes beat Barone, and only lost to the top four guys (he is 4-4), didn’t wrestle Young or Bleise. He also lost to Barone at Cliff Keen. Other three wins were to bottom six guys.

Doubt many dig this deep, and look for differentiation the way my process does. I suspect a Young, Bleise, Hayes, Barone order from the Big Ten. Even though it’s lame, I’m doing the same, as not a shred of evidence points otherwise. As a group, they lost every match to those in front of them, beat everyone below them, and beat up each other enough to call it the closest "group of four" I’ve seen in my decade plus of doing this. So, it’s #5 Young, #6 Bleise, #7 Hayes, and #8 Barone…and after looking at this to exhaustion, I’m moving on.

#9 Danishek (IND) had a nice record, 5-3, but it’s misleading as he had wins against back-ups (van Anrooy vs UM, and Glosser vs IA), when he could have battled two top five guys. He had no other good wins, and lost to #10 Van Brill (RUT). #11 Parriott (PUR) does own a win vs Van Brill, but lost to #12 Tucker (MSU), a guy with only one other conference win, so Parriott’s fate was sealed with that loss. My last two are guys that joined in late, hence their low match count, as #13 Model and #14 Diehl wrap it up. Same Ryan Diehl that handed Jason Nolf his only High School loss, by the way…now one is seeded first, the other last, years later.

Ahhh....yes! Then the voice of resignation. Lol. Roar, your head is weary from that group of 4. Gin and Tonic should be ready for you now.

 

[BruceK-PSU83]

Ahhh....yes! Then the voice of resignation. Lol. Roar, your head is weary from that group of 4. Gin and Tonic should be ready for you now.

He had me convinced that the order should be:

5 - Hayes
6 - Young
7 - Bleise
8 - Barone

Not that it matters much in the big scheme.

 

[WiscoWrastler]

According to WrestleStat (which I used almost exclusively and have for years) he did. From Reinhardt's page;

#87 Jasenski, Kyle (8 - 12) (Compare) #57 Maryland 02/02 Wisconsin - Maryland Dual 184 L DEC 2 - 1

...but on InterMat, it has Reinhardt winning 4-2...quick modification to write-up above.

andegre, is this a mistake?

Maryland’s website and Wisconsin have it as Reinhardt winning 4-2.

 

[RoarLions1]

Ahhh....yes! Then the voice of resignation. Lol. Roar, your head is weary from that group of 4. Gin and Tonic should be ready for you now.

More like a hot toddy the way I feel...and have all week.

He had me convinced that the order should be:

5 - Hayes
6 - Young
7 - Bleise
8 - Barone

Not that it matters much in the big scheme.

Exactly where I was before the Hayes loss, out of conference to Barone. I was looking for a bit of separation by the Buckeye, and viola, what I found drug him back into the four-man evaluation that ended as a bottomless pit of despair.

 

[RoarLions1]

285
#1 G. Steveson MN 9-0
#2 A. Cassar PSU 9-0
#3 M. Parris UM 6-2
#4 T. Hilger WIS 5-3
#5 C. Jennings NU 4-4
#6 D. Jensen NEB 4-4
#7 S. Stoll IA 5-2
#8 C. Singletary tOSU 4-3
#9 Y. Hemida MD 5-4
#10 C. Colucci RUT 3-6

285 is the only weight class with two 9-0 guys at the top. I have them very close, maybe closer than most. Both wrestled White (OKST), with a big throw early the only real scoring for Steveson’s win, and a single takedown deciding Cassar’s loss. That’s out of conference, but there’s really not much else to go on. Steveson was slightly more dominant in-conference, with an eight-point win vs Jensen, compared to Cassar’s six, a 15-point win vs Miller compared to Cassar’s six, and a nine-point win over Hillger compared to Cassar’s six, while Cassar enjoyed a 10-point win over Jennings compared to Steveson’s four. Both watched as Rachal pinned himself. #1 Steveson (MN) gets the nod over #2 Cassar (PSU). I’m excited to see this battle. Hope it happens.

