ADVERTISEMENT

Noteworthy Results and Goldfish Games - Week of Jan 3

As far as Brands addressing this, he has acknowledged he owes Cael a visit. He has never addressed why he could not be bothered reciprocating.
The reasoning was fairly obvious. The first opportunity Brands had to reciprocate PSU's visit was one of those years that PSU was going to just snot kick Iowa all over the place. Brands was very aware it would be a BJC event and prime time BTN broadcast and there was no way he was going to allow Iowa to take that beatdown in such a public forum. Always remember, Tom Brands only likes tough wrestling when his guys are the obvious bullies.
Additional.
The year Iowa owed PSU a reciprocal the two sides were in agreement to wrestle, but neither side would agree to travel to the other's site.
Penn State for obvious reasons, Iowa's reasons are not nearly as obvious. Well, other than fear of the snot kicking.
 
Ok, so I get your point, but the quibble is over semantics. You maintain PSU hasn’t won an on-the-mat competition vs. Iowa in 2 years, which is correct. NittanyChris maintains that the only part of that streak that matters is the 1 National Championship, which is hardly a streak (and also correct). Another contention is that we enjoy winning everything but at the end of the day really only care aboot the National Championship, which is also correct.

I didn't know you were Canadian.
 
And no one on this board knows the answer
i-know-you-know-we-know-aj-rafael.gif
 
I myself had often wondered about how this lasting punchline about Iowa/Brands supposedly owing a trip to State College came about so I did some legwork. Here's what I have found:

Starting my search in 2000, Iowa and PSU wrestled and rotated every year until 2011, 6 home and 6 away matches with PSU hosting in 2011. In 2012, PSU hosted again, making in two in a row for PSU. The next year,(2013)they were not scheduled, which led to Brands and Cael having a twitter convo(below) in which Tom brought up that PSU owed them "two in a row", which Cael agreed and Iowa hosted.

Following years:

2014-Iowa
2015 -PSU
2016 - no match
2017 - Iowa
2018 - PSU
2019 - no match
2020 - Iowa
2021 - canceled - scheduled at PSU


I like the analysis, but filter out all of the conference matchups and only list the non conference schedule. The picture will change a little
 
Not sure what your point is. He loves being a Hawk, proclaims support for his teammates. Forward me the one where he acknowledges his misunderstanding of what Brands had told him.
Show me where the Swafford family states they are not impressed with Tom’s integrity.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Shifty15
I myself had often wondered about how this lasting punchline about Iowa/Brands supposedly owing a trip to State College came about so I did some legwork. Here's what I have found:

Starting my search in 2000, Iowa and PSU wrestled and rotated every year until 2011, 6 home and 6 away matches with PSU hosting in 2011. In 2012, PSU hosted again, making in two in a row for PSU. The next year,(2013)they were not scheduled, which led to Brands and Cael having a twitter convo(below) in which Tom brought up that PSU owed them "two in a row", which Cael agreed and Iowa hosted.

Following years:

2014-Iowa
2015 -PSU
2016 - no match
2017 - Iowa
2018 - PSU
2019 - no match
2020 - Iowa
2021 - canceled - scheduled at PSU


As best as I can tell, the only discussion about the years where they weren't scheduled to wrestle (13,16,19) happened in 13. That year sure seems like it was understood between the two coaches that it would be in Iowa City to make up for the back to back years at PSU(11, 12).

It's possible that it happened, but I couldn't find any info about the two coaches having conversations in 16 or 19 to set up a dual. If anyone has that info, it would be very helpful...

Otherwise, my best guess is that over time, people only remembered that Cael and Tom worked together to schedule a meet when they were not on the schedule in 13, and that it was in Iowa City. Therefore, the next time they were not scheduled, it should happen and at PSU. However, if you look at what was actually discussed, the one and only time they did this, it was clear to both coaches that this was a make-up dual in Iowa City and the hosting was back to even...



Good research — but what was Brands’s basis for PSU “owing” Iowa 2 in a row? Was it because the B1G scheduled ‘11 and ‘12 to be at PSU? Or was there some sort of off-the-record arrangement where Iowa agreed to go to PSU in ‘12 to accommodate some need of PSU elsewhere in its scheduling? I don’t know the answer . . . but the butt-hurt on our end has been that PSU and Iowa have not wrestled every year as was anticipated after the ‘13 partnership. The perception is that Brands has declined to meet non-conference in the ‘16 and ‘19 off-years.

Maybe fans are making assumptions about how one-sided it is, but I think I recall a prominent Iowa poster saying some years back that Brands wasn’t about to give Cael the time of day after the binder had been delivered. Brands was “pissed” about what he learned in the binder and was done collaborating with the enemy.

