We have a different board for political points of view. Please refer this subject to that board.
latest Suriano news
- Thread starter dunkej01
- Start date
Ya I'm sorry I should get rid of dam computer and TV gets me to worked up will have to calm down just stupid on my part but I put my time in and just gets me going way the young generation is going today...Sorry again take my meds and talk wrestling this winter till then peace be with you all...
And, who exactly are the athletic departments being protected against? Oh yeah, the coaching staff's of other schools. So, let's penalize the athletes for that. How about letting the athletes do what they feel is in their best interest to further their academic and athletic careers. If they want to transfer it up to them to start the process in a transparent way via the NCAA or BIG or whomever then we toughen up the rules and enforcement of impermissible contact to punish coaches and institutions that violate the rules.
My hypothetical is most certainly different than reality because no coach, especially not one of Cael's stature would accept a contract like that so it's not even on the table. If the BIG attempted to make the rule current coaches and AD's would cry foul. However, the rationale supporting the restriction that does exist for athletes from the BIG Ten and posters on this board is that is to limit movement within the conference, prevent big fish from poaching from the little fish, etc...Somehow these concerns aren't the same for the coaches of the athletes? Why?
OK RU I'll bite. 9.9 Scholarships for a team of 35+ athletes. One of the assumabley higher awarded committed athletes being compensated by free education violates or void the contract. This is without consequences? Not in my life experience. There are conference rules in place. And yes an athlete that voids a contract should face potential repercussions. I assume you were never a wrestler as we in that fraternity call it commitment. As far as the coach situation, again there is a contract and if violated, there are and have been issues.
Of course not. I don't support RU blocking transfers either. I never spent anytime thinking about the issue until the Suriano situation brought it into my consciousness.
Man, some of you are arrogant. I wrestled in high school and college. I didn't start until 9th grade, made varsity that year, got my ass handed to me, won only one match, pinned in almost all the other matches. But, I stuck with it and trained and went to sleepover camps, paying my way through them working in the cafeteria and, after full workouts, cleaning and rolling up the mats and cleaning up the rest of the gym after the full paying wrestlers. Even record my sophomore year, then doubled the number of camps I worked and wrestled at and had 20+ wins as a junior, then more as a senior. I wasn't good enough for a scholarship but was good enough to be lightly recruited to a D1 program. I wrestled for two years until I broke my back. But, your right, I don't know anything about commitment. Or more importantly the sacrifices a wrestler, especially one of Nick's skill level has made his entire life to EARN that scholarship he received. You make it sound like he is some overprivileged kid thumbing his nose at the money he received. He worked harder than you or me and deserved every dollar he received. In addition he performed very well in his first season, again earning his scholarship. My point is that it is an unfair contract with stipulations he should never have had to sign. The evidence for that is that the people who make those rules don't hold themselves to the same standard. If Tom Ryan wanted to coach at Iowa next year and Iowa wanted him, he could break his current contract, Iowa could pay any buyout (but wrestling rarely has buyouts) and basically suffer no repercussions for his "un-wrestler" like violation of commitment.
I agree. And so the standards and restrictions, penalties should be much harder on the adult professional than the amateur student, no?
I wouldn't have the rule for coaches or athletes, but, if I did have the rule it would apply to both coaches and athletes, not just athletes.
I think some of our issues are with how other fan bases and journalists reacted to this situation. Most where silent when Cortez lost a year when he transferred, but some how are outraged now. I wasn't pissed off the least bit when Cortez lost a year because I already knew of the BIG transfer rule. I was actually shocked he was willing to lose a year, but it was his choice and he took it like a man. What are we if we have no rules or laws? Who cares why the BIG has the rule? Most people know of it and Nick or anyone else can choose to transfer to a school that is out of conference. It's really doesn't need to be this difficult. I personally don't care if he comes back or not. I'll root for him if he does, but if he truly doesn't want to be here than its best for him to leave. There is some kid out there dying for a chance at that spot.
