Drop UPS Game
- Thread starter 9nationalchampionships
- Start date
No, Darrell has the "Double Bird Trophy" that was awarded to the winner of the Pitt-USF game.
I would have to go with Paco on this one. I know many people from central Pa who while are decent folks, just don't get it about the football coverup. It's as if nothing happened. They are eagerly awaiting the start of the seasom, PSU will kick ass, etc. In their delusional state, they like to blame everything on Sandusky but no one else knew anything, especially Paterno. They just cannot accept the reality of what happened so they pretend that nothing did happen and focus on the upcoming season.
Good let'em cry, they did it to themselves...I feel no remorse for the cult followers (409 and JVP magnets), only for the victims of their institutional cover up for 25 years
Anybody who disses the trophy for the River City Rivalry is immediately an enemy of mine
Generally, this has been my experience as well. I've met a few PSU people who weren't big sports people, and their approach is that since they weren't sports fans, they really don't have an opinion.
From my experience, there doesn't seem to be anyone who went to the school who is actually sorry for what happened.
Like everyone, I was outraged when what had happened came to like. But the behavior of PSU fans since has only greatly magnified the outrage all the more.
2 things:
1. Litwack & Chaney are gone. So are Warner & Sutherland.
2. Fat Rollie kept the Owls out. I ALWAYS wanted them in the BE. But Temple FB hasn't been relevant, ever. I hope that changes, but history isn't on your side.
Nahhh....the U was not yet contenders, Bowden had the Noles on the rise, GT was nowhere. Paterno wanted about 8 teams, so he could keep his FB revenue and have the others support BB, where Dick Harter was treated like an outsider. Paterno was so confident he sneakily exited the E8. psu had just expanded the erector set to about 78K, but the BJC wasn't on the drawing boards. The real irony was that Gavitt INVITED Pitt after psu was rejected. Incredibly, Posvar/Bozik said yes. Paterno was pissed off until he died.
Pitt fit the BE model then, URBAN basketball in an Eastern TV market. PSU didn't. But it didn't matter later I guess, they took hillbilly towns at VT and WVU.
Huh?? If you want to talk about low point, I'll give you 2 worse: 3-27 from Hart or the 1-10 nightmare in 1972.
Chaney's successor, Fran Dunphy. is 204-118 (.634 winning percentage) with three conference regular season championships and three conference tournament championships since taking over. At many schools, that's a record that gets your name on the court or a statue of you erected in front of the arena. At Temple, that's a sufficient level of mediocrity for the fan base to call for your head. (Don Casey, the coach between Litwack and Chaney, likewise won over 60% of his games, but he's "Don Who?".)
Sadly, the Owls have been out of the limelight with Fran. Looks like St. Joe's & LaSalle are trending down, too, and Penn is AWOL. Those nights at the Palestra in the '60s were great.
Yeah, poor choice of words on my part. Paco pointed out the 72-0 which I have the misfortune of witnessing in person as well. That one was only 7-8 years after we we actually still had some success and brand cache, though, so at least at that point I thought we could fix things with the right coaching hire (I still believe we could have done that at multiple points along the way). I never would have thought that a program that had reached such great heights in the 70s and 80s would be so bad for so long.
My feeling is that the attempt to manufacture a non-existent rivalry to replace two actual traditional rivalries was a dire sign of the Pitt football apocalypse of the last 25 years. The River City Rivalry was pathetic, period. It was an insult to those of us who were around for the glory days when the Pitt v. PSU or WVU games were national events that had national implications. It was a sad commentary on the state of Pitt football, which had fallen off into utter irrelevance since the proud Eastern Independent days.
DT. I agree because when your school has one identity (in this case football) and lacks any real academic prestige other than printing diplomas, they will all defend until the end.
Agreed. Thats the thing about rivalries...they can't be manufactured. The River City Rivalry, the Land Grant Trophy, that crap is contrived. There was a reason the Pitt/Marquette basketball series was nasty. The games had meaning, they were heated, they were both good programs, it was developing into a really nice rivalry.
There is hatred, proximity, bragging rights, jealousy, between Pitt/PSU/WVU. It is existential. It will remain if they only play once every 10-20 years. All three of these programs should try to play as often as possible. Its an administrative embarrassment that they don't.
My opinion on this is I can understand. I personally can't be sorry about anything that I am not at fault for. Like Slavery, nobody in my family ever owned a slave, and none entered the USA until 80 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, so I'm not sorry, I didn't do anything, and I'd fight it if they asked me to pay reparations. That's why I honestly can't condemn every person that ever went to Penn State for not volunteering to eat crap over this.
