A Humble Request To The Powers That Be

well said

by PSUmob on Oct 26, 2009 12:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Very nice and well said.

You, sir, get a well-deserved +1.

by GreatScawt on Oct 26, 2009 12:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I think we should recognize ourselves as co-champs but I think it would be embarassing to put a “2009” up on the boxes. That is unless we win it outright or without sharing it with a team we lost to.

by state08 on Oct 26, 2009 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think they would do that.

But that’s only 75% confidence on my part.

Twitter: @scrappled

"When it’s third-and-10, you can take the milk drinkers and I’ll take the whiskey drinkers every time" - Max McGee

by Run Up The Score on Oct 26, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree, accepting that title makes us no better than Ohio State in claiming unwon championships

And I refuse to stoop that low

by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 27, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like this.

It just wouldn’t feel right. As much as I HATE hearing “4 consecutive Big Ten Titles” coming from OSU, I could never embrace a “2009 Big Ten Champs” t-shirt or any such thing. Good post.

by jimbo2psu on Oct 26, 2009 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

So, what

we want to have a sign that says (2009) on it up at the Beav? Come on, every school does this, it’s the way it is. A BCS appearance and 11-1 season is something worth celebrating.

NittanyWhiteOut.com. Arguably the second best Penn State blog I know of.

by PSUdevon on Oct 26, 2009 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

everyone kills, steals from you, steals from me. Whatever.

if everyone was jumping off of the bridge, would you? ;-)

I think it would be in the Penn State spirit (read: classy) if we honored Iowa by not putting 2009 up on the East Side unless we are the true champions of the Big 10 (or if there’s a 3-way rock, paper, scissors type of tie). Just like I don’t recognize OSU’s 2005 & 2008 Big 10 Championships, I wouldn’t recognize PSU’s 2009 championship shared with Iowa.

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 26, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Devils Advocate

If we’re both 11-1, and we both lost one Big Ten game, how is the acomplishment any different than last year. Obviously we beat Ohio State, so we feel like we win the tiebreaker. We wouldn’t have that this year, so it won’t be as fun, but it is something.

But the accomplishment is exactly the same. I wouldn’t go off on an Iowa blog talking about how we were B10 champs, but I think that team would have earned the same thing as last years, and the season should be honored on the box as Big Ten champions.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 26, 2009 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, if we go 11-1 w/bcs, put the digits up

You don’t have to scream BIG TEN CHAMPS!!!!! But especially if we win our bowl, this would have turned out to be a wonderful season worth celebrating.

Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."

by Roland86 on Oct 26, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another thing

1979 and 1985 should be on there too. If we’re honoring one (and presumably two or three) loss B10 Championship teams, Two undefeated teams that lost National Championship games should be up there too.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 26, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hell, I'd argue that 2008 shouldn't be up there.

Shared B10 title and bowl loss?

Low standard for immortality, IMO.

Twitter: @scrappled

"When it’s third-and-10, you can take the milk drinkers and I’ll take the whiskey drinkers every time" - Max McGee

by Run Up The Score on Oct 26, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a different argument

I’m not sure I disagree with you, especially with the glaring ommissions of the 79 and 85 teams that played for titles and lost.

But hear me now. If they win out and “tie” with Iowa for the Big Ten Title, 2009 is going on the suites. I’m taking all bets on it.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 26, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah. I'd like to disagree, but...

Twitter: @scrappled

"When it’s third-and-10, you can take the milk drinkers and I’ll take the whiskey drinkers every time" - Max McGee

by Run Up The Score on Oct 26, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Mean...

I just personally can’t put this team in the same breath as those other ones. Every time I look at that “2009” I’ll think of big ’ol Adrian Clayborn rumbling down field for a touchdown and know I saw the real champs that night.

I’m not disputing that it’d be an outstanding accomplishment, especially if we won the bowl game. I just don’t think it’s fair to Iowa to say that we were their equal. More importantly, I think it takes away from our other great teams.

Maybe fly a “2009” pennant on the west side, or hang some kind of banner in inards of the stadium like we do for former great players, but let’s not celebrate too much. That’s all I’m saying.

God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...

by fugimaster24 on Oct 26, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see it this way

The major difference between college and pro ball is the cumulative nature of the college football season. The so-called MNC is awarded to the team that had the best season, not merely the the team that won the last game.

Penn State and Iowa would have had fairly identical seasons. Thoretically, you could argue that Penn State had a better season, hey, we lost to an 11-1 team, they would have lost to a three loss team that we beat (assuming that it’s Ohio State).

