Why "Social Media" is great....
- Thread starter dunkej01
- Start date
And he got upgraded to first class for his flight home!
The only way everyone stays and supports the Greco and Women's teams is if MFS is wrestled after them. I'm curious to know how badly the Flo streaming dropped off after Mens Freestyle. The rest of the world ramped up their streaming for Greco I'm guessing
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that Greco is like the boring presentations at an out of town work conference that everyone ditches to sightsee regardless where the conference organizers stick it on the schedule to try to gin up attendance? 😉🤔
It is in many countries. I don't get it either. I would rather watch sumo wrestling. At least the matches are done qucikly.
Dude. this isn't true. Greco advocates say this ALL THE TIME and it somehow became accepted lore. There are COUNTRIES where greco is more popular (Swedish) but that's it.
I did it a while back, but the easiest way to confirm this is the number of entrants in FS versus GR. and it was relatively close - but it was still FS.
And viewership-wise? The IOC tried to cancel greco (which would give us 10 Mens and Womens FS weights by the way) but Karelin blocked it. It's an unwatchable sport loved by (a small group of) fanatics.
Am I comfortable with the punishment? Not really
Is it proportional to the crime? I don't think so.
Did these kids all knowingly participate in an activity that is banned by the NCAA? 100% yes
For time iperpituity defendants have claimed ignorance either as an excuse, or as a defense.
Thomas Jefferson amongst others, says no!
Is Ignorance of the Law a Valid Legal Defense? - Law Office of Gabriel & Gabriel, LLC
In other words, it’s presumed that the public knows the law, and therefore a defense of ignorance typically isn’t allowed.
www.gabriellawteam.com
Am I glad that none of our kids got caught up in this, and is it likely that online betting amongst NCAA athletes across the nation is relatively widespred? Yes to both.
And then there was this:
Nelson Brands @nelson_brands • 50s "But Nelson you signed a waiver and had an
information meeting on NCAA compliance!" Although this is true I missed the meeting in
2022 and had no clue that I could be
PERMANENTLY banned.
——
Something, something, excuses … wusses
Nelson Brands @nelson_brands • 50s "But Nelson you signed a waiver and had an
information meeting on NCAA compliance!" Although this is true I missed the meeting in
2022 and had no clue that I could be
PERMANENTLY banned.
——
Something, something, excuses … wusses
He started with $200 but made over $3600 in bets. If it was that in itself I would agree the punishment was too harsh.
But he also admitted to betting 6x on Iowa football. I don't care if you missed a meeting. That's the definition of inside baseball. Everyone knows that is wrong - including Nelson. It can lead to some very shady situations.
You have the average Joe on the street is looking for an inside tip or something. Yeah, he probably realizes if it became a situation - as it is illegal - he loses his job. It has consequences. Very rare, but there have been insider betting scandals.
Same thing if you are an NCAA athlete. You bet on your school's team and you get caught - you're gone.
Fairly simple logic.
In the twitter thread one of the replies was..."yeah you missed the meeting in 2022, but had the same meeting in 2019, 2020 and 2021" 😂
I applaud Nelson's honesty but, uh, yikes.
"But Client, you signed a contract of sale and made a down payment on the house."
Although this is true, I missed the closing and had no clue that contracts contained words with meaning and import. I did realize that I was going against long-accepted principles of law, but I did not understand that my inaction would have consequences because I am evidently not an adult.
"But Client, you signed a contract of sale and made a down payment on the house."
Although this is true, I missed the closing and had no clue that contracts contained words with meaning and import. I did realize that I was going against long-accepted principles of law, but I did not understand that my inaction would have consequences because I am evidently not an adult.
Hey, Nelson and I have something in common. I would never bet on Iowa wrestling either!
Did Nelson also “miss the meeting” in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 because the same rule against sports wagering of any kind applied.
Oh, I don’t disagree.
My point was that he bet $200 and his proceeds after all of it (winnings minus wagers and fees) were $400…and getting kicked out of NCAA wrestling. Not a very good return on his money. Also, yes, it’s illegal, for good reason. I’m not minimizing that.
Basically, I'm kind of aghast that guys knowingly put their eligibility on the line for so little money.
Not disagreeing with you, but isn't "getting kicked out of NCAA wrestling" is a matter of timing?
Could be misremembering but IIRC the NCAA punishment is a 1-yr suspension, not a Pete Rose ban. If he weren't a SR, he would still have some future eligibility, just 1 year less than planned.
And for the first time he’s going to have to fight tooth and nail to establish his wrestling cred.
Oh wait, nix that …
I've accepted the ruling, but it still sucks as a diehard Hawkeye wrestling fan. He knew the rules. Nelson should've been sitting front and center of every meeting on his schedule. Especially considering his last name is Brands. No excuses for that.
I still think the punishment is too harsh for what he and Cassioppi did. It still baffles me that that only male's at ISU and Iowa were targeted. Life is full of unfairness.