Nick worked hard. So what? So do most people that achieve goals. He was rewarded with a scholarship to the best program in the country. He is not a professional, like a coach. There are penalties on coaches for leaving early as well. The whining about this situation has reached overdrive. Cael has been trashed by idiots in the media, who btw, didn't even know the rules. Cael gave him his freedom, just what they wanted. It's out of his hands. For some to suggest Cael write a letter of support is preposterous. He'd be a fool for interfering in B1G procedures. Furthermore, it's Sandy's call, not his. She is the AD.
My take on some sort of support for a wavier is once the kid was released and he enrolled in the other school - he is a student-athlete of a different school. The other school then is the entity responsible for assisting the kid with the wavier process, not his former school.
If the athlete does not like the rules, do agree to them. Of course that might mean that they cannot compete at the school of their choice or compete at all. Whole lot of people come out of college with loads of debt, scholarship athletes come out of college with a lot less debt that the average student.
There are tradeoffs in life. It just reinforces that athletes have to be very careful when choosing their college initially. The B1G intraconference transfer rule does allow for a waiver to be approved so that the athlete does not lose a year of eligibility, just the waiver is only approved in situations such as medical hardship or in the case of Micic, the Northwestern wrestling program self destructing after he signed his LOI (basically had he known what was going to happen when he immediately set foot on campus, he never goes there). The waiver is not granted when the kid is homesick, doesn't like the S&C coach, can't train MMA or the coach said something about his injury he did not like or that Dad wants the kid to be a big fish in a small pond (I think that about covers all the rumors for the transfer).
There are tradeoffs in life. It just reinforces that athletes have to be very careful when choosing their college initially. The B1G intraconference transfer rule does allow for a waiver to be approved so that the athlete does not lose a year of eligibility, just the waiver is only approved in situations such as medical hardship or in the case of Micic, the Northwestern wrestling program self destructing after he signed his LOI (basically had he known what was going to happen when he immediately set foot on campus, he never goes there). The waiver is not granted when the kid is homesick, doesn't like the S&C coach, can't train MMA or the coach said something about his injury he did not like or that Dad wants the kid to be a big fish in a small pond (I think that about covers all the rumors for the transfer).
Exactly. It was okay when Rutgers would not let Tom Savage transfer where he wanted to (it didn't enter FoxRU's consciousness), then the rules are unfair when a stud wants to transfer to Rutgers and can't without losing a year of eligibility.
I'm waiting for the vocal people on the Suriano situation to start helping out Mickey Phillippi in his well-publicized transfer from Virginia to Pitt. He's also losing a year due to the ACC rule regarding intraconference transfers. Where are Ryan Dunleavy and Steve Politi when you need them? 
Where is Jay Bilas piping in without getting educated first?
Oh, wait, that's right. Phillippi understands that by doing the transfer there were consequences under the rule to which he had agreed. He made a choice and is living with it without a bunch of whining.
Where is Jay Bilas piping in without getting educated first?Oh, wait, that's right. Phillippi understands that by doing the transfer there were consequences under the rule to which he had agreed. He made a choice and is living with it without a bunch of whining.
First, "the people who make those rules" is not the coaches or the ADs. University Presidents run the NCAA. So you're barking up the wrong tree.
Second, if you think today's contracts are unfair, just wait until you get what you want. There is zero chance of University Presidents agreeing to athletes getting a one-year contract with 4 one-year athlete options to renew. What could happen is a one-year contract with 4 one-year mutual options -- meaning coaches can fire athletes each year without cause.
For a glimpse at what that might look like, just look at SEC Football oversigning, where coaches reevaluate entire classes after 2 and 3 years. Many kids get told they have career ending injuries; many others get kicked off the team for being late to a single meeting. A lot of those kids can't afford to go to college without the scholarship, and they lose credits if they transfer.
So, yeah, the current system appears to be the worst possible except for all the others.
That and nobody cares about Pitt, not even both of their fans.I'm waiting for the vocal people on the Suriano situation to start helping out Mickey Phillippi in his well-publicized transfer from Virginia to Pitt. He's also losing a year due to the ACC rule regarding intraconference transfers. Where are Ryan Dunleavy and Steve Politi when you need them?
Oh, wait, that's right. Phillippi understands that by doing the transfer there were consequences under the rule to which he had agreed. He made a choice and is living with it without a bunch of whining.
There is no such thing as an unfair contract as long as both sides had the fine print in hand prior to signing. Sign or don't sign.
True personal story. Many, many years ago when I was in my senior year of college, I applied to several graduate schools to pursue a Ph.D. in Economics. Being basically broke, I was hoping for a teaching assistant position to make grad school affordable. I got an offer from Ohio State but no other school, so I accepted Ohio State's offer.
Circumstances changed in the late spring when Rutgers offered me a TA position. For various personal reasons, Rutgers was a better location for me. In order to switch programs, I had to go through a somewhat involved process to be released from the Ohio State position. That release was granted, as I had never enrolled at Ohio State. If I had enrolled at Ohio State, I probably would have been precluded from making the move. I had, and have, no problem with any of this.
I get to Rutgers for the fall semester and after a while I realize there are a LOT of first year TAs and very few TAs beyond the first year. During the spring semester, I understand why. Of the 14 (that's the number I recall) first year TAs, only one was offered a renewal. So 13 of us were now faced with a choice - continue at Rutgers as a paying grad student or transfer to another school as one. The problem was that grad schools were very stingy with transfer of credits. We were 18 credits into the program (TAs were capped at 9 credits a semester). I ultimately transferred but my receiving school accepted only 6 credits upon transfer. That was their limit. So I burned 9 credits by transferring. Did I think Rutgers was being more than a little scummy by doing things the way they did? No doubt.
So I am in total agreement with you. The system currently in place works pretty well. Occasionally a kid has to give up a competition year to do the transfer they really want. That's ok by me.
My comment has no application to the Suriano situation, the validity of which I don't think can be questioned, but this isn't an accurate generalization. The list of valid affirmative defenses to contracts that otherwise meet the above-stated criteria is looong; the majority of time spent in a 1L contract law class concerns those exceptions to facially valid contracts.
Many of those exceptions are based on the legal presumption that the parties are "arms-length" bargainers. For instance, a minor is almost never an arms-length bargainer with an adult, which is why such contracts are void by law. And there are contracts of adhesion, where one party had no meaningful ability to bargain (a take it or leave it contract); there's mistake, impossibility, lack of acceptance, lack of consideration, failure to disclose key information relating to performance, ambiguity, and many many more.
Again, not saying any of the above are in play in the Suriano situation. But the first two I mentioned, incapable minor and contract of adhesion, is echoed by the imbalance in sophistication between schools and student-athletes as legal parties to a contract. These contracts are drafted in school-friendly terms, reflecting that imbalance. And the terms don't differ much from school to school--the realistic alternative to acceptance is not signing any contract with any school.
A contract of adhesion isn't invalid on its face, but it's halfway there and courts are warier of them, depending on the context. I don't really doubt the validity of the school/student-athlete contracts, though, because (a) I haven't meaningfully researched them; and (b) they're time- and litigation-tested (I assume), legal vulnerabilities should have been purged by now.
People just need to stop with the analogies - good, bad, ridiculous ....
The rule is the rule. It needs to be followed.
I don't see the B10 changing this rule, but if you support the rule or want to change the rule, better to come up with good reasons and not ridiculous analogies.
As it stands now, kids that want to transfer and compete immediately will go outside the B10 (a former AA PSU wrestler's child did that in soccer recently). If the B10 ever considers that to be a problem, then they might consider changing the rule.
The rule is the rule. It needs to be followed.
I don't see the B10 changing this rule, but if you support the rule or want to change the rule, better to come up with good reasons and not ridiculous analogies.
As it stands now, kids that want to transfer and compete immediately will go outside the B10 (a former AA PSU wrestler's child did that in soccer recently). If the B10 ever considers that to be a problem, then they might consider changing the rule.
Excellent summary, Tikk. Taking me back to Calamari in 1984-85.
But they will be in the same position if they go to the SEC, ACC, Big 12 or Pac12 (i.e. any of the Power 5) - no intraconference transfers without the loss of eligibility in the Power 5.
But they will be in the same position if they go to the SEC, ACC, Big 12 or Pac12 (i.e. any of the Power 5) - no intraconference transfers without the loss of eligibility in the Power 5.
Lil B came out with a new album, today. Unless we get official news from anyone, I'm not worried about Nick Suriano.
I agree that I was over generalizing when I was actually thinking specifically about the Suriano situation.
My point is, if you want to transfer and play immediate, you will transfer out of conference. My point is not about picking a college/conference while in high school, but about transferring when you are in college.Excellent summary, Tikk. Taking me back to Calamari in 1984-85.
But they will be in the same position if they go to the SEC, ACC, Big 12 or Pac12 (i.e. any of the Power 5) - no intraconference transfers without the loss of eligibility in the Power 5.
I understand. I'm just saying the B1G is not different than the other power 5 conferences. All Power 5 conferences have the same restrictions on intraconference transfers.
Discussion has now morphed into a what's right/what's wrong about the rules. Which is OK, much better than the vitriol levied at Cael by the RU "insider" that got the whole thing rolling on the RU site. Comments about classless and "just doing it to punish Nicky" when examination of the process shows that what PSU did for Suriano is AT LEAST S.O.P. in the college wrestling world, if not more depending on the case, and what the whining about is completely baseless. If anyone thinks in depth on the situation - which obviously hasn't happened much - PSU and Cael are most likely limited in their options in supporting or non-supporting of the waiver depending on different circumstances of the hardship claim.
As far as the rules, most of the discussion is centering on athletes rights. "Freedom" you could say. But everyone would aspire to this in an ideal world. Problem is the rules are put into place to combat abuse of the system by adults, i.e. coaches and A.D.s. There is a trade-off here - just like there is in many other things in life. If we had a system of total free agency, people would be complaining as well. The palatable solution that pacifies the most is the compromise.
Look, we live in the "land of the free" yet everyday most of society willing trades away many of their rights in order to feel more secure and protected. Rules and laws are put into place for the purpose of keeping the bad guys at bay, not limit personal freedoms. But that's the trade off.
I don't disagree with @FoxRU s take on the situation, in fact most times I would be in the camp that leans towards the "rights" side, rather than the security side. But I also think it's more idealistic than realistic. Same with Bilas, but that is not surprising, nor unwelcome to me given his background and position.
As far as the rules, most of the discussion is centering on athletes rights. "Freedom" you could say. But everyone would aspire to this in an ideal world. Problem is the rules are put into place to combat abuse of the system by adults, i.e. coaches and A.D.s. There is a trade-off here - just like there is in many other things in life. If we had a system of total free agency, people would be complaining as well. The palatable solution that pacifies the most is the compromise.
Look, we live in the "land of the free" yet everyday most of society willing trades away many of their rights in order to feel more secure and protected. Rules and laws are put into place for the purpose of keeping the bad guys at bay, not limit personal freedoms. But that's the trade off.
I don't disagree with @FoxRU s take on the situation, in fact most times I would be in the camp that leans towards the "rights" side, rather than the security side. But I also think it's more idealistic than realistic. Same with Bilas, but that is not surprising, nor unwelcome to me given his background and position.
Last edited:
All I know is there are a ton of HS athletes who would love to have their "rights" impinged on if it meant competing on an athletic scholarship at the DI level. It is a privilege and kids need to understand that. I think most PSU guys get it- a lot of gratitude in the room. If you don't like the situation, then feel free to leave within the rules that you agreed to from day one.
He might have played high school football too! Al Bundy would be impressed.
All the way thru this page and no NS news. Monday and first days of class should end this for most part. I hope??
Actually I think if a school releases the student-athlete that should be it.
However that currently isn't the rule and to argue the rule should be changed is not the same as just stating the rule should not be applied.
Rutgers' fans have been arguing the rule should not be applied because they believe the rule should not exist, mostly because they are only recently aware the rules exists and their current bias.
The entire argument is silly enough to be absent most logic and I guess could be called "fan logic".
However that currently isn't the rule and to argue the rule should be changed is not the same as just stating the rule should not be applied.
Rutgers' fans have been arguing the rule should not be applied because they believe the rule should not exist, mostly because they are only recently aware the rules exists and their current bias.
The entire argument is silly enough to be absent most logic and I guess could be called "fan logic".
Similar threads