Nor do I think that you can say that this teams loss to Iowa is somehow worse that last years. Again, this is a much better Iowa team than last years. 11-1 is either good enough for the suites or it’s not, I think that if 2005 and 2008 gets to be there, than 2009 would too.

Obviously, Iowa gets the BCS bid and deservedly so. But they won’t have had a better season based upon one game in September.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 26, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I see it this way

the years up there are for undefeated seasons, national championships, and Big 10 championships. While we would technically share the Big 10 title with Iowa if we both win out, I think the whole “shared” title is lame if there is a head to head winner. I just wish that in cases where there is a head to head game, there shouldn’t be any sharing. Personal opinion, yes, but because of that I wouldn’t want to see 2009 up there.

If we’re gonna start celebrating all of our 1-loss teams because they are good seasons, then I’d imagine there should be quite a few more numbers up there.

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 26, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

If we both win out, Iowa wins it outright.(and I think they will)

"gotta love the HD"

by biscoiv on Oct 30, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, I don't like the "best loss" argument though.

Because by the same logic, Iowa will have had a better “best win” than Penn State, if we lost to the only 11-1 team we played. Different sides of the same coin.

by jimbo2psu on Oct 27, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, plus...

the Big Ten sets the standard for identifying who its champion is (or champions are). If Iowa loses one of its last four games and we win all ours, the Big Ten will claim that we’re both champions, as it always has… and this is the second oldest conference in the land (next to the Ivy League, if I’m not mistaken). Heck, as most of us know, there have been years when more than two Big Ten schools have been called champions. Is it goofy? Yeah, a bit. But that’s the way it is and I hardly think we need to go against the grain and against established tradition in this case. Two 11-1 teams means two champions. That’s the way it is in the Big Ten. If it comes to pass, there’s no reason not to hang the number 2009 on the stadium.

by BSM PSU 93 on Oct 27, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oldest

The Ivy League only goes back to 1956 or so. The term probably dates back to the ’30s, but there was no formal league then.

The Big Ten is the original conference.

Blogging about D.C. Baseball since April '04. Penn State alum. Also partial to the Washington Capitals, New York Yankees and Yale football.

by WFY on Nov 2, 2009 9:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thoretically, you could argue that Penn State had a better season, hey, we lost to an 11-1 team, they would have lost to a three loss team that we beat (assuming that it’s Ohio State).

You could argue this, but you would lose. Continuing to pitch this continues to pitch the muddy waters, irresponsibly.

Focus on acceptable / classy responses to a possible BIg Ten Conference recognition as a ‘champion’ holds more promise.

"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69

by jtothep on Oct 27, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about putting up 1971 - 1972 - 1977, etc than...

We lost only once in those two consecutive years, both times to Tennessee, OOC to say. I’m not comfortable seeing us put up 2009 if we tie in the standings but have lost to the opponent we tied in the standings. To stand along side the NC teams, the teams that were undefeated and should have won a MNC and conference champs who beat the team that they tied in the standings you should have done the same, not less. It feels like less to me….personal opinion I guess. Fire away.

by FG Dreadnought on Oct 26, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We honor

Undefeated Teams, and Big Ten Champions.

Conference champs who beat the team that they tied in the standings . I don’t believe this is the standard. It kind of leads to incorgrous results.

We’d get a trophy, do you suggest we send it back? This is the type of this thing time fixes. Next year, it’ll be awkward, but 15-20 years from now who will know or care? Nobody east of Iowa.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 26, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"we'd get a trophy, do you suggest we send it back?"

if it was my choice, yes.

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 26, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would certainly create a stir

But I’m pretty sure that the Big Ten would tell us to, “shut up and take the frikken trophy”.

I get your point. I think that it’s possible to recognize the accomplishment, and not be total d-bags about the whole thing.

I’m not sure that pretending that we didn’t share the title is the classiest thing either.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 26, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't just send it back "return to sender" style

Heck, I’d be fine with a JoePa acceptance speech of, “trophy, what do we need one of these for? We know who the real champions of the Big 10 are, and they came in here and kicked our teeth in back in September”

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 26, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree here

the rules are written that way for a reason, and by the conference’s standards (not necessarily our own) this team would have earned a share of the big ten title, and would have earned a trophy. i’d personally be embarrassed if the season was ever publicly addressed as a championship team, but it would be considered one nonetheless. by the way, this conversation is exactly why i love penn state. pride in our legacy. humility in defeat. would other teams in the big ten be having this conversation? maybe, but i have my doubts. we haven’t won many championships, so you’d think we’d be chomping at the bit to be declared one somehow.

"They stalk their prey to within two or three great leaps and then launch a lightning-fast charge, striking their prey. Victims are most often killed by suffocation with a prolonged bite..."--Hinterland Who's Who

by afields16 on Oct 27, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Just like Ohio State should have sent the trophy back in 2005 and 2008.

"I thought the kid we were using had the potential to be a good quarterback, and I blew that one." - Joseph V. Paterno

by leeharvey418 on Oct 26, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I got it

When they offer Joe the trophy, he can tell the Big Ten officials to shove it.

by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 27, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like a large IF before all of this

as in, IF we win out.

I don’t like screwing with karma.

Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.

by 06Lion on Oct 26, 2009 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I figured the negative tone of the piece would cover for that.

God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...

by fugimaster24 on Oct 26, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's what I'll do & how I view this situation

I’ll consider PSU the Big Ten Champions along with Iowa but I will refer to Iowa as the best team in the Big Ten. That’s where I show distinction. I did the same last year. PSU and OSU were Big Ten Champions but PSU was the best team in the Big Ten. I think that’s fair because the records are the same which decides the title but the head to head decides which team is better.

by RNF18 on Oct 26, 2009 2:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If we're really petitioning the Powers That Be

Let’s plea til the country cows come home that Ohio State doesn’t have this predicament again after beating us both.

The Moo Point Mantra:
Must.
Win.
Out.

"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69

by jtothep on Oct 26, 2009 2:25 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs

This

DO YOU HAVE PRIDE, DANNY?

by ReadingRambler on Oct 26, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ridiculous

If we win out and Iowa loses to OSU there is no difference in what we accomplished this year from last year. If we beat OSU and Iowa doesn’t we are equal. Sure in my book Iowa wins the tie-breaker but officially they don’t. To ignore an official conference championship would be a snub to our players who worked so hard… and that sucks.

Instead, what we need is one area on the stadium to honor national champs and one to honor conference champs.

When we were recruiting Terrell Pryor we always hoped he'd help us take down Ohio State... and he did!

by gradiology on Oct 26, 2009 2:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There IS a difference

Despite the fact that the Big Ten only uses the head-to-head result as a ‘tiebreaker’ to determine who goes to the Rose Bowl, anybody with a modicum of pride recognizes that if you have a head-to-head result between two teams, it determines who is the true champion.

"I thought the kid we were using had the potential to be a good quarterback, and I blew that one." - Joseph V. Paterno

by leeharvey418 on Oct 26, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

here's the difference between this year and last

Iowa is a better team with a better record.

Here is what is the same: Last year I didn’t think OSU deserved Big 10 Championship honors, and this year I wouldn’t think PSU deserves it.

It is just a stupid rule/way to award Big 10 Champions. It is like we are in elementary school and don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. Should we also start handing out trophies for participation in the Big 10 also?

Here’s another way to look at it (though the NC trophy doesn’t have this “sharing is caring” rule, so it isn’t completely the same):
In 2006, Ohio State finished with 1 loss, while Florida also finished with 1 loss. Should OSU be able to claim that they are also national co-champions, even though they lost to Florida? Same thing in 2007, though replace Florida with LSU, and give each team 2 losses.

Yeah, we don’t have a championship game in the Big 10, but in that situation (in my opinion, at least), the head to head matchup should count in its place. For now the rule in the Big 10 is that everyone gets to share, but hell, I’d prefer even a coin toss to decide over having a “shared” title. They should only manufacture one trophy per year, and they should come up with a tiebreaker to decide who gets it in the event 2 teams don’t play, or if there’s a rock paper scissors situation.

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 26, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dumb example

If one game is listed as the championship game then that’s what it is. You simply honor the rules that have been pre-established.

I too think if there is a conference tie then a head-to-head match-up should decide the champ. But wake up! This isn’t the rule.

Oklahoma lost to Texas but was still crowned the south champ and went to the BCS NC game. You and Texas can cry all you want but unless the rules are changed you are being foolish.

When we were recruiting Terrell Pryor we always hoped he'd help us take down Ohio State... and he did!

by gradiology on Oct 26, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not crying, I just think it is a dumb rule, and I am complaining about it

so much so that if I was the beneficiary of said rule, I’d say “thanks, but no thanks” and move on with my life.

