Suriano question

[slushhead]

We talk wrestling on not only the Other Sports board, but the Round Table and Football board as well during the season. You're right, it's not a big board. The only two free boards that are that big are the football and mens' basketball board. But trust me when I say that we have gone out of our way to promote men's wrestling on this site, to the point where our head writers write about the sport in season now. I'm not going to compare it to other boards or compare our fanbase to other fanbases because it's such a new sport at Rutgers (in the sense that we only started to care about it when Goodale came aboard during Scott Winston's freshman year). That being said, I think we do well in discussion, inside info, and analysis, when you add up the different people on the board (guys like Bill, Josh, obrats, etc). I can guarantee you there's been a ton of new wrestling season ticket holders on this board due to the promotion we've been doing. It's almost to the point where we're getting close to basketball season ticket holders (which is a bit sad in other ways).

As for allowing outsiders, that's always happened, and it still does. I think I can count on one hand right now how many posters in this thread I've banned. Wrestling doesn't drive the site though. All repetitive arguments do is frustrate the people who do post here regularly. Many PSU posters aren't listening to what is being discussed at all by other posters here. And when we have information contrary to what has been said, people just revert back to their main talking points, because most of them don't know anything about the situation more than what they can read in a rulebook. It's the way some people come across as being obnoxious calling out people like Bill that we know have been involved in our program for years and has no benefit in lying to us. Nobody's afraid to hear that chances are Suriano won't be at Rutgers next year. Most of the discussion has been to see what chance we have despite the rules in place, because those rules aren't hard and fast like people have been trying to claim.

Glad to hear progress is being made, and I would honestly like to see more teams represented in forum discussion and banter (the constant PSU vs Iowa arguments about past events people cannot let go of becomes tiresome). A few dumpster fires in a forum can have some benefit for a growing fan base, though, IMO.

I understand there are good guys here and can appreciate that. But for the record, I called out Bill because his posting history on this Suriano subject was emotional and contradictory. That behavior will trigger a call-out on any forum. Especially if it becomes difficult to distinguish "inside info" from mere opinion. I know he is untouchable here, but he seems to have forgotten that definitive statements of outcome should be avoided in situations that are "fluid". In other words, don't say you know what will happen until there is truly certainty on the matter.

 

[dicemen99]

I hate to chime in here again on this endless merry-go-round, but all this speculation about PSU's "role" in support or non-support of the waiver claim is just not well thought out by either side.

I've posted before that the course of action for the support or non-support of the waiver by PSU is likely to be bound by legal exposure. That is likely why you have a vague statement released on the waiver by PSU. For them to "support" a waiver that claims malfeasance on the part of PSU (conjecture about PSU handling of the injury) is not going to happen. For them to oppose a waiver based on real personal hardship claimed by NS is also not going to happen, as it would open up the possibility of litigation. They are obviously going to sit this out and let B1G, a conference which they belong to and abide by its regulations, decide if it comes to that. For those of you that think the waiver claim will be something along the lines that "Nick doesn't like school" or "Nick just wants to be closer to home," think about that for a second. What are the odds that the B1G grants this exception and sets this precedent? This would have implications across all sports. For the waiver request to likely be successful, there is going to have to be a real claim of hardship.

As far as a release, they have granted this to NS, as is SOP in the wrestling world. As far as other schools besides, no one knows whether this has been asked for and what PSU's position is on it. For PSU to grant a release to "any" school - well, I don't think NS and family would want that (it would open the floodgates for every college coach in D1) - and I don't think this is normal SOP unless requested - and even then many schools do not grant it. But I don't see PSU denying a release to Rider, Hofstra, or Lehigh - schools that have been mentioned here - if and when requested. As far as whether a release being granted has any impact on the waiver claim, I've opined before that I think it is likely. But with it being granted, this is a non-issue at this time in regards to Rutgers.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Oh lordy. I don't know why anyone from Rutgers is bothering to deal with these guys. This is like Round 10 of this conversation, with no new information. Were you guys not around for the defense of JoePa?? They will never, ever concede or stop arguing. They are like the Japanese at Guadalcanal.

No new information? Why just yesterday, Bill reported that everyone but a certain someone had submitted their waiver information, and that someone appeared to be dragging their feet. Then, another RU poster threw a new "well he got a waiver" name into the hat, Mitchell, even though Mitchell's waiver involved family issues. So, there's all kinds of new information coming from your side. Whether it's accurate, or relevant, may be a different story.

