Should PSU be kicked out of the B1G?

Should PSU be kicked out of the B1G?

  • Total voters
    58
  • Poll closed .
A huge chunk of their fan base doesn't want to be in the B10 anyway. Might as well make their dream a reality.
 
If the NCAA punishes PSU to the point in which the B10 faces serious financial damage then I think they should be removed from the conference and a new team added.
 
burky247 said:
A huge chunk of their fan base doesn't want to be in the B10 anyway. Might as well make their dream a reality.
Click to expand...

I wasnt aware of this. Serious question. When you say huge, what percentage are you referring? Was this before or after all the Sandusky stuff? The PSU fans I know love the B1G.

I may tend to agree with you, but would like to know more in this regards.
 
I need an undecided choice. They pose an interesting dilemma. They still are a good fit academically. But, we are seeing issues with their culture that make one take pause. They are also kind of isolated out there.

Still, who does the B1G replace PSU with? Pitt? That is like a 60% drop in gmfan base in that state and Pitt has already accepted a move to the ACC.
 
ColoradoHAWKEYE said:
I wasnt aware of this. Serious question. When you say huge, what percentage are you referring? Was this before or after all the Sandusky stuff? The PSU fans I know love the B1G.

I may tend to agree with you, but would like to know more in this regards.
Click to expand...

Ya I should have clarified that a huge percentage of their message board fans want out of the B10. Spend some time on Audibles or BWI and you'll figure that out real quick. Even before the Sandusky stuff came up, it was apparent. They long for their old independent days and blame the B10 for destroying their dynasty.

I did get a chance to tailgate with a group of PSU fans in 2010 and this subject came up. I'd say it was 50/50 on whether joining the B10 was the right move for PSU. In general, it seemed like the older fans were less happy with joining a conference. The consensus being that they enjoyed playing more of a national schedule rather than playing the likes of Indiana and Illinois every season. The younger fans who barely remembered being an independent seemed okay with the conference.
 
A national schedule? That's an interesting euphemism for the patsies they used to book every year.

The biggest issue for the B1G is if PSU gets a TV ban. That IS going to hurt other teams in the conference.
 
CAARHawk said:
I need an undecided choice. They pose an interesting dilemma. They still are a good fit academically. But, we are seeing issues with their culture that make one take pause. They are also kind of isolated out there.

Still, who does the B1G replace PSU with? Pitt? That is like a 60% drop in gmfan base in that state and Pitt has already accepted a move to the ACC.
Click to expand...
I'm not a big fan of fence riders :p

....and besides, after today you should have enough information to make up your mind.

If the penalties truly are crippling, then I see no need to keep them around. We might as well replace them with Rutgers...at least they would have a chance to compete.
 
burky247 said:
ColoradoHAWKEYE said:
I wasnt aware of this. Serious question. When you say huge, what percentage are you referring? Was this before or after all the Sandusky stuff? The PSU fans I know love the B1G.I may tend to agree with you, but would like to know more in this regards.
Click to expand...
Ya I should have clarified that a huge percentage of their message board fans want out of the B10. Spend some time on Audibles or BWI and you'll figure that out real quick. Even before the Sandusky stuff came up, it was apparent. They long for their old independent days and blame the B10 for destroying their dynasty. I did get a chance to tailgate with a group of PSU fans in 2010 and this subject came up. I'd say it was 50/50 on whether joining the B10 was the right move for PSU. In
general, it seemed like the older fans were less happy with joining a conference. The consensus being that they enjoyed playing more of a national schedule rather than playing the likes of Indiana and Illinois every season. The younger fans who barely remembered being an independent seemed okay with
the conference.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the good clarification. Still not sure booting them is best....yet...but we will have a more clear picture in a few minutes. I guess I'm okay with whatever the big ten determines...for now.
 
CAARHawk said:
A national schedule? That's an interesting euphemism for the patsies they used to book every year.
Click to expand...

Ya...I wasn't informed enough to debate the national schedule argument with them at the time. I know a lot of the fans I tailgated with were upset with the B10 for trying to create a rivalry with themselves and Michigan State. They felt it was a slap in the face. I guess they felt their rivalry should be with Michigan.
 
I don't see their value being significantly diminished by these sanctions over the long term.

Perhaps the vacating wins will hurt more than i think but scholarship. reductions haven't seemed to have much impact on USC.
 
HawkeyesWin said:
I don't see their value being significantly diminished by these sanctions over the long term.

Perhaps the vacating wins will hurt more than i think but scholarship. reductions haven't seemed to have much impact on USC.
Click to expand...

The vacated wins just change the history books, but am not sure what kind of impact, if any, it has going forward. The real punishment there is that Paterno would no longer be (I believe) the winningest coach in College Football history, which is fitting and a nice slap in the face to Paterno's continued supporters, and to his family, which seems to be pretty defiant about the whole thing.

The biggest thing seems to be the lack of bowl appearances/post-season for the next 4 years. As has been mentioned, that means any recruits from this year will not have the chance to play in a post-season.

The reduction in scholarships, I agree, seems to have had very little impact on USC, so probably will not do much to slow PSU down.

It'll be interesting to see if the BIG TEN hands out any sort of punishment.
 
HawkeyesWin said:
I don't see their value being significantly diminished by these sanctions over the long term.

Perhaps the vacating wins will hurt more than i think but scholarship. reductions haven't seemed to have much impact on USC.
Click to expand...

You won't see the full impact of scholarship reductions for about 3 years after the year the penalty was imposed. Just like any recruiting class.

So the year the full impact of having 60-65 scholarship athletes will just start to be felt when Penn State comes off their post-season ban. It may be felt earlier if there is a mass defection of current players.

USC did not get impacted because 10 scholarships is incrementally easier to overcome and virtually no players transferred. The quality of recruits Penn State gets the next two years could be lower as they would go most of their career with no chance to play in the BTCG or a bowl game.
 
clicheusername3 said:
Ahahahahahaha...the what?


Let's play some ffffooooottttbbbaaaallllll.
Click to expand...

I thought that was supposedly Penn State's greatest sin, putting football above everything else?

But your point is well taken. I used to think the academic standards of the Big Ten conference meant something. And then they let Nebraska in rather than higher ranked academic schools such as Missouri.
 
Jesus, this was a serious question?

Some of you guys...I swear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top