Also, I like how your post says “dumb example” as if in my own post I didn’t point out the exact same reason you used for saying it was a dumb example. Thanks for playing, though.

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 26, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry..

It just struck a cord with me. “Bad example” would have been more appropriate. No offense intended. I just think we are snubbing our guys and their hard work if we don’t recognize it.

When we were recruiting Terrell Pryor we always hoped he'd help us take down Ohio State... and he did!

by gradiology on Oct 26, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it is tough on both sides

since these guys put in a lot of hard work, and have done a lot of great things, but so have pretty much every other Penn State team. Why is the 2009 one more worthy of praise than say the 1985 team, or a bunch of other 1 loss teams from the 70s? That I suppose is my point here. This team so far is doing well, and if they win out will have accomplished something great, but is it really as great as the undefeated and national championship teams?

By that same thread, of course, the 2008 team falls short as well, as they merely won the Big 10, but something about being the majority shareholder in the conference championship to me seems better than being a minority shareholder.

And while I don’t necessarily agree with it for this team, but suppose we have another team that goes 7-5 or 8-4, but manages to win a share of the Big 10 title. Do they also deserve to go up there?

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 27, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a different debate regarding how should we honor undefeated and/or MNC winning teams versus Big Ten champion teams. I think most people tend to agree that putting all the years together in the same stadium location with no distinguishing characteristics is a bit odd since some teams listed are a bit more “historical” than others.

That doesn’t seem to have much impact on the debate as to whether the 2009 team — should they share a Big Ten title with Iowa — would be worthy of the same acknowledgment as the 1994/2005/2008 teams, which IMHO it’s silly to argue that they don’t deserve the same recognition.

by Laaaaazzz on Oct 27, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're snubbing logic

By not recognizing the two seasons would be different.

"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69

by jtothep on Oct 27, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is no difference from what PSU did...

If we beat everyone but Iowa last year and went 11-1 and we beat everyone but Iowa this year and go 11-1 we did the same thing as last year. We did not do anything different. Iowa did.

I would rather win the Big 10 outright but those of you who would not accept it are doing a huge disservice and a big diss to this year’s team. In my opinion that is totally unsupportive and lame.

If we are officially Big Ten champs I will recognize it and be proud of my 11-1 Nittany Lions.

When we were recruiting Terrell Pryor we always hoped he'd help us take down Ohio State... and he did!

by gradiology on Oct 26, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice out

With that ‘we did not do anything different, Iowa did’ line. It could be reasonably argued. It would lose, as I will show, but it could be reasonably argued.

Assuming of course that we set aside for now the Moo Point Mantra (Must. Win. Out.) here in the middle of the season and that we actually go 11-1 this year. And so does another nameless team. Just like last year. Then, yes, there is no difference. Looking strictly at numbers, 2008 PSU at 7-1 and another team at 7-1 is no different than 2009 PSU at 7-1 and another team at 7-1. I’ll grant you that.

Only if those victories and losses were performed in a vacuum. Which they weren’t. They were played against real teams and real competition. And context is important when not in a vacuum. And the contextual differences between this year’s and last year’s scenarios are stark: last year the other team with the same record we beat, this year the other team with that record beat us. This is meaningful, and must be acknowledged. Even when segue-ing on to how we as fans should react to to this year’s starkly different scenario.

"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69

by jtothep on Oct 26, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

If we beat everyone but Iowa last year and went 11-1 and we beat everyone but Iowa this year and go 11-1 we did the same thing as last year. We did not do anything different.

Here’s a difference:

In 2008, we lost to an 8-4 team.

In 2009, we would have lost to an 11-1 team. [assuming the theoretical scenario played out]

I’m confused as to why that means that the 2008 team is more worthy of praise or being honored in the stadium.

Anyhow, I agree with you, both teams would have gone 7-1 and been tied with another team for the best conference record. Both are co-champs, as they should be.

As an aside, I’m under the impression that shared conference titles are the norm in every single NCAA sport (though some sports have separate “regular season” and “tournament” titles and obviously this would apply to only the regular season ones). Can anyone come up with an example of a sport where they wouldn’t have co-champions based on the same conference record even if one team performed better head to head?

by Laaaaazzz on Oct 26, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so are you advocating that every other year where we had only 1 loss in the regular season

should go up as well? I just wanna know if you’re going to be conistent on this, since 11-1 seems to be your reason for going up.

