This is also where my problem with Paterno lies. Please keep in mind that many of the saner PSU fans have been driven underground by the howls of the mob.
But please remember that of all the people who are in big trouble in this case, he did the most right (while still not enough). Spanier should have been fired out of a cannon; Schultz and Curley will hopefully go to jail for a little while at least; and Sandusky - well, he's the rabid dog who should have never been left out in the first place and hopefully never will be again.
"The infractions stain is Connecticut's first in any sport. It leaves four marquee athletics programs -- of the 65 in the nation's six major football-playing conferences, plus Notre Dame -- without a major case in their histories, and two of them carry asterisks. Boston College and Northwestern endured point-shaving scandals that weren't adjudicated by the NCAA."
So you're right - BC and NW just got caught point-shaving, but not by the NCAA(?)
The "Penn State and Stanford are the only ones left standing" applies to all sports, not just the big two. I don't know what sport Northwestern got dinged for, but they did get dinged.
It's already on a lot of peoples' packages, and it's because of Penn State, which even right next to Rutgers' campus is more of a draw than is Rutgers itself.
The NY Times many seasons seems to regard PSU as the local college team in their sports section, or at least they did way back when I read.
Pitt's fight song, last I heard, was STILL amended by their students to read "Penn State sucks! Penn State sucks! P E N N S T Sucks!". Something like 15 years after the rivalry supposedly stopped.
Note: They supposedly do this in ALL their games.
Framed as you put it, of course, you would question that person's sanity. Of course, that's not remotely what I said, and you know it.
Framed as I put it, you'd be disappointed to see the author of a blog you normally respect(*) have so little respect for themselves and their team that the only thing they could do after getting whipped was to talk about how they gave the game away. Not to even bring up ONCE, not even ONE TIME, that "gosh, maybe PSU was better than we thought they were". Then, of course, you'd be even more disappointed as the commenters piled on instead of admitting the behavior (although one or two guys in the other thread did, finally, do so).
Again, you can go to BSD and see what those guys have been saying about Iowa if you insist on disbelief here. Go ahead; I'll wait.
(* - and a blog disproportionately respected by the entire college football ecosystem, of course; a hell of a lot of non-Michigan-fans read this site).
The problem with your theory is it sorta ends up with you on the same level as the PSU homers, which is really going to wreak havoc with your superiority complexes.
Hint: What I posted here the last couple of days is precisely what I would expect a thinking Michigan fan to do at, say, BSD if the 34-8 style blowouts, had garnered write-ups which didn't even mention the asskicking and had instead made it sound like PSU had just handed the ball over repeatedly to an inferior and undeserving team out of the goodness of our hearts or because we were just having an awful day.
M1EK got banned for being insufficiently homer. This might could tell you how much "sore loser" your last couple of posts were if the ultimate PSU anti-homer thought you weren't complimentary enough of PSU.
Also, gum-bercules, whichever one of those idiots you are, you apparently also like to 'whine' about how PSU is/was viewed here. Hypocrite.
Just sayin'.
Compare/contrast, again, to the megahomers at PSU's BSD, who somehow manage to talk about the Iowa game while, and here's the important part, BOTH talking about what PSU did bad AND mentioning that Iowa played a hell of a game and is a much better team. Not just the one.
The last part, here, on mgoblog, you know, the blog of the guys who are supposed to be the least delusional in the Big Ten, was lacking until very recently, and produced ONLY as part of an effort to attack the messenger. Go back and read this thread, in chronological order, if you don't believe me.
Or wallow in your own crapulence. Either way.
Getting there. If in 2002 and 2005, UM had beaten PSU by a couple of touchdowns, your analogy might have some applicability here.
This is the first time in this entire thread that anybody has said PSU was the much better team. How many comments in now? Brian still hasn't said it, and obviously doesn't believe it either (unless it's by subtraction, i.e. "PSU is the much better team because of how bad I now know we are").
Again, compare/contrast to how the inveterate homers at BSD handled the Iowa loss.
I was actually coming here because I really like Brian's football analysis and was hoping to see some serious discussion of the game (got SOME, just not as much as usual) and also an opinion about where PSU was good and where they weren't. You see, getting opinions on your own performance from your own fans is kind of stupid - leading to base homerism. I'd rather hear what the other guys have to say - and in this case, I got nothing but "we beat ourselves" which was very disappointing.
So, no, not looking for validation, but you guys are, in this one way, pretty darn special - in that you seemingly can't give credit at all when you got your ass thoroughly whooped, unlike even the ridiculous homers at BSD who for the most part credited Iowa when they took it to us.
The MOST you could say about Clark's comments is that he was attributing some of our success on offense to your ineptness. The defense was responsible for quite a bit of the win as well, in case you didn't notice while focusing on all the things you did wrong.
"You guys were b - b - b - b - b"
"Ah, screw it. You only won because we played poorly!"
You see how me and RUTS talked about Iowa up there? That's how you talk about teams that line up and beat you - teams that are better than you thought they were; teams that played better than you did (no, not just because you choked). Seems like the Michigan Man could use a refresher on the Man part.
Funny, I was looking for just one place where Brian indicated that Penn State had a very good team (better than he thought, perhaps) and didn't find one. A couple of commenters got to it, eventually, but most of y'all still think you owned the win by birthright but just choked against your other little brother.
Iowa 2009 == PSU 1986, so far at least. I think if they play PSU 9 more times, they win 7 or 8 of them. And that's with the PSU upgrade the last couple of weeks.
Just as with PSU 1986, any attempt to justify transitivity by means of narrow margins of victory will just make you look very stupid in the end.
Those who think otherwise have never been in the position of a 1994 Penn State team. Of course, the greatest injustice of all of our tenure in Your Crappy Conference is that it wasn't Ohio State or Michigan that got screwed out of an MNC by being stuck in the Rose Bowl playing a forgettable Pac Ten team. No, it was the dude who's been arguing for a playoff since Richard Nixon screwed him back in 1969.
From a recent common opponent, upgraded from Meh to Secondary Rival:
In 2007, the Domer blog was all "we'd beat you again if we played you in November because Morelli will just get dumber anyways and we're getting better". They got worse. Morelli got dumber. We'd still have won.
In 2008, this side (well, not Brian) was pretty dubious too. Even though we finally lost the rocket-armed retard.
The tears, they are delicious.
Well done, though. I laughed and then felt bad, for a minute.
Recent Comments
This is also where my problem with Paterno lies. Please keep in mind that many of the saner PSU fans have been driven underground by the howls of the mob.
But please remember that of all the people who are in big trouble in this case, he did the most right (while still not enough). Spanier should have been fired out of a cannon; Schultz and Curley will hopefully go to jail for a little while at least; and Sandusky - well, he's the rabid dog who should have never been left out in the first place and hopefully never will be again.
One example of the mass media coverage:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/02/with-uconn-out-list-of-programs-without-a-major-infractions-down-to-two--/1
This explains the BC and NW omissions:
"The infractions stain is Connecticut's first in any sport. It leaves four marquee athletics programs -- of the 65 in the nation's six major football-playing conferences, plus Notre Dame -- without a major case in their histories, and two of them carry asterisks. Boston College and Northwestern endured point-shaving scandals that weren't adjudicated by the NCAA."
So you're right - BC and NW just got caught point-shaving, but not by the NCAA(?)
The "Penn State and Stanford are the only ones left standing" applies to all sports, not just the big two. I don't know what sport Northwestern got dinged for, but they did get dinged.
PSU and Stanford are alone among BCS schools. Iowa, NW, and Purdue have received major violations.
But everybody in the Big Ten seems to forget there's still one conference member that has never been dealt a major NCAA violation.