I still think the punishment is too harsh for what he and Cassioppi did. It still baffles me that that only male's at ISU and Iowa were targeted. Life is full of unfairness.
I have no idea of how you arrive at that take unless you have your head in the sand. I would agree with you if it was simply a small amount of sports betting, but he bet on IOWA SPORTS at least 6 times according to his posts. This type of closely held situation is an egregious mistake and many similar situations abound - NFL players are being given year-long suspensions like they are candy because of stuff like this.
The missed meeting stuff is just a distraction, no one really needs a meeting to know the consequences of this crap if you have the slightest involvement in athletics - even if you're a college kid.
And before you ask, I'm 1000% positive I'd have the same take no matter who got nailed. I don't think this is is something that "everybody" is doing. Sure, lots of kids are gambling but extremely doubtful that most all are stupid enough to bet on your own school or in your own sport. Even in the Iowa situation across many sports only a very small percentage of athletes were foolish enough to do that. Everyone knows it's a huge no-no because it creates situations that can challenge the integrity of a sporting contest, so the regulatory authorities at every level are harsh with the penalties they levy. You'd have to be in a bubble not to know this.
He lost 1 year of eligibility out of 5 that he was granted. How could you expect less?
If you're bent out of shape about the "permanent" ban impact affecting his ability to coach at the NCAA level at some time in the future, I would agree with you if I didn't suspect that if in a few years, young Nelson could apply for reinstatement if he is afforded the opportunity and no additional incidents in the meantime.
Don't take this as combative, but I really don't understand the takes that losing a year over this is too harsh on the individual. I really am interested in hearing your reasoning behind your take.
I stopped reading after you said my head was in the sand. We will have to agree to disagree.
Well played. Excellent time for you to exit the discussion.
I've posted my thoughts about it on multiple forums. My handle is the same elsewhere.
Sucks for you not being able to tell someone else what to do, huh? Maybe approach me differently from the start next time.
I would agree with you if it was simply a small amount of sports betting, but he bet on IOWA SPORTS at least 6 times according to his posts. This type of closely held situation is an egregious mistake and many similar situations abound - NFL players are being given year-long suspensions like they are candy because of stuff like this.
The missed meeting stuff is just a distraction, no one really needs a meeting to know the consequences of this crap if you have the slightest involvement in athletics - even if you're a college kid.
And before you ask, I'm 1000% positive I'd have the same take no matter who got nailed. I don't think this is is something that "everybody" is doing. Sure, lots of kids are gambling but extremely doubtful that most all are stupid enough to bet on your own school or in your own sport. Even in the Iowa situation across many sports only a very small percentage of athletes were foolish enough to do that. Everyone knows it's a huge no-no because it creates situations that can challenge the integrity of a sporting contest, so the regulatory authorities at every level are harsh with the penalties they levy. You'd have to be in a bubble not to know this.
He lost 1 year of eligibility out of 5 that he was granted. How could you expect less?
If you're bent out of shape about the "permanent" ban impact affecting his ability to coach at the NCAA level at some time in the future, I would agree with you if I didn't suspect that if in a few years, young Nelson could apply for reinstatement if he is afforded the opportunity and no additional incidents in the meantime.
Don't take this as combative, but I really don't understand the takes that losing a year over this is too harsh on the individual. I really am interested in hearing your reasoning behind your take.
I removed the bad part, so you could read the rest in relative comfort.
If you read my post, you would know I wasn't trying to tell you how to feel.
I presented the logic behind my opinion and said I was interested in hearing yours.
"The punishment is too harsh" is your opinion. Why? Does that take into account any precedent? What is the rationale behind the punishment? You know, the things that go into forming an opinion.
It could be as simple as "he wears black and gold." I am not saying that is your reasoning. That is just a hyperbolic example of a thought process.
It wouldn't matter to you how or why i believe the punishment is too harsh for Cassioppi and Brands. You just want something to pick apart, going off your posting history. Maybe you want to do that simply because "I wear the black and gold"
Again, well played. I see you have the playbook down pat.
You've been on this site long enough to know that I've had discussions with a lot, lot more wearing blue and white than black and gold if I think it's a bad take and I'm motivated to post. So that's a disingenuous statement by you.
Unless you missed the meeting...
I'm currently leading the Meeting. I know you don't address me on here unless you feel I need corrected. It's a waste of your time otherwise. Let's both move on shall we?
That's three posts in a row basically stating that you're done with the discussion and want to move on. Care to make it 4?
Just to add some perspective to "the penalty is too harsh" group... Keep in mind that it wasn't that long ago that all NCAA athletes were penalized the same time frame (1 year) in order to transfer to another school. You didn't see many "senior year" transfers in those days. Brands got the same punishment as a transfer would have received. I agree with several posters that point out the coincidental timing which was chosen entirely by Brands.
Similar threads