The 3-27 of Hart (only beat teams that start with a "W" for 3 years, one each year) were 3 of my 4 years at Pitt
So are you dissing the River City Rivalry trophy badby?.....cause we'll brawl over this
If you can indulge an outsider's opinion, why on earth would you have wanted to end up in that conference? It wouldn't have been the Eastern Conference; it would have been the Paterno Conference. Sure, there would have been some puppet commissioner named, but have no doubt that JoePed would have had his hands in everything from scheduling to ref assignments to revenue splits. All the other schools would have been there to play a role on JoePed's plantation.
There's a solid reason that not only Pitt but all the other Eastern schools said "no thanks" to JoePed's conference, and there's a good reason that the first thing they did upon joining the Big East was to blackball his application.
It was also his last ditch effort to head off joining the Big Ten where he knew he couldn't bully the other schools and the league office. Where he knew that he'd have to settle for being one equal member in a conference of 11 and that there were other schools that could knock him back down if he tried any of his self-serving bullshit. Without being able to present a viable alternative to the school, he didn't have any choice but to go along with joining the Big Ten.
Pretty accurate and good post. Even Joe knew that the Big Coaches & Athletic Directors were against PSu too, so they went through the Big Ten Presidents and they saw and made it happen.
Penn State has be good for the Big Ten but winning as not turned out as expected for PSU Fans. the hate I read on BWI for the Big Ten is surreal or "Sorre"l if you are PSU Fan.
What do you expect from OSU meyer's Re-Loading fo r 2016 on winning and losing record?
Largely true especially the self serving part. However to correct the narrative, Paterno, serving in the capacity of interim AD approached the Big East about joining and PSU was voted down 5-3. The BE then invited Pitt who accepted. Of course if PSU had been accepted, the All Sports Conference would have been moot, because the BE was a Basketball only conference with smaller schools like Seton Hall, Providence and Georgetown. As always Paterno was playing both ends against the middle
I don't think the 2-1 scheduling was part of it. But the bigger part was that it would have been a conference where each school kept its own football revenue...while pooling and sharing the basketball revenue. Of course this would prop up the pathetic Nit hoops program...while not sharing anything with the others for football. As the poster above said, the eastern schools completely understood what JokePa was trying to do...and why it never came to pass. That said, I would prefer to play the traditional eastern schools if given a preference--particularly in football. Hail to Pitt!
Obviously, they were a no-brainer at the time of the invite. They were a seemingly perfect match university-wise, the whole "success with honor" myth was unchallenged while from a football perpective, the Big Ten hadn't won a NC since 68, and the pedsters were still in their period of national greatness. Knowing what I do now about their freakshow cult of a fanbase, I'd wished we'd never taken them in. Though it has been hilarious to watch them descend into madness and conspiracy theories to explain why they didn't come to dominate the conference as they thought was an absolute certainty.
I still believe the initial rumblings to get into the Big Ten began in the mid 80s on the academic side. Patent knew he had the power to veto it but only if he had a viable conference alternative to offer, and that was the catalyst for his proposed Eastern Conference.
As for Ohio State, the talent is there, but it's young and untested. No QB controversy this year but a tough schedule with @Oklahoma, @Sparty and Wiscy and The Corn cross-divisional. If they come out sluggish in the first two games, I won't have high expectations against OU.
I still believe the initial rumblings to get into the Big Ten began in the mid 80s on the academic side. Patent knew he had the power to veto it but only if he had a viable conference alternative to offer, and that was the catalyst for his proposed Eastern Conference.
As for Ohio State, the talent is there, but it's young and untested. No QB controversy this year but a tough schedule with @Oklahoma, @Sparty and Wiscy and The Corn cross-divisional. If they come out sluggish in the first two games, I won't have high expectations against OU.
No, your memory is foggy. That was the old mans demand when "attempting" to sign a contract to play again after the Pitt series was discontinued in 2001. Not even the old joke would try to demand in a conference that teams would need to play them 2-1. Hail to Pitt!
I do seem to recall that JoPa wanted a 2-1 with some of the weaker teams in the proposed conference such as Temple but would accept a 1-1 with others such as Pitt and WVU. Either way, the bottom line was that he did not want to share equally with other memebers of the conference. Then whats the point. The shame is that a real Eastern conference could have worked.
As I recall, Paterno's dreams of an eastern conference never materialized into serious discussions. Him wanting a disproportionate part of the revenue pie would be typical PSU want-cake-and-eat-it-too PSU drivel. But I'm not sure anybody took him seriously, especially not after Syracuse joined the Big East. The 2-for-1 thing ("Can't people help us out? We got a lotta programs up heah.") was limited to football scheduling as an independent.
You are correct, the 2-1 scheduling thing came after his conference fell apart. In fact that was one of the reasons he used to justify asking for it. "Well if you would have agreed to the conference then we'd be playing 1-1 all the time."
The real telling thing is that no other school got on board and helped champion Paterno's proposal. Not a one. Not West Virginia. Not Syracuse. Not BC. Not Rutgers. No one wanted it. Except the guy who would have been the biggest beneficiary of it, of course.