Seed No.’s 3 through 9 remind me a bit of the four close guys at 157. All seven will be going to the NCAA Championships, imo. None of them beat the top-2, nor did any of them lose to No’s 10 through 14. Yet they battled each other, with little obvious separation. I went #3 Parris (UM) on the strength of a Midland’s win over #4 Hillger. Both lost to #5 Jennings (NU), but Jennings lost to Jensen (NEB), and Stoll (IA, by INJDEF), as well as Singletary (tOSU) at Cliff Keen, so there’s no justification to placing Jennings at #3 using body of work. #6 Jensen is my choice over #7 Stoll (IA) due to a HTH win. Stoll is a tricky one this year. 5-2 is a good conference record, but he’s 2-2 vs the group being discussed, didn’t go against Steveson, and didn’t get a chance against PSU’s Cassar. He’s the only guy in the 3-9 grouping that didn’t wrestle at least one of the top two. Would his record still be 5-2 had he wrestled Steveson instead of the back-up, Corbin, going for Iowa (rhetorical, even though I believe Stoll wasn't completely healthy). Plus the Iowa heavyweight lost to Jensen and Hillger.

Next, #8 Singletary is my choice over #9 Hemida (MD). Both own only one win vs this “group of seven”, but Singletary owns a good win vs Parris at the Ohio Intercollegiate Open, and Hemida is the only one with three losses to wrestlers within this group (Stoll, Parris, Hillger) in conference. #10 Colucci (RUT) owns a HTH win vs #11 Fletcher (IND), and #12 Beard, #13 Aven, and #14 Rachal round out this weight class.

 

[Cowbell Man]

“both watched as Rachel pinned himself”.

Priceless.

 

[RoarLions1]

197
#1 B. Nickal PSU 9-0
#2 K. Moore tOSU 8-1
#3 J. Warner IA 8-0
#4 C. Brunner PUR 6-2
#5 E. Schultz NEB 6-3
#6 J. Striggow UM 6-3
#7 B. Wilton MSU 5-3
#8 D. Anderson MN 4-3
#9 M. Correnti RUT 3-5

In arguably the weakest Big Ten weight class, 197 is solid at the top three. No argument at the top, with #1 Nickal (PSU), but #2 Moore (tOSU), and #3 Warner (IA) may cause a second of discussion. I do wish they had faced each other, but that didn’t happen. Moore’s only loss was a good one, to #1 Nickal, while he won against my #4, #5, and #6 wrestlers. Warner meanwhile, through no fault of his, was feasting on the bottom half of (as I said) a very weak 197, with one exception – a 4-1 victory over Schultz.

#4 Brunner (PUR) only lost to my top two seeds, while winning the rest of his conference duals, including a HTH win vs #6 Striggow (UM). #5 Schultz gets inserted just in front of Striggow (they could be 5A and 5B), only because Striggow lost my coin flip. Imo, that’s the end of the wrestlers that earn slots for the Big Ten…six, by my count, lowest of all weight classes.

#7 Wilton (MSU) had a nice record, which included a pin of #9 Correnti (RUT), with #8 Anderson (MN) inserted just because I can (actually it was because of an ever so slightly better conference record). The final five went a collective 7-33 in conference, and are #10 Chakonis (NU), #11 Breske (WIS), #12 Lee (ILL), #13 Kleimola (IND), and #14 Capello (MD).

 

[El-Jefe]

197
#1 B. Nickal PSU 9-0
#2 K. Moore tOSU 8-1
#3 J. Warner IA 8-0

No argument at the top, with #1 Nickal (PSU), but #2 Moore (tOSU), and #3 Warner (IA) may cause a second of discussion.

If it causes a second of discussion outside of Flo's office, Ryan will throw the challenge brick and everyone else will sit there stunned.

 

[RoarLions1]

If it causes a second of discussion outside of Flo's office, Ryan will throw the challenge brick and everyone else will sit there stunned.

That sentence was symbolic. "Second" was used because that's how much time it was worth discussing. My ACTUAL time thinking about it was closer to a nanosecond .

 

[PSU_Pride_93]

157
#1 J. Nolf PSU 9-0
#2 T. Berger NEB 8-1
#3 R. Deakin NU 7-2
#4 A. Pantaleo UM 6-2
#5 K. Young IA 5-2
#6 S. Bleise MN 6-3
#7 K. Hayes tOSU 4-4
#8 E. Barone ILL 3-6
#9 J. Danishek IND 5-3
#10 J. Van Brill RUT 4-5

Ahhhh…this is the way it should be. The top four settled it on the mat at 157. #1 Nolf (PSU) beat #2 Berger (NEB), #3 Deakin (NU), and #4 Pantaleo (UM). Berger beat Deakin, and Deakin beat Pantaleo. None of these four lost to anyone lower seeded, and while every match-up didn’t happen, enough HTH bouts did to make it clean (come on, B1G, don’t blow it!). Pantaleo’s move from 149 to 157 happened 1/5/19, and he did get nine bouts in, meeting the requisite eight for Silver Standard. He will earn the Big Ten an allocation slot.

As tidy as it is at the top, the next four were brutal to get through. I suspect the Big Ten Committee will look solely at conference record, and this is one of those cases where I did too, but before listing my seeds, I want you to see the facts. The conference records range from 5-2 (Young, IA) to 3-6 (Barone, ILL), with 6-3 (Bleise, MN), and 4-4 (Hayes, tOSU) in between, but using the records alone is misleading;
-- Young beat Bleise, lost to Barone. Best record (5-2), but four of five wins were to the bottom five guys.
-- Bleise beat Barone, lost to Young. Similar record (6-3), but other five wins were to bottom six guys.
-- Barone beat Young, lost to Bleise. Worst record (3-6), but four losses were to top four guys.
-- Hayes beat Barone, and only lost to the top four guys (he is 4-4), didn’t wrestle Young or Bleise. He also lost to Barone at Cliff Keen. Other three wins were to bottom six guys.

Doubt many dig this deep, and look for differentiation the way my process does. I suspect a Young, Bleise, Hayes, Barone order from the Big Ten. Even though it’s lame, I’m doing the same, as not a shred of evidence points otherwise. As a group, they lost every match to those in front of them, beat everyone below them, and beat up each other enough to call it the closest "group of four" I’ve seen in my decade plus of doing this. So, it’s #5 Young, #6 Bleise, #7 Hayes, and #8 Barone…and after looking at this to exhaustion, I’m moving on.

#9 Danishek (IND) had a nice record, 5-3, but it’s misleading as he had wins against back-ups (van Anrooy vs UM, and Glosser vs IA), when he could have battled two top five guys. He had no other good wins, and lost to #10 Van Brill (RUT). #11 Parriott (PUR) does own a win vs Van Brill, but lost to #12 Tucker (MSU), a guy with only one other conference win, so Parriott’s fate was sealed with that loss. My last two are guys that joined in late, hence their low match count, as #13 Model and #14 Diehl wrap it up. Same Ryan Diehl that handed Jason Nolf his only High School loss, by the way…now one is seeded first, the other last, years later.

Only just seeing this now, but are we sure Berger isnt #1 I mean he did take to twitter to say hes taking everydown so that means he is the 1 seed right?

 

[aalion]

Only just seeing this now, but are we sure Berger isnt #1 I mean he did take to twitter to say hes taking everydown so that means he is the 1 seed right?

I wonder if Berger is spending his time saved from swearing off social media practicing his Todrank dance...

 

[Cowbell Man]

Only just seeing this now, but are we sure Berger isnt #1 I mean he did take to twitter to say hes taking everydown so that means he is the 1 seed right?

I think Todrank should go back to Purdue so he can be the #1 seed and clown Berger too. He’s way more fun.

 

[tombrosious]

Great work Roar! We are...

 

[RoarLions1]

165
#1 A. Marinelli IA 9-0
#2 V. Joseph PSU 7-0
#3 E. Wick WIS 7-1
#4 L. Massa UM 8-1
#5 I. White NEB 6-3
#6 T. Campbell tOSU 1-2
#7 T. Morland NU 4-5
#8 B. Martin IND 5-2
#9 C. Brolsma MN 5-4
#10 P. Spadaforo MD 2-6

Joseph or Marinelli, that is the question!!
I really wanted to prove nomad wrong, but I couldn’t. Marinelli (IA) has had a heckuva year within the conference, and deserves the accolades he gets. Funny thing, if this was NCAA seeding, I’d go Joseph (PSU) over Marinelli. Joseph beat (InterMat) No.’s 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12, while Bull beat No.’s 3 (2x), 4, 6, and 17. Add a little extra for being an undefeated, returning National Champ, and Joseph’s my man if NCAA's were held today. But they're not, and my posts here are for Big Ten seeds. My guidelines, again, body-of-work, in the conference, with other factors used as tie-breakers for Big Ten seeding, and that’s what I did.

So, it’s #1 Marinelli, and #2 Joseph, by a gnat’s eyelash, though not because it’s punitive or punishing, as nomad has said (more on that in a different post). To me, it came down to Marinelli beating Wick being a slightly, ever so slightly, better win than Joseph over Massa. It's that close. I believe the Big Ten will seed Joseph first, and that's ok too.

#3 Wick (WIS), and #4 Massa, also by the slightest of margins. These top four should put on a show at Big Ten’s – win and you’ve earned it.

#5 White (NEB) is also worth mentioning in the same breath as those four. He has losses against my top three, and beat Massa at Cliff Keen. The HTH out of conference win for White gave me pause, and I’d be ok if others flipped Massa and White – I’m leaving them as is.

#6 Campbell (tOSU), a late arrival to 165, gets this seed as no one else wanted it, or so it appears. Campbell beat #7 Morland (NU), his only B1G win, while Morland’s only other losses were to the top five. #8 Martin (IND) had a solid 5-2 record, a bit misleading as all his wins were vs bottom tier guys. #9 Brolsma (MN) lost HTH to Morland. #10 is Spadaforo, losing HTH against Brolsma, and the only remaining guy with more than one Big Ten win, he had two. The rest are #11 Gunther (ILL), #12 Glasgow, #13 Wysocki, and #14 Ritchey.

 

[pish69]

165
#1 A. Marinelli IA 9-0
#2 V. Joseph PSU 7-0
#3 E. Wick WIS 7-1
#4 L. Massa UM 8-1
#5 I. White NEB 6-3
#6 T. Campbell tOSU 1-2
#7 T. Morland NU 4-5
#8 B. Martin IND 5-2
#9 C. Brolsma MN 5-4
#10 P. Spadaforo MD 2-6

Joseph or Marinelli, that is the question!!
I really wanted to prove nomad wrong, but I couldn’t. Marinelli (IA) has had a heckuva year within the conference, and deserves the accolades he gets. Funny thing, if this was NCAA seeding, I’d go Joseph (PSU) over Marinelli. Joseph beat (InterMat) No.’s 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12, while Bull beat No.’s 3 (2x), 4, 6, and 17. Add a little extra for being an undefeated, returning National Champ, and Joseph’s my man if NCAA's were held today. But they're not, and my posts here are for Big Ten seeds. My guidelines, again, body-of-work, in the conference, with other factors used as tie-breakers for Big Ten seeding, and that’s what I did.

So, it’s #1 Marinelli, and #2 Joseph, by a gnat’s eyelash, though not because it’s punitive or punishing, as nomad has said (more on that in a different post). To me, it came down to Marinelli beating Wick being a slightly, ever so slightly, better win than Joseph over Massa. It's that close. I believe the Big Ten will seed Joseph first, and that's ok too.

#3 Wick (WIS), and #4 Massa, also by the slightest of margins. These top four should put on a show at Big Ten’s – win and you’ve earned it.

#5 White (NEB) is also worth mentioning in the same breath as those four. He has losses against my top three, and beat Massa at Cliff Keen. The HTH out of conference win for White gave me pause, and I’d be ok if others flipped Massa and White – I’m leaving them as is.

#6 Campbell (tOSU), a late arrival to 165, gets this seed as no one else wanted it, or so it appears. Campbell beat #7 Morland (NU), his only B1G win, while Morland’s only other losses were to the top five. #8 Martin (IND) had a solid 5-2 record, a bit misleading as all his wins were vs bottom tier guys. #9 Brolsma (MN) lost HTH to Morland. #10 is Spadaforo, losing HTH against Brolsma, and the only remaining guy with more than one Big Ten win, he had two. The rest are #11 Gunther (ILL), #12 Glasgow, #13 Wysocki, and #14 Ritchey.

Thanks Roar. Your logic is sound no doubt and personally I’d like to see Cenzo feast on Wicks legs in the semis.

But I have no doubt the coaches aren’t going to put a undefeated, two time defending champ, as the 2 seed. Similar to IMAR last year when Bull had the better in conference results.

We’ll see soon enough!

 

[nerfstate]

 

[RoarLions1]

View embedded media

Nomad,
I’m not done with you yet. You may regret that tweet .

Roar

 

[El-Jefe]

View embedded media

Nothing against Roar ...

But if Lobdell has never been prouder than alignment with one message board post by someone he's probably never met and probably knows little or nothing about, no wonder he won't put his real name on his work.

 

[86PSUPaul]

I can see the logic to the 2 seed, but wasn’t Nomad advocating for 3 seed? That is what I felt was out of line.

 

[nerfstate]

I can see the logic to the 2 seed, but wasn’t Nomad advocating for 3 seed? That is what I felt was out of line.

That was if Wick had beaten Marinelli in their dual.

 

[SWPA]

Warner at #3 means that Bo's 38 second pin record will most likely remain intact for at least another three weeks.

 

[RoarLions1]

View embedded media

Nomad,
I’m not done with you yet. You may regret that tweet .

Roar

nomad writes (sorry, Tom...if you get my drift), "One of the most discussed topics this season has been top stars sitting out matches. While it is impossible to prove whether someone was ducking or they were in fact injured/sick, there must be punitive measures for missing competition. Therefore, just like I did with the 141lb seeds, I am advocating that a star be punished for not wrestling in a dual."

"must be" - Summoning my inner child, who died and left you boss .

"punitive" and "punished" - These are defined by words like harsh, severe, penalize, disciplinary, retributive, and so on. Why?? Just use their body-of-work, and don't "punish" a guy for a bout not wrestled.

"I am advocating that a star be punished" - Why? As in the last paragraph, why is punishment needed? But I added this for another reason. Who defines "star", and why treat them differently. IF (huge if) we want to treat so called "stars" differently, the system falls apart. All wrestlers should be treated similarly. By my numbers, on average, only around six wrestlers in each weight class wrestled in nine conference duals. That means, on average, eight per weight class did not. Think about that for a second. Body-of-work is the answer. Nothing punitive, no penalty, just body-of-work. Simple.

As for sharing my post, or most of it, on twitter...all in good fun, same as last year when he grabbed my work.

 

[RoarLions1]

Last weight class. Hope everyone enjoyed. A week from this weekend starts Big Ten Wrestling Championship action in Minneapolis. For those that are going...safe travels!!

174
#1 M. Hall PSU 9-0
#2 M. Amine UM 5-1
#3 D. Lydy PUR 7-2
#4 M. Labriola NEB 7-2
#5 D. Skatzka MN 7-2
#6 E. Smith tOSU 4-4
#7 D. Hughes MSU 5-4
#8 R. Christensen WIS 1-1
#9 J. Grello RUT 5-3
#10 M. Bowman IA 4-2

Easy call with #1 Hall (PSU), beating #2 Amine (UM), and #3 Lydy (PUR) HTH. Amine was an easy #2, beating Lydy HTH.

Lydy, #4 Labriola (NEB), and #5 Skatzka (MN, by way of Indiana) are all 7-2, but generally-speaking, sort themselves out in my seeding order. Skatzka lost HTH to both Lydy and Labriola, so that moved him into #5. For Lydy and Labriola I connected the dots a bit to get to my ranking. Lydy only lost to the top two guys, while Labriola lost to Christensen (WIS) by Fall. Christensen has a loss to Smith (tOSU). Slightly better losses for Lydy, and no better wins for Labriola, Voilà.

#6 Smith beat #7 Hughes (MSU) HTH, so once again, a slightly better record doesn’t define seeding order. #8 Christensen wrestled in limited action, due to injury, but looks to be the guy for Wisconsin now. 1-1 with a victory over Smith balances the good win with the lack of action, for this seed. #9 Grello (RUT) beat #10 Bowman (IA), so gets the higher seed. With a decent 5-3 conference record, Grello couldn’t go higher, as he beat two back-ups and two guys near the bottom in addition to his Bowman victory. Similarly, Bowman at 4-2 isn’t a bad record, but no good wins and the Grello loss, so it’s #10 for the Hawkeye.

No.’s 11 through 14 are; #11 Sebastian, #12 Ugalde (MD), #13 Covaciu, and #14 Carver.

 

[pish69]

Roar .. just read an article Sebastian having two surgeries and retiring. What a stud he was in HS. Bit by the injury bug too much. Hate seeing kids careers cut short by injury

 

[RoarLions1]

Roar .. just read an article Sebastian having two surgeries and retiring. What a stud he was in HS. Bit by the injury bug too much. Hate seeing kids careers cut short by injury

Thanks, didn't know that.

I remember attending the Adam Frey Classic years ago with NoVa (at Lehigh), and one of the high school exhibition bouts was Marsteller vs Sebastian. They battled even up for three periods, I believe, Marsteller winning in SV. Sebastian has fought injuries ever since, and never reached the wrestling potential everyone said he had. Great young man though, by all accounts.