ADVERTISEMENT

Suriano question

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.

Just wondering, do you have documentation of the process to back up your claims that this version is "ludicrous", as you put it?

Because without documentation, we just can't believe what you are saying is factual, and if we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's factual, then you have no right to post it on a free message board, and you should have been more responsible than that.

LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUinSeattle
Just wondering, do you have documentation of the process to back up your claims that this version is "ludicrous", as you put it?

You just have to able to think. Do you really believe the B1G says "we're not going to tell you the grounds claimed by Suriano in support of the waiver, but do you support or oppose the waiver"?
 
Just wondering, do you have documentation of the process to back up your claims that this version is "ludicrous", as you put it?

You just have to able to think. Do you really believe the B1G says "we're not going to tell you the grounds claimed by Suriano in support of the waiver, but do you support or oppose the waiver"?


To quote another PSU supporter from a few posts above,
"So that means "No". Thanks for clarifying."
 
You just have to able to think. Do you really believe the B1G says "we're not going to tell you the grounds claimed by Suriano in support of the waiver, but do you support or oppose the waiver"?
Like I stated, this could have all been laid out in the closed-door amicable split request. Your school chose to deny that meeting and not participate in the process. Why? I thought they did everything they could by granting the release like you stated in previous posts.

Apparently they didn't, because they couldn't even be bothered to talk to the kid and his parents behind closed doors to discuss the request. Bill laid this out for you and you ran him off with unsubstantiated claims that you repeated ad nauseam.
 
Last edited:
Like I stated, this could have all been laid out in the closed-door amicable split request. Your school chose to deny that meeting and not participate in the process. Why? I thought they did everything they could by granting the release like you stated in previous posts.

Apparently they didn't, because they couldn't even be bothered to talk to the kid and his parents behind closed doors to discuss the request. Bill laid this out for you and you ran him off with unsubstantiated claims that you repeated ad nauseam.
I was under the impression Mr. Suriano (without Nick) met with Cael and PSU officials. Is that not the case?
 
I'm looking at an official, published statement and unsubstantiated, unverifiable hearsay and you are asking me to believe the hearsay. Ok.
 
Like I stated, this could have all been laid out in the closed-door amicable split request. Your school chose to deny that meeting and not participate in the process. Why? I thought they did everything they could by granting the release like you stated in previous posts. Apparently they didn't, because they couldn't even be bothered to talk to the kid and his parents behind closed doors to discuss the request. Bill laid this out for you and you ran him off with unsubstantiated claims that you repeated ad nauseam.
If Ryan Dunleavy was a better journalist he'd have added "Sources close to Rutgers say" to his "Penn State officials refused a closed-doors request for an amicable split" framing that you're taking as fact. Just like Dunleavy's previous story on the issue, he's assuming a lot about a process which is unknown to to readers, including him, instead of being skeptical about getting his entire story from one side who were clearly trying to game the optics.

As for why PSU didn't respond to Dunleavy, given the nature of the matter, it doesn't take much imagination to realize how PSU could be under constraints about what they can discuss regarding a former student-athlete, depending on the nature of the waiver request, which no one outside the parties (and if wngarbarini is accurate, not even the parties) even knows. Yet so many don't hesitate to castigate PSU on assumptions built off unknown facts.

All I'm willing to assume is that there was a good enough reason to grant the request, and as someone else in this thread suggested, the better the reason the less likely we are to ever known the reason. Which is all the more reason to withhold blame, given that PSU is limited in how they can respond publicly, in deference to the privacy concerns of student athletes.

But good luck to Nick, I'm happy we'll get to see him wrestle another year. And please beat NaTo when you get a chance!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nolanpa
I was under the impression Mr. Suriano (without Nick) met with Cael and PSU officials. Is that not the case?
That piece of info came from one of your own who also said he had Nick's paper work on his desk. That guys now banned so I can't bring up the post. I like how you guys work, one guy brings up a fabricated piece of info then you use it as fact.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nolanpa
If Ryan Dunleavy was a better journalist he'd have added "Sources close to Rutgers say" to his "Penn State officials refused a closed-doors request for an amicable split" framing that you're taking as fact. Just like Dunleavy's previous story on the issue, he's assuming a lot about a process which is unknown to to readers, including him, instead of being skeptical about getting his entire story from one side who were clearly trying to game the optics.

As for why PSU didn't respond to Dunleavy, given the nature of the matter, it doesn't take much imagination to realize how PSU could be under constraints about what they can discuss regarding a former student-athlete, depending on the nature of the waiver request, which no one outside the parties (and if wngarbarini is accurate, not even the parties) even knows. Yet so many don't hesitate to castigate PSU on assumptions built off unknown facts.

All I'm willing to assume is that there was a good enough reason to grant the request, and as someone else in this thread suggested, the better the reason the less likely we are to ever known the reason. Which is all the more reason to withhold blame, given that PSU is limited in how they can respond publicly, in deference to the privacy concerns of student athletes.

But good luck to Nick, I'm happy we'll get to see him wrestle another year. And please beat NaTo when you get a chance!
And all I'm saying is I have two sources to base my argument on. Bill's account who's close to the program and has been spot on in many instances in the past. However none of you would know that since it's pretty much the 1st time here for all of you, then NJ.com and their sources. Both sources are comparable in their reporting. You and others have exactly 0 sources for your information and just speculation no matter how you frame it.

You would have me believe either Bill and Dunlevy are the same person or it's a huge conspiracy concocted by NJ.com(a media outlet which hates RU), Bill and the Rutgers wrestling team. I can think of a travesty where you guys used this exact same defense. Everyone else reporting on it was wrong and misguided only psu knew the real truth.
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression Mr. Suriano (without Nick) met with Cael and PSU officials. Is that not the case?
That piece of info came from one of your own who also said he had Nick's paper work on his desk. That guys now banned so I can't bring up the post. I like how you guys work, one guy brings up a fabricated piece of info then you use it as fact.

And all anti-PSU information requires legal documentation to be produced or its rubbish, while all pro-PSU information merely requires the use of "logic" which apparently only the PSU posters possess...
 
And all I'm saying is I have two sources to base my argument on. Bill's account who's close to the program and has been spot on in many instances in the past. However none of you would know that since it's pretty much the 1st time here for all of you, then NJ.com and their sources. Both sources are comparable in their reporting. You and others have exactly 0 sources for your information and just speculation no matter how you frame it.
You would have me believe either Bill and Dunlevy are the same person or it's a huge conspiracy concocted by NJ.com(a media outlet which hates RU), Bill and the Rutgers wrestling team.
Your source has an inherent bias, being close to the program, and your source is also all over the place. It makes zero sense that PSU could simultaneously not know the nature of the waiver request and have been otherwise in a position to sit down and 'work things out amicably,' never mind the suspect assumption that PSU ever held any sway over the B1G in this matter. Again, all the publicly available info is coming from one side, and as I've pointed out, there are likely prudent institutional reasons the other side can't, so I'm going to take all stories emanating from that one side with much salt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dicemen99
Your source has an inherent bias, being close to the program, and your source is also all over the place. It makes zero sense that PSU could simultaneously not know the nature of the waiver request and have been otherwise in a position to sit down and 'work things out amicably,' never mind the suspect assumption that PSU ever held any sway over the B1G in this matter. Again, all the publicly available info is coming from one side, and as I've pointed out, there are likely prudent institutional reasons the other side can't, so I'm going to take all stories emanating from that one side with much salt.
So then you think it's one big conspiracy concocted by RU wrestling, NJ.com( a media outlet not known to be friendly to RU) and Bill? All three devised this whole plan and now set the devious proceeding in motion to deceive the public into thinking Cael Sanderson and psu are evil and don't care about kids. That's really what your going to go with. You guys have learned nothing over there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow
So then you think it's one big conspiracy concocted by RU wrestling, NJ.com( a media outlet not known to be friendly to RU) and Bill? All three devised this whole plan and now set the devious proceeding in motion to deceive the public into thinking Cael Sanderson and psu are evil and don't care about kids. That's really what your going to go with. You guys have learned nothing over there.
Well that's certainly moving the goal posts quite a bit. I think it was pretty obvious the Surianos and/or Rutgers were telling slanted story to Dunleavy in that the "rubber stamp" characterization is laughable given all that is known about B1G intra-conference transfers. So no, not a conspiracy, just how journalism typically works when one side gets to tell their story without challenge or skepticism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dicemen99
I'm not attacking his character but what he writes. Trying actually reading what he said just above.
You are truly a joke sir!



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.
You are
 
Sorry, got cutoff. You are really a jerk and if anyone has no credibility it is you. You just want to pick a fight and are a know it all. Please leave and never return! And ignore now goes on for you bc it is a big waste of time reading anything you contribute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight177lb
Why perpetuate the workings of the committee? They heard the case and decided to grant Nicky the waiver. Now I will say it was unanimous so that will even further provide fuel for this thread. Nicky is a Scarlet Knight! Happy Labor Day
 
Well that's certainly moving the goal posts quite a bit. I think it was pretty obvious the Surianos and/or Rutgers were telling slanted story to Dunleavy in that the "rubber stamp" characterization is laughable given all that is known about B1G intra-conference transfers. So no, not a conspiracy, just how journalism typically works when one side gets to tell their story without challenge or skepticism.
Conspiracy definition- a secret plan by a group to do something harmful. the action of plotting or conspiring

Pretty much what you stated. A secret plan by Rutgers wrestling and the Suriano's in a combined effort is feeding slanted information to NJ.com and Bill to harm psu. So the goal posts stayed put, your the one who doesn't understand what conspiracy means. You just used it as a defense.
 
Conspiracy definition- a secret plan by a group to do something harmful. the action of plotting or conspiring

Pretty much what you stated. A secret plan by Rutgers wrestling and the Suriano's in a combined effort is feeding slanted information to NJ.com and Bill to harm psu. So the goal posts stayed put, your the one who doesn't understand what conspiracy means. You just used it as a defense.
No, the purpose was to generate sympathy in pursuit of a waiver, not harm PSU. And I don't pretend to know the underlying facts here, but you don't know them either. But what is ascertainable enough is that the Surianos and/or Rutgers were telling an incomplete side of the story, else we'd know the basis. And that's their prerogative, it's probably in Nick's best interests to not disclose anything. Frame it however it's most convenient for you, but if you employed a minimal degree of critical thinking you'd put your own biases aside and recognize spin for what it is. And no, spin isn't conspiracy, it's simply what occurs in any adversarial matter.
 
No, the purpose was to generate sympathy in pursuit of a waiver, not harm PSU. And I don't pretend to know the underlying facts here, but you don't know them either. But what is ascertainable enough is that the Surianos and/or Rutgers were telling an incomplete side of the story, else we'd know the basis. And that's their prerogative, it's probably in Nick's best interests to not disclose anything. Frame it however it's most convenient for you, but if you employed a minimal degree of critical thinking you'd put your own biases aside and recognize spin for what it is. And no, spin isn't conspiracy, it's simply what occurs in any adversarial matter.
Yeah Its such spin that the committee ruled unanimously in his favor. Ok. Keep believing whatever your saying to yourself. Bc the committee would only rule on Spin not facts. You guys are unbelievable.
 
No, the purpose was to generate sympathy in pursuit of a waiver, not harm PSU. And I don't pretend to know the underlying facts here, but you don't know them either. But what is ascertainable enough is that the Surianos and/or Rutgers were telling an incomplete side of the story, else we'd know the basis. And that's their prerogative, it's probably in Nick's best interests to not disclose anything. Frame it however it's most convenient for you, but if you employed a minimal degree of critical thinking you'd put your own biases aside and recognize spin for what it is. And no, spin isn't conspiracy, it's simply what occurs in any adversarial matter.
So it's not a conspiracy rather spin. You have to be kidding me. Where do you come up with this stuff? Your really starting to grasp at straws here, to prove your point. Do you guys take a class over there, you sound like one of the many drones who come here. You guys really need to start coming up with a new defense you've used this one way too many times already.

And all anti-PSU information requires legal documentation to be produced or its rubbish, while all pro-PSU information merely requires the use of "logic" which apparently only the PSU posters possess...
I think you nailed it nolanpa. Whenever it's against psu you need legal documentation but for psu you just need critical thinking(logic).
 
Last edited:
Just wondering, do you have documentation of the process to back up your claims that this version is "ludicrous", as you put it?

Because without documentation, we just can't believe what you are saying is factual, and if we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's factual, then you have no right to post it on a free message board, and you should have been more responsible than that.

LOL
He'll provide that just as soon as you provide documentation that Harbaugh offered anything other than a release to Ahmir Mitchell. Still waiting.
 
That piece of info came from one of your own who also said he had Nick's paper work on his desk. That guys now banned so I can't bring up the post. I like how you guys work, one guy brings up a fabricated piece of info then you use it as fact.
You're just being a dick. I've shown nothing but respect since visiting this site. I've thanked Bill countless times for his knowledge and insight. That being said, I asked a legitimate question. Had I known where or through whom I gained the idea that there was an actual meeting between the two sides, I probably wouldn't have asked. You want some advice? Don't treat everyone that visits your site with contempt or continue to be disrespectful. I'm sure you'd be surprised what you can learn through other fanbases. You have a dead board modt of the time. That's just fact. Don't make it worse by pushing away real fans that like serious discussion. Of course I could be wrong and you guys enjoy talking to yourself and the handful of people that post here. In that case have at being a dick.
 
You're just being a dick. I've shown nothing but respect since visiting this site. I've thanked Bill countless times for his knowledge and insight. That being said, I asked a legitimate question. Had I known where or through whom I gained the idea that there was an actual meeting between the two sides, I probably wouldn't have asked. You want some advice? Don't treat everyone that visits your site with contempt or continue to be disrespectful. I'm sure you'd be surprised what you can learn through other fanbases. You have a dead board modt of the time. That's just fact. Don't make it worse by pushing away real fans that like serious discussion. Of course I could be wrong and you guys enjoy talking to yourself and the handful of people that post here. In that case have at being a dick.
Sorry Johnstown, didn't mean to come off as a d*ck. However, your fellow psu posters have been coming fast and furious at us over here. If you don't expect us to defend our board then I don't know what to tell you. Them going after Bill was uncalled for. So I'm going to defend my fellow RU posters and school, you would do the same.

These new posters haven't brought an ounce of new or insightful information. They have come here for the sole purpose to defend psu's actions and degrade RU when possible. If that's the type of activity you think we're going to stand for just to get more traffic then your nuts. To you I'm sorry to the rest go to hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnstownsteel
For mMatter.
PSU was not privy to the Suriano information per Big Ten rules. If you don't believe me call them and verify it. Signing off. Have fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUonBrain
Let's move on. PSU should repeat as national champs although they will be challenged by TOSU. Rutgers will be an improved team and continue to be a top draw from a fan perspective. This is good for wrestling. The sport needs competition with great fan bases. Let's not tear ourselves apart. Title IX has already done enough.
 
Let's move on. PSU should repeat as national champs although they will be challenged by TOSU. Rutgers will be an improved team and continue to be a top draw from a fan perspective. This is good for wrestling. The sport needs competition with great fan bases. Let's not tear ourselves apart. Title IX has already done enough.
Excellent post and right on all accounts. I won't lie and say I'm not interested in finding out the specifics behind the decision but I've accepted it and will certainly move on. My team is now a powerhouse winning titles. I'd be dumb to let one wrestler leaving spoil any of that for me. Here's to a strong Rutgers program and growth of the sport!
 
For mMatter.
PSU was not privy to the Suriano information per Big Ten rules. If you don't believe me call them and verify it. Signing off. Have fun.

So you are telling me the Big Ten asks school 1 to support, oppose or take a neutral position without knowing the basic facts of the waiver request? Seriously, give me a phone number and I'll call.

If what you say is true, no school in their right mind would ever take a position regarding a waiver request without knowing the facts. And your previous statements about the Big Ten seeking input from school 1 seem abjectly stupid.

Furthermore, if the school took a position without knowledge of the facts involved in the waiver application, why would it get any weight from the Big Ten, as it is a totally uninformed position?

Which brings us back to the original position taken by me that the Big Ten would not take school 1's position on the waiver application into consideration. If they withhold the information from school 1, they are not going to ask for school 1's input. How could they ask for input while denying information necessary to consideration of the matter? Which makes all this nonsense about Cael and/or PSU blocking the waiver exactly what it is - nonsense.

Follow?

Since you are such an "insider", how about something other than unverifiable information to clear up the issue. Not what Rutgers tells you, but some solid, verifiable information.
 
No Matter I am done. Call Sanderson or t your AD and she will verify those facts that they ere not privy to the Suriano data! Fact!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clearscreen25
No Matter I am done. Call Sanderson or t your AD and she will verify those facts that they ere not privy to the Suriano data! Fact!

No offense but that's irrelevant to the other questions I asked. If it is true that Penn State is not given the facts of the Suriano application, the rest of what you have suggested falls apart if you look at it logically.

And you continue to refuse to present verifiable information. Telling me to call the Big Ten or Cael or the Penn State AD does not qualify as providing verifiable information.
 
So you are telling me the Big Ten asks school 1 to support, oppose or take a neutral position without knowing the basic facts of the waiver request? Seriously, give me a phone number and I'll call.

If what you say is true, no school in their right mind would ever take a position regarding a waiver request without knowing the facts. And your previous statements about the Big Ten seeking input from school 1 seem abjectly stupid.

Furthermore, if the school took a position without knowledge of the facts involved in the waiver application, why would it get any weight from the Big Ten, as it is a totally uninformed position?

Which brings us back to the original position taken by me that the Big Ten would not take school 1's position on the waiver application into consideration. If they withhold the information from school 1, they are not going to ask for school 1's input. How could they ask for input while denying information necessary to consideration of the matter? Which makes all this nonsense about Cael and/or PSU blocking the waiver exactly what it is - nonsense.

Follow?

Since you are such an "insider", how about something other than unverifiable information to clear up the issue. Not what Rutgers tells you, but some solid, verifiable information.
Matter, I just wrote something on a sheet of paper that may or may not implicate you were in the wrong about something. Do you support it?
 
Why perpetuate the workings of the committee? They heard the case and decided to grant Nicky the waiver. Now I will say it was unanimous so that will even further provide fuel for this thread. Nicky is a Scarlet Knight! Happy Labor Day
Hey Matter read this ^^ again. Suriano is not at PSU anymore, it doesn't "matter" how or why it just is.
 
For mMatter.
PSU was not privy to the Suriano information per Big Ten rules. If you don't believe me call them and verify it. Signing off. Have fun.
In sum: PSU were being dicks when they didn't agree to support the application they weren't allowed to read.
 
Matter, I just wrote something on a sheet of paper that may or may not implicate you were in the wrong about something. Do you support it?

I'd suggest you work on your English skills first. Implicate is not the word you are reaching for. But it is an interesting parallel to how you are claiming the waiver process works.

Why perpetuate the workings of the committee? They heard the case and decided to grant Nicky the waiver. Now I will say it was unanimous so that will even further provide fuel for this thread. Nicky is a Scarlet Knight! Happy Labor Day

More supposed information that is unverifiable from either side. That's just how you roll, I guess.
 
I'd suggest you work on your English skills first. Implicate is not the word you are reaching for. But it is an interesting parallel to how you are claiming the waiver process works.



More supposed information that is unverifiable from either side. That's just how you roll, I guess.

I suggest u log off this site... Put the keyboard down... Pick up a phone and verify it!!! You do know how to pick up a phone and call someone right? (Theway ur supposed saint of a football god shoulda dialed three simple numbers?)
 
No offense but that's irrelevant to the other questions I asked. If it is true that Penn State is not given the facts of the Suriano application, the rest of what you have suggested falls apart if you look at it logically.

And you continue to refuse to present verifiable information. Telling me to call the Big Ten or Cael or the Penn State AD does not qualify as providing verifiable information.

I think it actually makes more sense. They just ask PSU if they support or deny the waiver, without telling them the reason given. So on a blind basis, do you support or reject. I never considered this, but since the reasoning could implicate the school or otherwise be damaging, the prior school would be hamstrung in the process. Denials would be seen as revenge, approvals would be seen as admission of guild. It makes a lot of sense to have them be blind to the reason.
 
You guys make too much of this.

Suriano to CS: coach I want to transfer.
CS to Suriano: why?

CS and PSU were the first to know why he wanted to transfer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow
Why are the Sandusky boys still posting here? It's over! Go away!
giphy-downsized-large.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 32prosper
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT