I started reading this Roundtable "discussion" here on Black Shoe this morning.  And because Black Shoe's response was so testy, I thought it would be interesting to see what everyone else was writing.  

And, after reading, my thoughts are: "Wow, just wow."

As an aside, I am posting here on Black Shoe because Black Shoe has the most comments AND because I think that Black Shoe's testiness is a bit unwarranted.  Maybe it's just that there has been too much chatter about it lately, but this ALL has to be discussed and it's ALL tied together and Paterno's impending departure means Penn State has to think about this NOW.  

And it boils down to this question: Is Penn State really really really going to invest in being a member of the Big 10?  If yes, then this whole set of conversations dies down in the next few years and the rivalries, the recruiting, etc., will all sort themselves out.  If no, then Penn State will always be looking East, lamenting lost rivals and lost recruiting grounds and 20 years from now, Penn Staters will be having these same conversations.  

And the foregoing boils down to Paterno and who is chosen to be his replacement.

Here's the expanded version:

As far as I can tell, taking a little from each and all of the Roundtable Responses (and other recent articles and postings), the basic facts are:

1.    Way back before most of us were born, PSU hired a football coach;

2.      Said Coach "Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields..." (to quote some of those who post);
   
3.      Back before most of us were born, said Coach wanted to be a FOUNDING MEMBER of a football conference, let's call it, the Great East Conference, with the likes of  Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Temple, West Virginia, and Maryland (give or take here and there);
   
4.      Said Coach was snubbed (or given the finger) by various proposed members of the Great East Conference;
   
5.      Back before the current members of the PSU football team were born, said Coach won two N Cs (1982 and 1986);
   
6.      Back when the current members of the PSU football team were toddlers (1994), said Coach (I'm assuming here) chose to join the Big10;
   
7.      In the same year (1994), said Coach was on the verge of another NC, but, apparently, by joining the Big 10, "[t]he Rose Bowl tie-in crushed the hope of a Penn State-Nebraska showdown in 1994 to decide the national championship and that was compounded by the Big Ten writers turning their backs on Penn State."   [as an aside, the "backstabbing" history is unclear to me; I read the info about the poll and the Indiana game, but who exactly did this?  the Big 10 coaches? how do we know this?  I don't understand how is this the Big 10's fault?];
   
8.      Since 1994, said Coach is still the Coach of PSU;
   
9.      As of today, Nittany Lion fans are still pondering whether joining the Big 10 was a good idea, for basically four reasons: (a) the "backstabbing" in year one, (b) the failure to dominate the conference, (c) recruiting and, apparently, (d) because no one in the Big 10 hates PSU enough (that is, lack of in-Conference rivalry).
   
10.      As of today, PSU is the only Big 10 fanbase that openly discusses on their message boards and in their blogs the idea of leaving the Big 10 (for the Big East or the ACC);
    
11.      As of today, the other big concerns of the Nittany Lion fanbase are: the future of said Coach, the lack of a hated rival (or separation from once-hated rival(s)) and off-field issues with the football players;
    
12.      Apparently, as of today, according to reports from a once and future hated rival, a rivalry will be revived when said Coach is gone; oh, and:
    
13.      Names "thrown out" as successors to said Coach are "East" in orientation including, amazingly, the coach from Temple!   Put differently, no one is seriously thinking of coaches with "Midwest" connections (other than Kelly, but he's Big East...) and, apparently, Penn State is not going to pony up the going rate to keep up in the "arms race" with tOSU and Michigan (well, and even Iowa).

My first comment is that I hope everyone can see the pattern here.  It is summarized as follows: "You live by the Coach, you die by the Coach."  Every issue you are discussing boils down to Paterno.

As to the Big 10: let's see if I can tease out some of the threads.

Let's start with my numbers 3 and 6 above.  The Big 10 was Paterno's second choice ... that really needs to be factored in ... and it's not like the Big 10 schools didn't know that the Big 10 was Paterno's second choice.

Let's also throw in here that Paterno looks East for his recruiting (and always has) but the Big 10 is midwest based.  A coach (like Zook or Dantanio) in Happy Valley would literally turn Penn State around.

Let's also consider the make-up of what Paterno wanted to create with the Great East Conference.  First, do not diminish the importance of being a FOUNDING MEMBER of a new Conference.  A school, team and fanbase take OWNERSHIP of something they create.  Second, let's also now add in my number 9(b).  It seems clear that Paterno wanted to dominate his Great East Conference and, certainly based on the proposed members, PSU would have.  Such a Great East Conference would have mirrored the Big 10 in many respects with PSU-Pitt starring in the OSU-Michigan roles.  

In short, the ambivalence regarding the Big 10 starts with and flows from Paterno.

Now, let's add in my number 10 from above.  If I am a fan of tOSU or Michigan or any other Big10 school, why "invest" in hating Penn State if their fans are openly discussing leaving?  If you exit the conference, then my team will see Penn State on the OOC schedule once every decade at best.  

Or put it this way: one of you whined -- yes, that IS the right word -- that if Penn State left the Big 10, there would be no remorse from the rest of the Conference.  My response: "Well, duh!"  As far as tOSU and Michigan are concerned, you're just another Purdue or Wisconsin.  So, "Bye bye.  We'll find someone else to fill the slot."  

As far as the Little 8 is concerned -- and yes, it HAS been the Big 2 and Little 8 for a very long time -- Penn State is a disappointment.  There was hope it would at least be a Big 3 and Little 8; the Little 8 wanted someone to screw Michigan and wipe that smug smile off of Brutus' face.  But that has not happened -- by a long shot!  The losing streak to Michigan is now 8 and it's 5-10 vs. tOSU in the last 15.  So, for the Little 8, if Penn State leaves it's a shrug and the comment: "One Little or another; whatever."

Why this indifference?  The answer is about OWNERSHIP.  If you create it or you dominate it, you own it.  Both of these are what Paterno wanted with the Great East; and it's probably exactly why the other proposed members said "no."

Vis a vis the Big 10, my sense is that Paterno thought 1994 was an opportune moment.  He had a powerhouse team; tOSU was mired in the Cooper years; the Conference was relatively strong in the middle and bottom; and only Michigan stood out.  

But I honestly think that Paterno never really invested in OWNING the Big 10. You own the Big 10 by truly competing on the recruiting trails, by gearing towards beating Michigan and tOSU every year, by doing what Wisconsin is trying to do.

This finally brings me to my number 13 above.  You Penn State fans SHOULD be discussing all of this ad nauseam because Penn State has to make a decision.  Does Penn State want to OWN the Big 10?  If not, you probably should jump; Penn Staters will never be happy if they think the East is greener.  

But, you have to discuss it NOW because Paterno is departing sometime soon.  What coach you choose to replace Paterno will speak volumes about this.  Pick a Zook or a Dantonio or a Kelly and it means that Penn State is seriously investing in owning the Big 10.  For those concerned about recruiting, the way you make in-roads into Ohio and the rest of the midwest is to pick a midwest coach.  At which point, tOSU and Michigan will begin taking Penn State seriously and begin to offer that hate you are seeking.  

By contrast, pick a Schiano or Grobe or the Temple guy and everyone in the Big 10 will understand this to mean that Penn State is still ambivalent.  

Finally, to wrap in one more thread, as the Big 10 continues to consider it's 12th member, Penn State should seriously begin thinking/pushing Pitt as the Plan B.  My guess is that for everyone, including Penn State, Plan A is Notre Dame; but if the Domers say "no," adding Pitt solves a lot of issues.  But a lot of spade work has to be done.  Paterno is NOT doing the spade work; but his successor, the AD and the President/Trustees have to start working the other coaches, ADs and Presidents.  Otherwise, Penn State is going to continue to be the outlier if Cincy is added, or Missouri or Louisville or some other midwest/plains school. [Although, WVa works also in many respects.]

So, folks... "Wow!  You all have some big issues to think about."  Hope my thoughts from the outside-looking-in help.