Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Old Number Nine

Pages: [1]
1
College / Re: Big 4?
« on: June 27, 2010, 08:57:21 AM »
With the new qualifying criteria, aren’t the conference championships somewhat superfluous?  Whether there are ten schools, four or just two; isn’t it the individuals who qualify?

2
College / Re: I would like to congratulate VARNER!!
« on: March 23, 2010, 08:42:11 AM »
Did you hear in the Finals Breakdown during the break that if Varner had won the match without a takedown he would have been the first person to wrestle in four finals and not score a single takedown.  Maybe he was there as well and thought that would be a bad legacy.  I guess two takedowns in four finals isn't the best.

3
College / Re: Well Hell!
« on: March 22, 2010, 01:35:27 PM »
You have to pick your sports better:
November/December to March is Wrestling and I bleed Orange- Go Pokes
April to October/November is Baseball I'm as red as any Sooner - Go Sox
In all honesty, most of my Red Sox gear is blue except this coat;

And here is a pic of my wife;

4
College / Re: Oklahoma State - Post NCAA review and look ahead.
« on: March 22, 2010, 01:27:54 PM »
In a post tournament interview Jordan stated that he wishes he would have handled his weight better but he would be back at 133 next year.  Sorry, I forgot where I read this but yesterday was a long day.

5
College / Re: Bedlam
« on: February 24, 2010, 09:47:22 AM »
Quote from: "SetonHallPirate"
Quote from: "OkieSpladle"
Quote from: "SetonHallPirate"
Spladle-I didn't want to quote your entire post, but the official was Randy Hartman.

Have you seen him officiate before, SHP?

Can't say I have.

I was surprised to see him back after the way Firday's match went.  At one point after a heated discussion with Hartman, Coach Smith gave himself a bench warning as he walked back to the bench.

6
College / Re: Cautions
« on: February 24, 2010, 08:59:42 AM »
The rule as it stands now is really no better than it was before, it's the confusion that is leading to all the cautions.  The simple thing to do would be to start the way a track evet is started.  Once the hand is on the elbow, the Ref waits an indeterminate period of time (which should be different every time) and then blows the whistle.

7
College / Re: Oklahoma Sooner Wrestling Blog Spot
« on: February 24, 2010, 08:52:57 AM »
Quote from: "ViseGrip"
Quote from: "OkieSpladle"
I would have guessed the crowd was bigger than that.  They were loud for both sides.
Its probably pretty close. If you moved all of those down from the NEW GIA into the old GA I dont think it would be half full and as I recall the old Gallagher held around 9,000. But it WAS a good crowd as far as noise and I loved not only seeing your old wrestlers getting honored but that promo video was really cool!

Speaking of the old Gallagher, you might appreciate this OS....

I was sitting in the bleachers close to the floor near the OU section Sunday and I see ol Stan Able walking by on the floor. Suddenly, years and years of the old chant just took over my body, and I stood up and yelled "SIT DOWN ABLE" (Im not kidding I really did LOL)

As I recall, Gallagher Hall originally had around 6300 seats although we packed about 9000 in for 1978 Big 8 Conference Finals.  Now that was Bedlam.  The 6300 was cut back to something like 6100 after the renovations in the late 80's.

Watching Tommy and Stan yell at each other from across the mat was one of the best parts of bedlam in the the old days.  Able was fun to hate, Spates is just a goober.

8
Polls / Would making all political parties illegal be good or bad?
« on: February 22, 2010, 11:47:03 PM »
Do you think it would be a good thing if We the People of the United States of American passed a law that would make political parties illegal in this country?  We would have to do it as the politicians would never even consider it.  Just think of the savings from not having conventions every year and therefore, no having primaries, no electoral college or any of that other stupid crap.  

Anybody who wants to run for office, lets say for President, simply pays a reasonable filing fee, if he/she can afford it, and throws their name out to the people.  Any American Citizen would be eligible and of course they would be able to mention their ideology such as conservative, libertarian and even liberals will be allowed to run.  Then every American Citizen (natural and naturalized) would be allowed to vote.  Sorry, this is my imaginary world and aliens of any kind, whether legal, illegal or Martian would not be allowed to vote.  You would have to have a photo ID so that rules out vampires as well.  When the votes are counted the person with the most votes is the president and the one with the second most is the vice president.  It makes perfect sense that if something happens to the President, the second most popular candidate should step in.  Getting idiots like Joe Biden and Dan Quail should be an impossibility.  If no one gets a 50.1% majority then there would be a run off between the top two vote getters with the same Pres/VP ending although the leader in the first election my lose the runoff when the votes for the also-rans are recast.  All elections for national office would be held in this way with the process and the voting machines being identical in all states and paid for by the federal government.

The States would be able to elect State officials any way they wanted but must lease the federal election equipment if they want to go that route.  However, the can use watermelon seed spitting contests if they want to.

Members of congress would be able to vote for whatever is best for the people of their state rather than some party line.  The majority party could no longer disregard the interests of the minority.  There would still be ideological differences and squabbles in congress but they would have to work together to get anything done.

9
Polls / Re: Fiscal Conundrum...
« on: February 22, 2010, 11:03:49 PM »
This sort of question requires what is called a Truth Table and looks like this where T is Taxes with 0 being Cut and 1 is Increase.  So it follows that B is Budget with 0 being decrease and 1 being increase.