And what if Iowa is undefeated this year? We then “did the same thing as last year. We did not do anything different. Iowa did.” Should we still put the year up on the stadium, just like we did last year?

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 26, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And

Hopefully not to pile on too much, but what if Wisconsin went 8-0 in conference?
We would have done the same thing as last year.
Should they put the year up in the stadium?

by confirmy on Oct 27, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we win out and Iowa loses to OSU there is no difference in what we accomplished this year from last year.

This is just not true. Being a one-loss team tied with another one-loss team which we defeated means NOT EQUAL to being a one-loss team tied with another one-loss team which defeated us. Please acknowledge this.

Your third and fourth sentences have more merit, but remain stained by the falseness/muddyness of your first two.

"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69

by jtothep on Oct 26, 2009 2:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

gdam reply fail

meant for gradiology.

"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69

by jtothep on Oct 26, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not so fast my friend...

Nobody is saying that the accomplishments are the same. For one, Iowa will be the team dancing with Rose’s in their mouths the week before Thanksgiving, and that’s no small difference.

I see it as a share of the Big Ten title, maybe not an equal share, but a share. And that’s cause for a celebration, albeit a tempered one.

It should be acknowledged for what it is, rather than lamented for what it is not.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 26, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gradiology said If we win out and Iowa loses to OSU there is no difference in what we accomplished this year from last year.

I disagreed. No ambiguity in logic, writing, reading or thinking there. Which is more than I can say for Big Ten Conference championship acknowledgements. Just trying to keep the discussion clean, in a big pile of mud.

I’m 100% in agreement with your ‘It should be acknowledged for what it is, rather than lamented for what it is not.’ And something that it is not yet is an 11-1 season.

And minus freakin one for the Corso phrase.

"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69

by jtothep on Oct 26, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you so hard

Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."

by Roland86 on Oct 26, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course we will — and should IMHO — put 2009 on the facade. We’d be Big Ten co-champions and would deserve it. Personally, I’ve always thought the chiding of tOSU being co-champs in 2005 and 2008 was stupid and I think the same thin

Ironaically, there would a difference between the 2008 asnd 2009 PSU teams in this proposed scenario — the 2008 PSUI team would have lost to a weaker team. I don’t see how the fact that 2008 PSU lost to a good but not great Iowa team while a 2009 PSU team lost to a much stronger Iowa team means that the 2008 PSU team is more deserving of an honor. Huh? People are getting too caught up in the head to head concept without recognizing that the champions of a conference is the team who performed the best in all the games in conference. Boiling it down to a single game is fine as a tie-breaker for stuff liek bowl bids, but is a lousy way to determine an overall champion. Just like I miss hainv ties in college football, I don’t see why we have to go all out to have only a single champions — sometimes two (or more) teams are just very close in talent and deserve to all be honored, especially given that 8 conference games isn’t a huge sample size to make vast conclusions anyway.

On the other note, I do think it’s kinda odd to have all the years lumped together in the stadium. I’d rather see some system where different types of championships are given different recognition liek different colors or placed in different areas of the stadium — national champs one way, undefeated another way, Big Ten champs another way. A lot of baseball teams fly flags of different colors to do this (the Phillies do, for example, with different colors for division champ, NL champ and WS champ) and I think it would work well for PSU.

by Laaaaazzz on Oct 26, 2009 2:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Let's not get ahead of ourselves

We’ve got a lot of room left on the luxury boxes to fill before we need to separate numbers from each other.

by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 27, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not about space. It’s about the idea that one “successful” season isn’t necessarily the equivalent of another. There’s no reason that a team couldn’t acknowledge different types of successful seasons in different ways.

It would have been way enough, for example, to use a different color amongst the years to depict different events (undefeated season, MNC, Big Ten championship) for example. That way you can still honor the teams for their accomplishments while acknowledging that some “successful” years are more special than others.

I actually think once we get to the point that we have “enough” Big Ten championships under our belt that we’ll see some parsing out of the various years. The current setup will suffice until then.

by Laaaaazzz on Oct 27, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think conference championships should be up there

The goal of this program is to win National Championships. Period. Put those up along with undefeated seasons.

Conference championships are nice, but they are only a stepping stone, not the final objective. If we happen to go 8-5 one year and get a 4 way split of the conference with a 6-2 record, are we going to put that up? Purdue and Indiana should recognize conference champonships with immortailty — Penn State has bigger aspirations.

by PSU Mudder on Oct 26, 2009 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't like that argument

Yes, it is what we strive for EVERY season, but so does every other team in the nation. If the goal of this program is to honor ONLY the NC’s then why the hell bother to honor the undefeated seasons where we were screwed out of a MNC? From your own argument:

The goal of this program is to win National Championships. Period.

those undefeated seasons failed to accomplish the “goal of this program” by that argument. The majority of the time this program has played football, we played as an independent, while other teams were winning conference championships. Now we have an ultimate goal of winning a MNC, but a secondary goal of also winning the B10 crown, why NOT honor that accomplishment (when we win it outright, including head to heads, that is)?

by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 27, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think something else is also being forgotten here....

IF PSU wins out and IF Iowa loses to OSU to tie for a share of the Big 10 crown. (These are big IF’s btw) PSU is going to be the higher ranked team at the end of the year. That’s not something to sneeze at. Yes Iowa deserves to go to the Rose Bowl beating us head to head, but can you really downplay the accomplishment of going 11-1 by refusing to recognize a team that earned a co-championship. I think not and I am sure the school will not take that approach. Of course if the Big10 would just sack-up and add a 12th team we wouldn’t need to have this discussion because there would be a true championship game.

There are a lot of games left to be played…..let’s just hope we can have this argument after the regular season concludes!

I thought only safeties played 15 yards off the ball?

by pic15 on Oct 26, 2009 3:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Of course if the Big10 would just sack-up and add a 12th team we wouldn’t need to have this discussion because there would be a true championship game.

A “true championship game” doesn’t solve this issue — witness the Big 12 last year with Oklahoma and Texas. although, to be fair, it lessens the odds of their being a problem.

That said, I don’t see what’s the big deal with absolutely needing one definitive champion. I don’t really see what the problem with similarly strengthed teams with similar performances sharing a title, as would be the case if PSU and Iowa were the finish 11-1 this season.

by Laaaaazzz on Oct 26, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"PSU is going to be the higher ranked team at the end of the year"

Really? Iowa will have the head-to-head win and a better SOS.

DO YOU HAVE PRIDE, DANNY?

by ReadingRambler on Oct 26, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And they'll still be Iowa.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 26, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's the problem with losing late.

Iowa plays OSU after us. Assuming arguendo that we win out, that means that we will climb a bit more having beaten OSU (and probably getting some upset help). If OSU beats Iowa, they will fall a few spots, assuredly behind us. Better to lose early (see USC, every year).

by PSUJunny05 on Oct 26, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

It’s late in the day for latin, so save it for inter alia, the bar exam.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 26, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

prima facie

res ipsa loquitor
bona fide purchaser for value
guardian ad litem
ipso facto

by PSUJunny05 on Oct 26, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I want to play too!

Pezzo di merda!

"I thought the kid we were using had the potential to be a good quarterback, and I blew that one." - Joseph V. Paterno

by leeharvey418 on Oct 26, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i want in too

bo bimus
bis bitus
bit bunt

okay, thats all i got

For the glory

by lionalum05 on Oct 26, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow... fail, it was supposed to look like a conjugation chart

For the glory

by lionalum05 on Oct 26, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

De gustibus. Me gustibus. You gustibus. We missed the bus.
They missed the bus. When’s the next bus?

by confirmy on Oct 27, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hibbity jibbity

Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."

by Roland86 on Oct 26, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ummm

In vino veritas?

Ummm

Age quo ages?

DO YOU HAVE PRIDE, DANNY?

by ReadingRambler on Oct 26, 2009 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eeway Aray Ennpay Atestay

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 27, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Age quod agis.

by Aaron PSU on Oct 27, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good point.....

Although the issue with Oklahoma and Texas actually revolved around who from the Big 12 south should get to play in the championship game. Oklahoma won the tiebreaker to play in the game and once they won the conference championship game I don’t think there was a dispute about who the Big 12 champion was.

I second you next point though….IF PSU and Iowa both finish with 11-1 marks…. no shame in sharing or recognizing the title share that the team will have earned.

I thought only safeties played 15 yards off the ball?

by pic15 on Oct 26, 2009 4:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For a guide as to what Penn State would do officially...

I think you’ll see that in past years with other sports like soccer & field hockey, in a similar situation, we do claim to be champions.

Born and raised in the shadow of Mount Nittany

by Elihu on Oct 26, 2009 7:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

OSU didn't play Iowa last year right

In my mind that makes this seasons situation a little different than last. If OSU beats Iowa and we beat OSU that adds a little strength to the shared title argument. However, I personaly don’t like the shared titles

by whiteoutonly on Oct 26, 2009 8:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm actually fine with a share in a three-way rock paper scissors tie

it is the 2-way tie with a head to head loss that bugs me

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 27, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, what a response.

Haha I’m a little surprised at the debate this has sparked…

But anyway, this goes to something jesse said. It’s just a matter of where we feel like drawing the line. North Carolina basketball only hangs NC banners. I’m not saying we should do that, but I feel like this is a slippery slope. What happens if both us and Iowa run the table? We’re still 11-1, should we throw the numbers up there if we win the BCS bowl? Where does it stop?

God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...

by fugimaster24 on Oct 26, 2009 8:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Undefeated seasons or one-loss seasons with a major bowl win.

Twitter: @scrappled

"When it’s third-and-10, you can take the milk drinkers and I’ll take the whiskey drinkers every time" - Max McGee

by Run Up The Score on Oct 26, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And in either case, at least a share of the conference title

Twitter: @scrappled

"When it’s third-and-10, you can take the milk drinkers and I’ll take the whiskey drinkers every time" - Max McGee

by Run Up The Score on Oct 26, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to nitpick...

…but UNC hangs NC banners in one corner, and ACC champ banners in the other. Which I agree with. I want to be able to walk into the stadium and point at those numbers and say, “each one of those is either an undefeated season or a championship season.”

by PSUmob on Oct 26, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well we should all know which are which as PSU fans

I don’t really give a crap if another team’s fans or a visitor doesn’t understand why we have so many numbers up on the wall. If that gets them to go home, look into a little PSU history and learn about this program, good for them. Otherwise why waste time and money (as we all know how much the AD and university love money) distinguishing the two? In that situation we’d have to have three walls to distinguish undefeated, non-championship seasons, NC’s, and BT champion season.

by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 27, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I honestly don't think you can't ignore the b10 champs aspect if it were to happen.

tOSU has won 4 in a row. I don’t argue that. In fact, it bothers me because we were the only team that could prevent it in 2 of those years, and we lost to lesser teams. Shouldn’t have coughed one up to Michigan/Iowa. We did not take care of business. Beating tOSU head to head isn’t enough to deprive them of the title, not in this conference, not in a lot of CFB conferences. Still playing out the “we tie Iowa” scenario, Iowa shouldn’t give one up to a 3 loss team. They can take all that out of play by winning out. Either the rules change, or that’s how it goes. I agree with Jesse., the Rose Bowl is a pretty nice little reward for the head to head.

In this OMG GIVE ME A PLAYOFF atmosphere, everyone wants to point to the head to head as the perfect tie breaker for everything. But don’t act like it’s without deficiencies. Think about it, it’s meant to break a tie. If there is such a clear champion, why are teams tied? We SLAM USC for whining about being left out of the title game by losing to a lesser team every year and say “Hey, you really deserve to go the National Championship then don’t lose to a worse team.” Is this really so different? I’m not saying head to head isn’t maybe the best alternative, but it doesn’t lack shortcomings.

by PSUinBOSSton on Oct 26, 2009 10:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

go point

We are not normal...WE are Legends...We are PENN STATE!

by hawaiipennstatefan on Oct 27, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

good* point

We are not normal...WE are Legends...We are PENN STATE!

by hawaiipennstatefan on Oct 27, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just throwing this out there

What if we don’t win the Big Ten, but go 11-1 and go to a BCS bowl, like the Fiesta, and beat a team like Texas.

Do the number go up on the box?

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Oct 27, 2009 5:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

are there clear rules on what years go up on the box?

I just assumed it was MNCs, undefeated seasons, and Big 10 Championships.

by The JuggerNitt on Oct 27, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct. There’s a definite method to the madness.

If we go 11-1 and win/share the Big Ten title — year listed in the stadium

If we go 11-1 and do not win the Big Ten title — no year listed in the stadium

by Laaaaazzz on Oct 27, 2009 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My understanding is no.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 28, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope not

Let's Go State

by rmcmillen50 on Oct 28, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still cannot believe this has generated 70+ comments

DO YOU HAVE PRIDE, DANNY?

by ReadingRambler on Oct 27, 2009 6:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No kidding

I feel like I am almost reading a penn live post about whether joe should stay

"Wherever you go, Penn State will go with you. You are now a part of her. Her image will be cast in your image. Your reputation will become her reputation."

by noodlebucket on Oct 27, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol, this is what happens when someone posts one of these "hypothetical PSU question posts"

it almost always generates 100+ comments because someone always has a different opinion when it comes to Penn State or some other random topic, which some seem ready to fight to the death over.

by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 27, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's got a lot b/c ppl are commenting in several different arguments

It’s a good, and thoughtful, thread.

"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69

by jtothep on Oct 27, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because we all have no lives

"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

by IcersGuy on Oct 28, 2009 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably this reason^

by TheK-GunNeedsReloaded on Oct 29, 2009 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is the lamest argument ever

I really just don’t give a crap either way, it really won’t affect my life if there is a 2009 on the stadium and whether or not a 2009 big ten championship trophy sits in Lasch building. It really won’t. Will it be annoying to hear some PSU fans claim an 09 big ten title? Yeah, but after the next 2-3 seasons, nobody will truly give a damn.

If this team goes on to win out and win a bowl game, I will celebrate them more than last year’s team. They will have overcame much more and won their bowl, ending with a better record. Whether they are big ten champs, co big ten champs, 2nd place big ten, I just don’t care, I care about winning every game we can. If the titles and labels fall the right way, fine, if not, fine.

Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."

by Roland86 on Oct 27, 2009 11:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

all i know

is that i won’t buy a B10 champs shirt this year if we share with iowa. thats about as far as this situation will affect me.

We decide when you hear the snap count...

by thedrizzle on Oct 28, 2009 10:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

In fact, let's band together and burn down any store that sells those shirts!

ARSON!!!! ANARCHY!!!! FREEDOM!!!!!

by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 28, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well if the phillies win the world series again

there won’t be much left of SC anyways…so lets wait on planning that

We decide when you hear the snap count...

by thedrizzle on Oct 29, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They were pretty quite last year

by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 29, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so, does nobody truly feel

that it’s completely out of the realm of possibility that iowa loses two this season?

They are playing ugly ball to get wins. It’s not completely out of the question that they lose two to indiana, jNW, tOSU, or minnesota.

I think it’s a helluva lot better for us if they win out, but still it definitely can happen.

Meadville, PA born and raised.

by mikeissurreal on Oct 28, 2009 11:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Indiana sucks, jNW sucks, and Minnesota is collapsing. I don’t see how they can lose any of those three.

DO YOU HAVE PRIDE, DANNY?

by ReadingRambler on Oct 28, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that’s the beauty of college football, we’ll lose our next three, Iowa will stay undefeated until the last game and then we spank ’em 41-10

"they're calling insane hogs???"

by CrowTrobot on Oct 28, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjacMS7Siqw

DO YOU HAVE PRIDE, DANNY?

by ReadingRambler on Oct 28, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See: 1999 Penn State

minus Indiana, who we’ve never (knock on wood) lost to.

by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 28, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

could happen

al la PSU 1999. Very similar circumstances.

"Every player we have, someone—maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone—poured their life and soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world." - Joe Paterno

by Horse N Buggy on Oct 28, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, except MSU and Michigan were both damn good that year

And Minnesota wasn’t bad either, for that matter.

DO YOU HAVE PRIDE, DANNY?

by ReadingRambler on Oct 28, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW

Tom Brady was Michigan’s quarterback and Nick Saban was Michigan State’s coach. It makes the collapse slightly more palatable. Shoot, Drew Brees was at Purdue too.

Pretty interesting year in the league. Oh, and Ohio State sucked.

Beat Northwestern.

by jesse. on Oct 28, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wisconsin won in '99, I think

The conference was very solid that year.

Oh, and MSU went 10-2 that year and beat Florida in their bowl. I think UM beat Bama in the Orange Bowl.

DO YOU HAVE PRIDE, DANNY?

by ReadingRambler on Oct 28, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, Wisconsin actually won the conference outright

Speaking of which, since we have been in the league there have only been 8 outright(non split) titles. 94 PSU, 95 jNW, 98 scUM, 99 Wiscy, 01 Illinois, 03 scUM and 06-07 jOSU.

I just found it interesting that there is some kind of tie or tOSU CO-Champ situation at least every other year on average.

Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."

by Roland86 on Oct 28, 2009 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

6 of the 8 they've won since we joined the league

have been shared I think, (numbers might deviate slightly from reality). Although to be fair, one of those is Iowa in 2002, where they didn’t play, which you can’t really do anything about.

by PSUisMyHeart on Oct 28, 2009 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs