Wrestleknownothing

So Obama is smarter than you. No surprise there. What tax laws do you think the Obama's have violated?

You don't pay taxes on net worth.

I think saying nothing is better than saying something that is nothing.

Presumably this wrestler you can't remember was guilty of something. What if Starocci is not guilty of something (besides being a tool) what should Sanderson say then? Should he say anything? Or should he not lend credence to it? You speak as though you know Starocci to be guilty of these things and Sanderson owes you something as a result.

Certainly the school has had a huge scandal, one of the biggest, most awful ever. But wrestlers getting nailed for PEDs, drinking, and prostitution, does not rise to the level of scandal. Unseemly, sure, but not scandalous. The things alleged by the Bartlett's are criminal. It seems that crimes should be reported to the police and investigated by the police. And at least one was. The police found no evidence to support the claim. Maybe it happened anyway. Some thieves get away with it. And some accused of crimes, never commit any. Let's face it. Starocci is unlikeable. Bartlett is very likeable. Sometimes opinions flow from that.

If I had remembered who it was I would have. Thanks for sharing.

People keep trying to prove with the negative. The lack of evidence is suddenly evidence of something. Someone on here claimed they knew ESPN was looking into it. Maybe dig that guy up and ask.

How would I know? Sounds like a question for the reporters. Ask them and get back to us with their answers.

What question has a reporter posed to him? As near as I can tell, none.

You guys must have missed his press conference. It started with' "I know I owe an answer to that one guy on that one message board, so here goes...."

Too true. I have a picture of my brother in law sitting at the end of my dock, disconsolate with a thousand yard stare, after they gave up 50+ in consecutive losses to the Patriots and Packers in 2014. But this year.....this is the year.

Not quite the same thing but in 1998 Bloomsburg had Ed Hockenberry (142) and Todd Hockenbroch (190) on the same team.

Nor this Bears fan.

There can be no other.

In the 2001 bracket at 141 there were two Mike Castillo's. One wrestled for Michigan State and one wrestled for Illinois. For symmetry purposes, they both lost in the round of 16, and neither AA'd that year. Being Big Ten wrestlers, I had to know if they ever went head-to-head. Not only did they, of course the pair went to two overtimes. There could be no other way. From the Illinois website: https://fightingillini.com/news/2001/1/27/No_5_Illinois_Wrestling_Upset_By_No_8_Michigan_State_16_15.aspx "Mike Castillo of Illinois gave the Illini a 12-10 lead by defeated Mike Castillo of Michigan State 8-5 in two overtimes. After being tied 3-3 after the second period, Castillo of the Spartans got an escape followed by an Illinois takedown. A late Spartan escape sent the bout into overtime. There was no scoring in the first overtime, but the second overtime won the match for the Illini's Castillo by gaining three near-fall points." 141 Mike Castillo (ILL) defeated No. 16 Mike Castillo (MSU), 8-5 (2ot)

I think that is par for the course in college coaching and, particularly for those just starting their careers. It is probably also the surest way to move from an admin type job to an actual coaching job for many. I saw a crazy stat a few months ago that in the past 4 years 2,163 on-field college football coaches have changed jobs. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/from-top-to-bottom-college-football-has-never-seen-more-coaching-changes-study-shows-unprecedented-turnover/

And at least with overturning Roe v Wade, that was Trump's argument. “What I did is something — for 52 years they’ve been trying to get Roe v. Wade into the states."

But what if those numbers are wrong? What if those are not the percentage of Republicans? What if the Citizen Free Press is playing fast and loose with their definitions? What if you thought for yourself? Hints: They are wrong. They are not the percentage of Republicans. They are playing fast and loose by defining the percentage that voted for Trump in the last election as Republicans. There is no precedence for this.

Looks like you are already in and starting threads.

I get that too if I logout and then attempt to look at HR. If I log back in (unpaid) I can see HR again.

The site is back up. And all is right with the world.

I am 60, but I read at a 61 year old level.

They are being very careful to use the word list and not refer to the files as a whole.