T  B
0  0
1  0
0  1
1  1

This gives four possibilities: 0, 0 - Cut taxes, Cut the Budget; 1, 0 - Increase Taxes, Cut the Budget; 0, 1 - Cut Taxes, Increase the Budget; 1, 1 - Increase Taxes, Increase the Budget.

Now let’s look at all four possibilities (I'm writing this so I'll do it in the order I want).

4) Raise Taxes and Raise the Budget.  This is the choice that will make the fewest people happy, IMO.  Liberal Politicians and the people who expect to get the most hand-outs from the government, i.e. their constituents.  In theory you would think this would have a chance of being deficit neutral, but seeing as how they could take all of the money made by the rich people of the U.S. and the budget would still not be balanced, it's unlikely.

3) Cut Taxes and Raise the Budget.  This is the sure path to fiscal destruction and it seems to be the course we are on right now.  The liberals have to tax everybody or this ship will sink.  I saw on the news yesterday that the Chinese have said they will no longer buy any more of our dept.  This is the first shot across the Flag Ship Obama's bow meaning, get your finances in order or you’re on your own.

2) Raise Taxes and Lower the Budget;  Normally this would lower the deficit but with the current obamanation(sic) that is the Obama budget, well, I don’t see him cutting that much and see #3 above about taxing the rich.  At least this possibility would demonstrate some concern for the countries fiscal well being although I know of very few people that would view a tax increase in the way VP Biden would like.  I pay my taxes and donate to many charities of my own choosing (at a much higher percentage than Obama’s 4%) and I don’t need Tail Gunner Joe telling what is the right thing to do as I am sure his version would be quite different from mine.

1) That brings us to Cut Taxes and Cut the Budget; This gets my vote.  Cut all “stimulus” funds that have not already been spent.  Require “stimulus” funds given to cronies be returned.  Immediately cancel all of the legislation adopted so far by the Obama administration and his liberal cronies in congress.  If these three things are done congress could probably declare 2010 the year of no taxes, at all, and still come out ahead.  Can you imagine how paying no taxes would effect current state of our economy?

10
Polls / Re: Are You Dumber than a First Grader ?
« on: February 15, 2010, 11:43:45 PM »
Quote from: "RYou"
Which direction is the bus traveling?


What it really is is the guys in the two front rows, it just got blurred in the copy process.


11
Polls / Re: What was the greatest upset in an NCAA final in the last 30
« on: February 15, 2010, 11:21:03 PM »
Quote from: "ViseGrip"
Quote from: "Old Number Nine"
Quote from: "ctc"
Mark Branch had a losing record in I think 95 and won it all.

This comes up every so often but in '94 Branch was 9-8 going into the NCAA and was rightly unseeded.  He defeated unranked Laszlo Molnar of C.S. Fullerton in the finals which could only be considered an upset if you consider that Molnar defeated the #3, #5 & #1 wrestlers to get to the finals while Branch only beat the #2, #10 & #6.  I don;t know Laszlo's W/L record.
How could Molnar beaten the #1 AND #3 seeded wrestlers as they are in the opposite sites of the bracket? Did you mean #1, #5 & #4?

I fat fingered a 3 and a 4 and deleted the wrong one, sorry.  The points the same, while an great story of a great accomplishment, the final was no great upset.

12
Polls / Re: What was the greatest upset in an NCAA final in the last 30
« on: February 15, 2010, 01:02:39 PM »
Quote from: "ctc"
Mark Branch had a losing record in I think 95 and won it all.

This comes up every so often but in '94 Branch was 9-8 going into the NCAA and was rightly unseeded.  He defeated unranked Laszlo Molnar of C.S. Fullerton in the finals which could only be considered an upset if you consider that Molnar defeated the #3, #5 & #1 wrestlers to get to the finals while Branch only beat the #2, #10 & #6.  I don;t know Laszlo's W/L record.

13
Polls / Re: What was the greatest upset in an NCAA final in the last 30
« on: February 15, 2010, 12:50:23 PM »
Quote from: "sp103"
what about Marianetti vs. McIlravey?   I'd vote this match by far

That was a good one, I don't know how I missed it.

14
Polls / What was the greatest upset in an NCAA final in the last 30
« on: February 11, 2010, 09:31:53 PM »
I’m sure most people would agree that Owings over Gable was the greatest upset in NCAA finals history but what about the last 30 years.  If you look at the years you’ll notice that upsets are becoming more common.

I don’t have specific info on all of these match-ups so some are based on the seed differences but the ones I do know are as follows:

Schultz defeated Stewart 3-10, 2-9 & 2-4 before being pinned by Stewart in ‘81

Burley was a two time finalist, one time champion when Gibbons beat him ‘81.

JJ McGrew was defeated by Joel Sharratt 3-7, 2-3, 4-8 and 5-10 before winning 8-6 in ‘95.

Rosholt’s record was 17-10 going into the NCAA, had lost to the Missouri back-up earlier in the year and was beaten 8-1 by Barker in the Big-12’s two weeks before completely demolishing him in ‘03.

Hendricks defeated Perry 7-6OT, 3-1, 5-2 and 4-3 before losing 4-3 in 07.

Elinsky and Skove had never met that I can find.

Hazewinkle was a three time third place finisher when he lost to Donahoe in ‘07

I’m not sure about their exact head-to-head record but I know Caldwell pinned Metcalf in one of their previous meetings and I believe Metcalf had teched Caldwell.

Please feel free to add in info that might support your choice.

Pages: [1]