 

[PhilaPhans]

Whether it's accurate, or relevant, may be a different story.

This has been my point. You throw out baseless accusations about a member in good standing on this board, who has absolutely nothing to gain by lying about what he knows about the situation. If you have anything "in the know" that you'd like to add to this situation, please let us know, or quit with the accusations.

 

[matter7172]

It's the way some people come across as being obnoxious calling out people like Bill that we know have been involved in our program for years and has no benefit in lying to us.

I don't think anyone has even insinuated that Bill is lying. I, personally, believe Rutgers is feeding him information which is fundamentally flawed, just like they did with Politi and Dunleavy, for their own purposes and agenda. For example, the claim that Penn State is holding up the waiver process just seems absurd on several levels and is probably not true. But Bill reports it as if it is true without question.

"Sure there is a chance. The committe has not ruled on the waiver. Everyone has submitted their case for it except a certain party! Seems to be dragging their feet!"

Now unless Bill is getting his information directly from the B1G committee, this is just irresponsible passing on of questionable information which does *nothing* substantive and, rather, is inflammatory. He doesn't say, for example, "Rutgers staff has told me ...".

 

[PhilaPhans]

Let's go step by step here.

Bill has been given information. I think everybody is on the same page that it's true that he's an insider. It's public who he actually is, what his position is, etc.

Bill says "a certain someone is dragging their feet" about answering the waiver."

The only three things you're using to refuse this are "that doesn't sound right (questionable info)" and "well, another case took 3 months" and "why should they say anything?!?". So you have nothing to base your information on, unless there's something you haven't brought to light yet. Everything you have is opinionated based.

And you're on a Rutgers board doing so. This is why there's some fight back over it. When you come here and contribute, you're a good poster to have here. That's why I've let things slide for the most part. The only person I've banned that I can remember from PSU is a guy who's gone through 2 or 3 user names to trash talk in this thread. But this stuff just doesn't fly unless you can actually refute it.

Bill will come back and tell if he ever got bad info, or that things changed. He will come back and explain the situation in full after it's over to us (may be on in the Round Table, who knows). But he's at least claiming responsibility for what he says.

 

[jerzey devil]

Let's go step by step here.

Bill has been given information. I think everybody is on the same page that it's true that he's an insider. It's public who he actually is, what his position is, etc.

Bill says "a certain someone is dragging their feet" about answering the waiver."

The only three things you're using to refuse this are "that doesn't sound right (questionable info)" and "well, another case took 3 months" and "why should they say anything?!?". So you have nothing to base your information on, unless there's something you haven't brought to light yet. Everything you have is opinionated based.

And you're on a Rutgers board doing so. This is why there's some fight back over it. When you come here and contribute, you're a good poster to have here. That's why I've let things slide for the most part. The only person I've banned that I can remember from PSU is a guy who's gone through 2 or 3 user names to trash talk in this thread. But this stuff just doesn't fly unless you can actually refute it.

Bill will come back and tell if he ever got bad info, or that things changed. He will come back and explain the situation in full after it's over to us (may be on in the Round Table, who knows). But he's at least claiming responsibility for what he says.

NAILED IT!!!

 

[slushhead]

PhilaPhans: Could you send me a copy of all my posts you deleted from this morning so that I can figure out what, exactly, crosses the line of acceptable content here? I think it was pretty tame stuff, but do not remember it all verbatim.

 

[matter7172]

Bill will come back and tell if he ever got bad info, or that things changed. He will come back and explain the situation in full after it's over to us (may be on in the Round Table, who knows). But he's at least claiming responsibility for what he says.

Unless Rutgers tells him "we weren't telling you the full truth", how is he going to know he was getting inaccurate information? Rutgers has shown a willingness to give out what are at best misleading pieces of information (e.g. making it seem the B1G intraconference transfer rules were an aberration when *every single one* of the Power 5 conferences have very similar rules) in this situation. He's never come back to say that information was misleading.

 

[nolanpa]

It's the way some people come across as being obnoxious calling out people like Bill that we know have been involved in our program for years and has no benefit in lying to us.

I don't think anyone has even insinuated that Bill is lying. I, personally, believe Rutgers is feeding him information which is fundamentally flawed, just like they did with Politi and Dunleavy, for their own purposes and agenda. For example, the claim that Penn State is holding up the waiver process just seems absurd on several levels and is probably not true. But Bill reports it as if it is true without question.

"Sure there is a chance. The committe has not ruled on the waiver. Everyone has submitted their case for it except a certain party! Seems to be dragging their feet!"

Now unless Bill is getting his information directly from the B1G committee, this is just irresponsible passing on of questionable information which does *nothing* substantive and, rather, is inflammatory. He doesn't say, for example, "Rutgers staff has told me ...".

OMG - you are a truly scarred fan base.

 

[matter7172]

OMG - you are a truly scarred fan base.

I'm a Penn State *wrestling* fan. What scars do I have? The Sunderland years? No offense, but the Sunderland years, painful as they were, were miles better than Rutgers *best* years.

 

[rondi]

[sick] :weary::gun: This thread is getting old...

Go RU!
Diane

 

[TRU2RU]

I'm a Penn State *wrestling* fan. What scars do I have? The Sunderland years? No offense, but the Sunderland years, painful as they were, were miles better than Rutgers *best* years.

You are a State Penn troll with NO inside information, who tries to refute any inside information that paints your school in a bad light, go back to your own board, you add nothing to the discussion here!

 

[matter7172]

You are a State Penn troll with NO inside information, who tries to refute any inside information that paints your school in a bad light, go back to your own board, you add nothing to the discussion here!

I can't refute it, because it's non-verifiable information. Non-verifiable insider information is useless. In my opinion, no insider information is about equivalent to non-verifiable information that is intended to paint another school in a bad light. It might actually be better, because there is no malice involved.

 

[nolanpa]

You are a State Penn troll with NO inside information, who tries to refute any inside information that paints your school in a bad light, go back to your own board, you add nothing to the discussion here!

I can't refute it, because it's non-verifiable information. Non-verifiable insider information is useless. In my opinion, no insider information is about equivalent to non-verifiable information that is intended to paint another school in a bad light. It might actually be better, because there is no malice involved.

Ha - this is exactly the same stuff I read on BWI during the Sandusky trial.
Is there a class taught at PSU on utilizing legal defense terminology in everyday life?

 

[Racpack]

Can we stop this stuff. I respect all that PSU has accomplished in wrestling. They are truly a powerhouse and one of the greatest programs ever (if not the greatest). As a Rutgers fan, I am so proud of what the RU team and coaches have accomplished. Going from a program that was close to being shut down ten years ago to a top 20 program that is in the top 6 for home attendance is outstanding. Rutgers does not have the tradition that started with Bill Koll followed by Rich Lorenzo or the financial backing from a guy like Ira Lubert. While RU has a long way to go to begin to rival PSU, very few programs have risen to such a level so quickly. Let's stop this Suriano crap, hope that a decision is made in his best interest, and let the season begin so we can cheer for our teams.

 

[johnstownsteel]

Can we stop this stuff. I respect all that PSU has accomplished in wrestling. They are truly a powerhouse and one of the greatest programs ever (if not the greatest). As a Rutgers fan, I am so proud of what the RU team and coaches have accomplished. Going from a program that was close to being shut down ten years ago to a top 20 program that is in the top 6 for home attendance is outstanding. Rutgers does not have the tradition that started with Bill Koll followed by Rich Lorenzo or the financial backing from a guy like Ira Lubert. While RU has a long way to go to begin to rival PSU, very few programs have risen to such a level so quickly. Let's stop this Suriano crap, hope that a decision is made in his best interest, and let the season begin so we can cheer for our teams.

Great post! Btw, I'm pretty sure all wrestling fans want to see success for every program out there. We may bicker about things but we realize we can't afford lose even one more DI program. Go Rutgers....unless you're facing PSU that is...

 

[Clearscreen25]

I love watching RU and all NCAA wrestling and I used to post here often. I have really stopped posting on these threads recently because I do not feel like getting into it with PSU fans. I love reading Bills updates and appreciate the information, especially about Giraldo. So I usually just read and post on the Round Table. By the way, my favorite non-RU wrestler of all time was Ed Ruth who I followed since he was at Blair. Now I will sit back and watch the attacks on me by PSU Posters.

 

[matter7172]

Ha - this is exactly the same stuff I read on BWI during the Sandusky trial.
Is there a class taught at PSU on utilizing legal defense terminology in everyday life?

If you have to resort to bringing up Sandusky, it shows you have nothing to say. I'll give you my views on Sandusky if you like, but you will probably be surprised. Should we also talk about Mike Rice?

 

[Clearscreen25]

If you have to resort to bringing up Sandusky, it shows you have nothing to say. I'll give you my views on Sandusky if you like, but you will probably be surprised. Should we also talk about Mike Rice?

And here is exactly why I will bow of this thread now. Comparing Mike Rice - an abusive jerk of a coach who was fired - to a serial pedophile whose activities were covered up for the sake of football for years. Please do not respond to me as I will not engage you further.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

This has been my point. You throw out baseless accusations about a member in good standing on this board, who has absolutely nothing to gain by lying about what he knows about the situation. If you have anything "in the know" that you'd like to add to this situation, please let us know, or quit with the accusations.

The "accurate, relevant" comment was specifically about the poster that brought up Mitchell. That info was inaccurate, misleading by omission, and not relevant to Suriano's case. Besides all that, it was a great post.

 

[matter7172]

And here is exactly why I will bow of this thread now. Comparing Mike Rice - an abusive jerk of a coach who was fired - to a serial pedophile whose activities were covered up for the sake of football for years. Please do not respond to me as I will not engage you further.

No offense, but the two are comparable in that both are equally irrelevant to this discussion. That was my point. You went somewhere else altogether.

Rice wasn't fired until there were video leaks to ESPN, was he? Prior to that, the matter was hushed up by Rutgers and Rice got a light suspension. After the airing on Outside the Lines, Barchi stepped in. I agree that what Sandusky did was much worse but the institutional reaction to the problem with Rice was keeping the matter quiet until that became impossible. As far as Sandusky goes, culpable parties are either dead or in prison, which is where they belong.

 

[R U Crazy]

Can we get this thread locked? I know, I know...stop reading it but it is like a train wreck and I can't help myself.

 

[Fzacsattac]

Oh lordy. I don't know why anyone from Rutgers is bothering to deal with these guys. This is like Round 10 of this conversation, with no new information. Were you guys not around for the defense of JoePa?? They will never, ever concede or stop arguing. They are like the Japanese at Guadalcanal.

Lol

 

[Fzacsattac]

Can we get this thread locked? I know, I know...stop reading it but it is like a train wreck and I can't help myself.

I have to agree! I can't stop reading this shit.....When someone says that what happened at PSU is comparable to what happened here in whatever lens they are looking through, and then say that both are irrelevant to the conversation is making light of the gravity of what those boys went through.

 

[RUTrack94]

After all this blah blah blah ... is Suriano enrolled or not?

 

[matter7172]

I have to agree! I can't stop reading this shit.....When someone says that what happened at PSU is comparable to what happened here in whatever lens they are looking through, and then say that both are irrelevant to the conversation is making light of the gravity of what those boys went through.

Not at all. I am glad all the culpable parties went to jail. That's where they belong. I wish their sentences were longer. But it is totally irrelevant to the Suriano situation. It's just trolling to bring Sandusky up in this context. Please show me any logical connection.

 

[slushhead]

Rumblings from State College is Nick Suriano enrolling back to PSU in January.
Is reporting what the boys are telling me.
I hope this is true and he truly wants to be there. Fingers crossed.

Methinks you'll soon be going the way of WorthyOne.

Perhaps even on both boards.

 

[c_husk]

Mitchell's hardship waiver claimed he had family issues back home in NJ. Can you provide a link that says Harbaugh did anything more than offer the release? I'm sure if Suriano had family issues, Cael would support the waiver. Besides all that, Mitchell was suspended at the time, so Harbaugh may have been happy to be rid of him.

FWIW Mitchel still had to sit a year and lost a year of eligibility. He had 4 years to play 3. He sat last year.

 

[bsh75]

I can't claim it is accurate but the Rutgers official website has Mitchell listed as a RS freshmen which would indicate he did not lose a year of eligibility and now has 4 years to play 4.

 

[nolanpa]

Rumblings from State College is Nick Suriano enrolling back to PSU in January.
Is reporting what the boys are telling me.
I hope this is true and he truly wants to be there. Fingers crossed.

I'm sorry, you were saying..?

 

[pawrestlersintn]

I'm sorry, you were saying..?

Did you ever find documentation on Harbaugh providing Ahmir Mitchell with anything other than a release or being involved in the waiver process? I really would like the information, so we can all put it in our collective B1G waiver process understanding.

 

[nolanpa]

I'm sorry, you were saying..?

Did you ever find documentation on Harbaugh providing Ahmir Mitchell with anything other than a release or being involved in the waiver process? I really would like the information, so we can all put it in our collective B1G waiver process understanding.

Lol that you wrote this at this moment.
Optics, my friend, optics.

 

[pawrestlersintn]

Lol that you wrote this at this moment.
Optics, my friend, optics.

So, that means "No." Thanks for clarifying.

 

[wngarbarini]

Back earlier in this thread someone talked about PSU not approving the waiver because they would be holding themselves liable for malfeasance or something like that. PSU had no idea what the RU/Surianos claims were to the committee as the committee does not share that with them. They only ask if they support or reject the waiver.

 

[matter7172]

Back earlier in this thread someone talked about PSU not approving the waiver because they would be holding themselves liable for malfeasance or something like that. PSU had no idea what the RU/Surianos claims were to the committee as the committee does not share that with them. They only ask if they support or reject the waiver.

Seriously? Are you trying to lose what small amount of credibility you have left? The B1G doesn't share the grounds for a waiver but asks school 1 if they support or reject the waiver? In other words, they ask school 1 to make a totally uninformed decision and count it for something? Talk about ridiculous.

 

[SirScarlet]

Seriously? Are you trying to lose what small amount of credibility you have left? The B1G doesn't share the grounds for a waiver but asks school 1 if they support or reject the waiver? In other words, they ask school 1 to make a totally uninformed decision and count it for something? Talk about ridiculous.

You are a piece of work.

Bill has been on the pulse of this the entire time and only said he didnt know how the B1G committee would decide.

He has far more accountability and credibility here than you do. So if he says PSU acted in a manner that was untowards, we are going to believe him. He doesnt need to prove anything. We trust him as he has earned that trust. You havent.

So either provide some clarity or run along. But please stop trying to attack Bill's character.

 

[matter7172]

You are a piece of work.

Bill has been on the pulse of this the entire time and only said he didnt know how the B1G committee would decide.

He has far more accountability and credibility here than you do. So if he says PSU acted in a manner that was untowards, we are going to believe him. He doesnt need to prove anything. We trust him as he has earned that trust. You havent.

So either provide some clarity or run along. But please stop trying to attack Bill's character.

I'm not attacking his character but what he writes. Trying actually reading what he said just above.

PSU had no idea what the RU/Surianos claims were to the committee as the committee does not share that with them. They only ask if they support or reject the waiver.

One, he's had several different versions on how the waiver process works, depending on what nonsense the Rutgers staff tells him that week. At times it's been portrayed as an adversarial proceeding, at other times Penn State would be provided the opportunity to hear Suriano's case and either oppose or endorse it. Now, the B1G apparently sits with a big mystery box and asks Penn State to approve or disapprove what is in the box without seeing it - they don't even get a chance to know what the grounds for waiver are. They have to blindly oppose or support the request. It's ludicrous. Do you really believe he's correct about this? It's like "Let's Make a Deal" for dummies. Do you want what's in box 1 or box 2?

Two, where does he say "PSU acted in a manner that was untowards"? If what he said other times about the process had been true, Penn State's failure to support the waiver would have killed the waiver request. Guess that wasn't true, either.

 

[koleszar]

[

Seriously? Are you trying to lose what small amount of credibility you have left? The B1G doesn't share the grounds for a waiver but asks school 1 if they support or reject the waiver? In other words, they ask school 1 to make a totally uninformed decision and count it for something? Talk about ridiculous.

The Suriano's seeked a closed-door meeting for an amicable split request. That meeting was denied by psu. Why?(that's being petty) Basically they didn't even want to talk to the kid and his parents. This is when they would have laid out their justification for why they wanted to transfer and subsequent request for the waiver. However, psu denied them that opportunity.

psu could have been informed but chose not to. Pretty obvious for a logical person to decipher. The Academic and Eligibility Subcommittee wants all parties to try and work out their differences before they receive the waiver request and render a final verdict. Your school chose not to participate other than to present a no answer. If the amicable split request isn't required then why even seek one.

 

[matter7172]

[

The Suriano's seeked a closed-door meeting for an amicable split request. That meeting was denied by psu. Why?(that's being petty) Basically they didn't even want to talk to the kid and his parents. This is when they would have laid out their justification for why they wanted to transfer and subsequent request for the waiver. However, psu denied them that opportunity.

psu could have been informed but chose not to. Pretty obvious for a logical person to decipher. The Academic and Eligibility Subcommittee wants all parties to try and work out their differences before they receive the waiver request and render a final verdict. Your school chose not to participate other than to present a no answer. If the amicable split request isn't required then why even seek one.

Version 18 of the process?