Maybe just BS, but the fact remains that only one non-conference meeting between the teams has happened since the B1G adopted its ridiculous rotation, and it involved PSU going to Iowa. If that made some older history “even”, that’s all fine and good — but it’s still been Iowa’s turn to come here for a non-conference matchup in an off year. We’re still waiting.
 
Good research — but what was Brands’s basis for PSU “owing” Iowa 2 in a row? Was it because the B1G scheduled ‘11 and ‘12 to be at PSU? Or was there some sort of off-the-record arrangement where Iowa agreed to go to PSU in ‘12 to accommodate some need of PSU elsewhere in its scheduling? I don’t know the answer . . . but the butt-hurt on our end has been that PSU and Iowa have not wrestled every year as was anticipated after the ‘13 partnership. The perception is that Brands has declined to meet non-conference in ‘16 and ‘19 off-years.

Maybe fans are making assumptions about how one-sided it is, but I think I recall a prominent Iowa poster saying some years back that Brands wasn’t about to give Cael the time of day after the binder had been delivered. Brands was “pissed” about what he learned in the binder and was done collaborating with the enemy.

Maybe just BS, but the fact remains that only one non-conference meeting between the teams has happened since the B1G adopted its ridiculous rotation, and it involver PSU going to Iowa. If that made some older history “even”, that’s all fine and good — but it’s still been Iowa’s turn to come here for a non-conference matchup in an off year. We’re still waiting.
Duals aren’t important so it shouldn’t be a big deal.
 
So no blame on the Big 10? Would have been easily solved.
Why blame the Big10? The Big10 never had any objection with TnT following through on their commitment to return the favor of the next match being held at Penn State. Nitlion6 is absolutely correct, Brands, at that point in time, could not afford a monumental beat down and the resultant negative impact on recruiting.
 
Why blame the Big10? The Big10 never had any objection with TnT following through on their commitment to return the favor of the next match being held at Penn State. Nitlion6 is absolutely correct, Brands, at that point in time, could not afford a monumental beat down and the resultant negative impact on recruiting.
So you’re good with the Big 10 scheduling decisions? Then you shouldn’t have any complaints about not wrestling every year.
 
Duals aren’t important so it shouldn’t be a big deal.
I was waiting for you to try that. Although I suspect you already know the difference, I’ll say it anyway . . . The outcome of duals isn’t important in the grand scheme of things for a team and its historical prowess. The entertainment value of duals, on the other hand, is important to fans and their engagement in the sport. It’s why people make such a big deal not so much about which teams wins but, rather, who from each team actually participates.

Context matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 86PSUPaul
So you’re good with the Big 10 scheduling decisions? Then you shouldn’t have any complaints about not wrestling every year.
Big10 scheduling is out of all our control, but Brands definitely had control over not following through on his commitment. When this agreement was originally made, the stated intend of Cael and Brands was to make sure the two teams wrestled every year, in spite of Big10 scheduling. Unfortunately it fell apart, because Brands didn’t keep his end of the bargain. If you’re looking for someone to blame on why Penn State and Iowa don’t wrestle every year, Brands is your guy.
 
Last edited:
I was waiting for you to try that. Although I suspect you already know the difference, I’ll say it anyway . . . The outcome of duals isn’t important in the grand scheme of things for a team and its historical prowess. The entertainment value of duals, on the other hand, is important to fans and their engagement in the sport. It’s why people make such a big deal not so much about which teams wins but, rather, who from each team actually participates.

Context matters.
 
fwiw, i agree with him. i posted a more detailed explanation on HR in the grades thread, but to sum up, my concern is that instead of being the best version of big tony, he's made himself an inferior version of parris or kerk. i'd pick kerk today.
I always thought what made Cass really special was he was a very nimble bear at 270. He moved very well and used his weight often to take another heavy straight to his back. He was very good at putting his full weight on another heavy to keep them down.

Logic says losing fat is always good for athletics, you should have a stronger gas tank, move a lot quicker while retaining all your power. I think the consensus is he did this to get his speed and strength up to equalize himself with Parris. When I heard he was 239-242 pounds, I was curious how Kerk would do against this version since Kerk's specialty is when things are in neutral (I still can see Cass riding him well but that 30 pounds definitely made Kerk's life way more miserable last year at Big Tens)
 
  • Like
Reactions: js8793 and AndEEss
I was looking forward to the Wood and Schultz matches as a barometer of how he did on bottom against really, really big dudes. Unfortunately neither match happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slushhead
I was looking forward to the Wood and Schultz matches as a barometer of how he did on bottom against really, really big dudes. Unfortunately neither match happened.
IIRC, Kerk had no issues getting out from under Wood or Schultz last year. Ironically, Schultz just dominated him on the feet. I don't think he necessarily struggles under size, there's more to it than just being big.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slushhead
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT