ADVERTISEMENT

Iowa Grades 2025 B1G Tournament

Clearly failing grade for the staff. Not just for this performance, but for the last few years. I get there were some bright spots, but come on. It's not only adjusting and preparing each wrestler, but getting a grasp on the landscape and adjusting to that. Wrestling has changed, and other teams seem to have a better grasp.

Near fall changes- no change to top wrestling despite having one of the greatest top wrestlers of all time in the room.

Neutral danger- while every other team improved scrambling, Iowa did not appear to at all.

Three point takeown- no additional focus on aggressive neutral wrestling. Still push and plod forward begging for a stall call. On this point it's infuriating. Hell, even at the top high school level I've seen the difference that rule change has made. So many kids are aggressive on their feet. I've seen more matches where a kid may have been overly aggressive and got taken down only to continue that pace and come back.

All these changes are designed to reward the wrestler going after the win/ bonus. This staff appears to create wrestlers that are out there to not lose. I'm not a part of that awesome Carver atmosphere, but wouldn't you much rather yell "THREE" than "STALLING"?
 
The old Iowa Style is nothing more than a pleasant memory of the Gable years. There are always exceptions but the Iowa Style under Brands has slowly become the Morningstar Style of the past which was grind out a close win and hope to do this well enough to be an AA.
If Brands can't get his own son to wrestle like a Brands, what is the hope he could do it for the majority of the team?
 
In all seriousness, who had a bad loss? Who lost to someone they had no business losing to? I mean I spent time going back through the brackets and the ONLY one I see is Cruz losing to Weiand. Maybe you could point to Teemer's losses, but that requires completely ignoring the hamstring injury that made him miss a large part of the season and the giant shoulder brace he wore the whole weekend....

After that, how many good wins did they have? Kueter had at least 2. Arnold had 1. Parco majored an AA. Ayala beat a former B1G champ 8-2. Caliendo wrecked everyone and only lost 4-1 to Mess.

With that said, you also can't point to a single "great" win and that is exactly why they got a C+. 1 bad loss, 4 or 5 wins over guys that could definitely beat them, but also 4 or 5 losses to guys they definitely could have beat.

Again, the difference between me and those arguing so hard against me is simply their expectations for Iowa vs. the realistic expectations and results for the actual wrestlers on the mat.
This (the part I made bold and italicized) is a bit funny. So, basically you just want to keep your expectations in line with however low we sink as a team. Move the goal-posts constantly. Then you can always say, "well, point to a single bad loss because I just can't seem to see one anywhere."

125 and 141 not placing is bad (FOR IOWA, considering it's freaking Iowa and we have endless resources to get the best wrestlers and coaches in to get the job done).

Ayala getting planted on his back and stuck is bad (FOR AYALA, considering he was ranked #1 and was favored to win the match).

Parco getting wrecked by Lovett after beating him in the dual is a bad loss (FOR PARCO, considering he usually beats Lovett straight-up). Parco getting wrecked by Van Ness again is a bad loss (FOR PARCO, considering many thought this was a winnable match only a month ago).

Teemer placing 7th is bad. FOR TEEMER and IOWA, considering it's barely top half of big ten conference and Teemer was ranked #1 at start of season. And yes, I do realize it's likely mostly to do with his injury/injuries but most on here are tired of letting our coaches off the hook for injuries.

Caliendo wrestled awesome and to the expectations of probably himself, the fans, and outsiders.

Kennedy didn't take a bad loss, but also didn't have a good win and lost a consi-semi match that is certainly winnable.

Arnold lost two matches most would have predicted him winning a year ago and had one decent win for fifth place. If we would have predicted him winning those matches a year ago, I think they could be considered bad losses.

Buchanan getting beat is bad (FOR BUCHANAN, considering he was ranked #1 and was favored to win the match).

Keuter wrestled above expectations for this weekend and probably even with expectations coming into college.

Iowa Wrestling barely edging out Minnesota and Illinois and losing by 25 to Nebraska is AWFUL (considering expectations 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 1 year ago, even one week ago).

Not to mention we lost by 69.5 to PSU, which people like you seem to just be okay with (NO BAD LOSSES SO IT'S FINE!)
 
Last edited:
This (the part I made bold and italicized) is a bit funny. So, basically you just want to keep your expectations in line with however low we sink as a team. Move the goal-posts constantly. Then you can always say, "well, point to a single bad loss because I just can't seem to see one anywhere."

125 and 141 not placing is bad (FOR IOWA, considering it's freaking Iowa and we have endless resources to get the best wrestlers and coaches in to get the job done).

Ayala getting planted on his back and stuck is bad (FOR AYALA, considering he was ranked #1 and was favored to win the match).

Parco getting wrecked by Lovett after beating him in the dual is a bad loss (FOR PARCO, considering he usually beats Lovett straight-up). Parco getting wrecked by Van Ness again is a bad loss (FOR PARCO, considering many thought this was a winnable match only a month ago).

Teemer placing 7th is bad. FOR TEEMER and IOWA, considering it's barely top half of big ten conference and Teemer was ranked #1 at start of season. And yes, I do realize it's likely mostly to do with his injury/injuries but most on here are tired of letting our coaches off the hook for injuries.

Caliendo wrestled awesome and to the expectations of probably himself, the fans, and outsiders.

Kennedy didn't take a bad loss, but also didn't have a good win and lost a consi-semi match that is certainly winnable.

Arnold lost two matches most would have predicted him winning a year ago and had one decent win for fifth place. If we would have predicted him winning those matches a year ago, I think they could be considered bad losses.

Buchanan getting beat is bad (FOR BUCHANAN, considering he was ranked #1 and was favored to win the match).

Keuter wrestled above expectations for this weekend and probably even with expectations coming into college.

Iowa Wrestling barely edging out Minnesota and Illinois and losing by 25 to Nebraska is AWFUL (considering expectations 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 1 year ago, even one week ago).

Not to mention we lost by 69.5 to PSU, which people like you seem to just be okay with (NO BAD LOSSES SO IT'S FINE!)
It's a pretty good take. If Iowa performed somewhat better or showed some improvement from the regular season fans would be happier. Performing to seed level you figure well, they did as expected, but you'd like to see some over performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wahlberg
This (the part I made bold and italicized) is a bit funny. So, basically you just want to keep your expectations in line with however low we sink as a team. Move the goal-posts constantly. Then you can always say, "well, point to a single bad loss because I just can't seem to see one anywhere."

125 and 141 not placing is bad (FOR IOWA, considering it's freaking Iowa and we have endless resources to get the best wrestlers and coaches in to get the job done).

Ayala getting planted on his back and stuck is bad (FOR AYALA, considering he was ranked #1 and was favored to win the match).

Parco getting wrecked by Lovett after beating him in the dual is a bad loss (FOR PARCO, considering he usually beats Lovett straight-up). Parco getting wrecked by Van Ness again is a bad loss (FOR PARCO, considering many thought this was a winnable match only a month ago).

Teemer placing 7th is bad. FOR TEEMER and IOWA, considering it's barely top half of big ten conference and Teemer was ranked #1 at start of season. And yes, I do realize it's likely mostly to do with his injury/injuries but most on here are tired of letting our coaches off the hook for injuries.

Caliendo wrestled awesome and to the expectations of probably himself, the fans, and outsiders.

Kennedy didn't take a bad loss, but also didn't have a good win and lost a consi-semi match that is certainly winnable.

Arnold lost two matches most would have predicted him winning a year ago and had one decent win for fifth place. If we would have predicted him winning those matches a year ago, I think they could be considered bad losses.

Buchanan getting beat is bad (FOR BUCHANAN, considering he was ranked #1 and was favored to win the match).

Keuter wrestled above expectations for this weekend and probably even with expectations coming into college.

Iowa Wrestling barely edging out Minnesota and Illinois and losing by 25 to Nebraska is AWFUL (considering expectations 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 1 year ago, even one week ago).

Not to mention we lost by 69.5 to PSU, which people like you seem to just be okay with (NO BAD LOSSES SO IT'S FINE!)

It's sort of like he's purposely keeping his head down in the weeds, hoping no one notices there's a forest fire. But really, he set the forest fire and good fans like you are part of the bucket brigade.
 
Oh, and here are the placements relative to seeds since I now see that is the main basis for those calling me out.

Cruz- -5. Still, like I said above, if you are using him as the basis of your argument, you lose nearly all credibility with me.

Ayala -1. The best he could possibly do is even and making the Finals is in no way a “dud” performance.

Schriever. EVEN. Went 1-2 from 11 seed

Parco -2. Had the misfortune of hitting his worst matchup possible for 3rd…

Teemer -3. Injuries negate that for me.

Caliendo EVEN. Great performance. PERIOD

Kennedy. -1. 5th from 4th is about were he should be seeing the draw.

Arnold -1. 5th from 4th where 3rd was the absolute best possible result.

197 -1. See 133.

285. +4. Great performance.
I'm surprised Iowa isn't getting more love because according to many on here last year we weren't going to be top 10 this year,and maybe not even top 20.

of course several said Drake wouldn't All American either. I don't get the disappointment when the usual vrowd6 said we would be trash this year.

They also said Iowa was no longer relevant. Wrestling by far the toughest schedule in the country with one loss seems like a great season especially with the doom and gloom predictions.

With that said obviously it was a disappointing tournament, but not sky is falling level. No crazy bad losses, but no great wins.
It's stupid to judge a team until after NCAAs imo.
Finishing outside the top 3 without some crazy injury(s) would be very disappointing. Teemers issue really shrunk the margin for error though. Hoping he can level up in his last go.

Also give Nebraska a lot of credit they wrestled out of their minds they were gifted one match but had a great tournament. They typically do great at Big ten's though and s*** the bed at Nationals Maybe this will be their year.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised Iowa isn't getting more love because according to many on here last year we weren't going to be top 10 this year,and maybe not even top 20.

of course several said Drake wouldn't All American either. I don't get the disappointment when the usual vrowd6 said we would be trash this year.

They also said Iowa was no longer relevant. Wrestling by far the toughest schedule in the country with one loss seems like a great season especially with the doom and gloom predictions.

With that said obviously it was a disappointing tournament, but not sky is falling level. No crazy bad losses, but no great wins.
It's stupid to judge a team until after NCAAs imo.
Finishing outside the top 3 without some crazy injury(s) would be very disappointing. Teemers issue really shrunk the margin for error though. Hoping he can level up in his last go.

Also give Nebraska a lot of credit they wrestled out of their minds they were gifted one match but had a great tournament. They typically do great at Big ten's though and s*** the bed at Nationals Maybe this will be their year.
Yeah, I’m not calling the season a loss. We did great in duals except penn state, and we should of course see how ncaa’s go before evaluating the season.

I just think big tens was extremely disappointing and made the path tougher. And I do understand where most of the negativity is not just from this year, but the feeling that we’re watching the same old story as past years.

And I think a lot of the doubts of our ability to finish in top 5 (or top 10 if people were saying that) this season came prior to learning we’d be adding Parco, Teemer, and Buchanan to the squad. And that Nelson would be back.
 
Thanks for the "S T A L K E R" invite.



As you pretty much based and explained all of your expectations being: 1) 'Iowa wrestlers' future performance should be based on past performance alone;' and 2) 'Iowa wrestlers should beat who they are heavily favored against, but are allowed to lose toss ups, while simultaneously cherry picking an exclusion of Cruz as he violated your tenets, sure C+ seems rational.

But if you listen to others here, they are writing 'as the season progresses Iowa wrestlers should improve to peak.' By the consensus analysis Iowa did not, it finished below expectations, and it ended up behind hated Nebraska by 25 points. The salt in the wound is Nebraska ended up with two champions who exceeded their seeds to Iowa's zero with two top seeds. So sure, I can see a D- as the top end Team grade like most here.



This sounds a lot like something a parent who is fond of participation trophies might say to their 10-year old. Gable probably spit out his coffee reading this.



D and F students love a C+s. Historical A students obviously don't. That said, historical A students, who truly believe "you get what you earn," don't want to read their earned D or F as a sugar-coated C+.

Pretty sure Iowa needs to "work to its base" and "keep fighting" because it "has a lot of work to do."
Oddly, I kind of agree with MSUs grades and argument that the sky is not falling. Yet I also agree with your analogies and thoughts. Gut feels like a D- performance, but mind says C+. Nebby beating us 🤮 may indeed be the reason for the difference. Regardless, we need a B+ or better performance at Natty's or even I may get really grumpy like many on here.
 
SIAP (or linked) Did anyone read this before posting here?


Sorry link acts like subscription is needed. I could read it for free in Chrome. It showed up in my feed.

Can search for "hawkeye beacon big ten championships" to find and read it.

Is @wahlberg Ross Binder?

You added an errant comma in your original link.

Great article, solid on every point.
 
I see this as definitely the team performance is less than the average of individual parts.
Underperforming seeds by all but 2 guys drops them to C territory on that alone. The real kicker is no champs. That's what takes it from a poor team performance to something worse.
 
Team gets a D. Coaching staff gets an F. We see this same under performance every year at tourney time. Nebby waxed Iowa. Illinois and Minny were right there almost equal to Iowa. That really sucked. Where would Iowa have been without the 4 hired guns? Does Nebby have hired guns or are they simply out coaching Iowa? Remember all the ridicule against Minny and how they were doing nothing. Well, they almost beat Iowa. Time for a MAJOR shake-up with the coaching staff. I say try to get Gable S. and Dake. Doing the same thing every year and expecting different results is insanity.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT