(03-01-2017 12:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:13 AM)esayem Wrote:  I've thought about who the ACC would have invited in the early 80's if Maryland would have left. I don't think UMd would have for various reasons, and I don't believe I've seen an article from the time where they were seriously mentioned. Anyway, it would have been between South Carolina and Virginia Tech. I've heard people say the ACC was interested in Florida too. FSU was not on the ACC radar in the early 80's.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/25/sports...rence.html

This article mentions Army and Navy were interested in an affiliate membership in an eastern conference that included a 5 game schedule. On a side note, I don't think Villanova would have cast a no vote if they maintained their football program during that time.

The truth is that Florida had a lot of interest in the ACC not the other way around

There were mutual discussions between Florida and the ACC and that's about it. X is practicing a bit of ACC revisionism here.

As to Esayem's remarking that F.S.U. was not on the radar in the early 80's that's very true. Bobby Bowden didn't get there until '77 and it took him a little while of "we'll play anybody anywhere, including their place" before the nation took notice.

This thread is full of all kinds of incorrect assumptions and revisionist history. The situation was a lot more complex than many of you seem to realize. The alliances described in the initial post are all incorrect. That's not what happened at all.

Pitt and Penn State were absolutely, positively not in the same camp and that's what undid the whole thing. That is also how Pitt ended up in the Big East – to block Penn State – and it is why Paterno ended a 100-year-old football series to stick it to the Panthers.

You cannot discuss the situation without understanding the bitter hatred that exists between those two schools and has for decades. It is a very unique rivalry in that there is zero respect for the other side by either school. Personally, I think that's a real shame but that is the culture of that rivalry. It is a way more bitter rivalry than people outside of it realize – especially at that time.

Of course, how you view the situation is largely dependent on the school for which you cheer. However, I can tell you that the part that never gets enough discussion is how Penn State resigned from the Eastern 8 at the 1978 league meetings. That was a big deal and people always just gloss right over it.

Basically, to make a long story short, Joe Paterno, who at the time was Penn State's official athletic director rather than just their de facto athletic director, as he would be for the rest of his life; was frustrated with certain elements of the league and was throwing his weight around regarding some rules changes. He essentially told the assembled group that if they did not make certain rules changes – which I believe had to do with eligibility – Penn State was leaving the league and going independent in all sports – just like Notre Dame at the time.

Well, they had a vote and the vote went against Penn State's wishes. True to his word, Paterno immediately withdrew Penn State from the conference. However, they did it by slipping the resignation announcement press release under the doors of the assembled media and league membership as they were sleeping. It was very much like the Mayflower moving truck incident regarding the Baltimore Colts...and it pissed off a LOT of people and eroded a ton of trust.

So you can imagine when three or four years later that same GOOF is talking about forming an all sports league how little appetite the rest of the schools had to partner with this maniac who had already proven that he was not going to be shy about throwing his weight around or nuking the whole thing if things didn't go his way.

I am telling you from a Pitt perspective that was a huge issue. They did not trust Paterno at all...at all!

Then, the terms started to leak out and it had nothing to do with egos. It was about business and what Paterno was proposing would've been great business for Penn State but terrible business for everyone else.

Penn State did not want to share any football money but they wanted to divide basketball money equally. Well, they played in tiny Rec Hall, which seats about 4,000 people. You can imagine the appetite Syracuse – which played in a brand-new dome that seats 30,000 people – had for such a partnership.

It would've been like the Texas situation on steroids and it would not have been sustainable. It would've choked the life out of every other team in the East.

I want to vomit when I hear people talk about this issue because it's like everyone involved was a buffoon who didn't see what was happening. Everyone saw where things were headed. They just did not have a mechanism to capitalize on that. However, there have been very few surprises to emerge from all this.

Also, there seems to be this prevailing myth that Penn State somehow emerged from this era and grew to become the most powerful program involved. That is offensively wrong. They were ALWAYS the wealthiest, most powerful program in the Northeast long before the all sports league discussion even began.

Had he proposed a league that was structured like every other major conference at the time, there would be an all sports conference in the Northeast. I will guarantee you that. Similarly I will guarantee you that if the other schools had capitulated to his demands, they would all be one FCS programs by now.

As for the alliances: it was basically Penn State all by itself. However, West Virginia, Rutgers and Temple were all extremely interested in doing an all sports conference and were willing to grant some of these demands. None of them had any other options. Maryland was said to be on the fence.

Boston College in Syracuse were already in the Big East, which at the time was in its infancy but was already showing remarkable promise. That left Pitt to basically decide the fate of the league and Pitt opted to join the Big East primarily because it did not like the proposed financial structure and because they simply did not trust Paterno.

What's incredible about the whole thing is that for decades thereafter Pitt was always destroyed during this conversation in college football communities and the media as being the idiots who screwed up the whole thing.

Joe Paterno was always portrayed as the victim in this whole deal. He was always cast as the visionary leader whose followers were too dim to fully comprehend the brilliance of his vision.

Also, when the question of ethics came up, people would incredulously ask you what you were talking about. After all, he was the most ethical and honest man in college athletics. Why wouldn't you trust him?

However, the events of the past few years have cast him in an entirely different light – a much more accurate light than the sainted version he always preferred – and it has changed this discussion as well.

Suddenly, people see those concerns not as the jealous barbs of an old rival but maybe valid reasonable concerns given everything else they have now read about the grandfatherly figure with an acute awareness and keen interest in how he was perceived.

I happen to know somebody who was very intimately involved in those discussions and he has detested Paterno ever since. He thought Paterno was the most arrogant and phony person he had ever done business with. My friend is a very mild mannered man and doesn't have too many bad things to say about too many people. However, I am telling you, for 40 years now, he has hated Joe Paterno. I happen to believe my friend.

One night, many years ago, we were having dinner and I asked him if he would consider writing a book on the matter. I told him I thought it would sell very well. I think it would be fascinating – especially in this era of duplicity and seemingly never ending conference realignment.

However, he said he has no interest in ever talking about that entire fiasco. He described his conversations as a complete nightmare on every front and he has no desire whatsoever to revisit those talks.

Also, just to be clear, he does not solely blame Paterno for ruining the whole thing. He thought every school involved – including Pitt – went into those conversations with exactly the wrong mentality. They were all Independents at the time and they were still thinking very much as independents going into those discussions. They were not looking to form a conference as much as they were looking into forming what amounted to a scheduling alliance – at least in football – and that simply doesn't work.

(03-01-2017 11:18 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I happen to know somebody who was very intimately involved in those discussions and he has detested Paterno ever since. He thought Paterno was the most arrogant and phony person he had ever done business with. My friend is a very mild mannered man and doesn't have too many bad things to say about too many people. However, I am telling you, for 40 years now, he has hated Joe Paterno. I happen to believe my friend.

One night, many years ago, we were having dinner and I asked him if he would consider writing a book on the matter. I told him I thought it would sell very well. I think it would be fascinating – especially in this era of duplicity and seemingly never ending conference realignment.

However, he said he has no interest in ever talking about that entire fiasco. He described his conversations as a complete nightmare on every front and he has no desire whatsoever to revisit those talks.

Also, just to be clear, he does not solely blame Paterno for ruining the whole thing. He thought every school involved – including Pitt – went into those conversations with exactly the wrong mentality. They were all Independents at the time and they were still thinking very much as independents going into those discussions. They were not looking to form a conference as much as they were looking into forming what amounted to a scheduling alliance – at least in football – and that simply doesn't work.

Dr. - Your comments are completely consistent with mine, just more detailed. Thanks for this additional gloss.

(02-28-2017 01:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Fortunately, Pittsburgh shared your general opinion of Joe Pa even then. Even if nobody knew how truly unscrupulous he was, folks did know how arrogant he was and didn't want to give it greater license.

As far as "thinking as independents," when the NCAA and the CFA were negotiating TV deals, football independents had little need for a conference. They were already part of a larger package. It was only when the CFA broke down that it became clear that conference membership in football would be a necessity.

It does seem that some posts in this thread are wistful about the JoePa conference, as if its creation would have avoided further conference realignment. I don't believe that for a moment. PSU would have ended up in the B1G sooner or later.

From my perspective as a Syracuse fan, while nerve wracking at times, realignment has played out very well. There is no way I would want to trade playing Big East basketball in the 1980's for the JoePa conference. SU also returned to prominence in football as an independent during the 1980's, so no complaints there either. It's all just a somewhat interesting "what if?".

(03-02-2017 08:33 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:18 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I happen to know somebody who was very intimately involved in those discussions and he has detested Paterno ever since. He thought Paterno was the most arrogant and phony person he had ever done business with. My friend is a very mild mannered man and doesn't have too many bad things to say about too many people. However, I am telling you, for 40 years now, he has hated Joe Paterno. I happen to believe my friend.

One night, many years ago, we were having dinner and I asked him if he would consider writing a book on the matter. I told him I thought it would sell very well. I think it would be fascinating – especially in this era of duplicity and seemingly never ending conference realignment.

However, he said he has no interest in ever talking about that entire fiasco. He described his conversations as a complete nightmare on every front and he has no desire whatsoever to revisit those talks.

Also, just to be clear, he does not solely blame Paterno for ruining the whole thing. He thought every school involved – including Pitt – went into those conversations with exactly the wrong mentality. They were all Independents at the time and they were still thinking very much as independents going into those discussions. They were not looking to form a conference as much as they were looking into forming what amounted to a scheduling alliance – at least in football – and that simply doesn't work.

Dr. - Your comments are completely consistent with mine, just more detailed. Thanks for this additional gloss.

(02-28-2017 01:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Fortunately, Pittsburgh shared your general opinion of Joe Pa even then. Even if nobody knew how truly unscrupulous he was, folks did know how arrogant he was and didn't want to give it greater license.

As far as "thinking as independents," when the NCAA and the CFA were negotiating TV deals, football independents had little need for a conference. They were already part of a larger package. It was only when the CFA broke down that it became clear that conference membership in football would be a necessity.

It does seem that some posts in this thread are wistful about the JoePa conference, as if its creation would have avoided further conference realignment. I don't believe that for a moment. PSU would have ended up in the B1G sooner or later.

From my perspective as a Syracuse fan, while nerve wracking at times, realignment has played out very well. There is no way I would want to trade playing Big East basketball in the 1980's for the JoePa conference. SU also returned to prominence in football as an independent during the 1980's, so no complaints there either. It's all just a somewhat interesting "what if?".

Same here. I wasn't trying to cast any negativity toward Pitt -- I knew that the revenue sharing favored State Penn heavily, and the move to that conference wasn't a great one.

Along the lines of "What Ifs?" I wonder how Rutgers basketball fortunes would have been different if we had gone into the Big East on formation -- more than anything else, it was Fred Gruninger's biggest blunder of his tenure (and there were a lot to choose from). We were quite good back in the late 70s and perhaps we would have kept momentum (i.e. better recruiting in the better conference with TV exposure, Tom Young stays and we don't have train wreck after train wreck hired as a coach).

And the biggest regret out of all the realignment is that the former Eastern Independent/Lambert schools are spread out among 4 conferences instead of playing each other.

Orangefan, we can't really say if the creation of Paterno's conference would have stemmed off further realignment. It could have kept the Eastern Independents together at the detriment of Big East Basketball. Many of us had peaks and valleys in the last 30 years, but a conference of PSU, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and possibly FSU or Miami would have done well in football, and Syracuse, Temple, Pitt, Louisville (if invited) would have been a good draw on the basketball side. It could have kept the conference together if PSU didn't leave for the Big 10. Paterno would have had to change the revenue sharing terms for it to work.

The football fan in me would have loved it, however there was nothing better than 80s Big East basketball, and the hoops fan in me looked forward to those games even though I was personally looking at it from the outside.

(03-01-2017 11:18 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  This thread is full of all kinds of incorrect assumptions and revisionist history. The situation was a lot more complex than many of you seem to realize. The alliances described in the initial post are all incorrect. That's not what happened at all.

Pitt and Penn State were absolutely, positively not in the same camp and that's what undid the whole thing. That is also how Pitt ended up in the Big East – to block Penn State – and it is why Paterno ended a 100-year-old football series to stick it to the Panthers.

You cannot discuss the situation without understanding the bitter hatred that exists between those two schools and has for decades. It is a very unique rivalry in that there is zero respect for the other side by either school. Personally, I think that's a real shame but that is the culture of that rivalry. It is a way more bitter rivalry than people outside of it realize – especially at that time.

Of course, how you view the situation is largely dependent on the school for which you cheer. However, I can tell you that the part that never gets enough discussion is how Penn State resigned from the Eastern 8 at the 1978 league meetings. That was a big deal and people always just gloss right over it.

Basically, to make a long story short, Joe Paterno, who at the time was Penn State's official athletic director rather than just their de facto athletic director, as he would be for the rest of his life; was frustrated with certain elements of the league and was throwing his weight around regarding some rules changes. He essentially told the assembled group that if they did not make certain rules changes – which I believe had to do with eligibility – Penn State was leaving the league and going independent in all sports – just like Notre Dame at the time.

Well, they had a vote and the vote went against Penn State's wishes. True to his word, Paterno immediately withdrew Penn State from the conference. However, they did it by slipping the resignation announcement press release under the doors of the assembled media and league membership as they were sleeping. It was very much like the Mayflower moving truck incident regarding the Baltimore Colts...and it pissed off a LOT of people and eroded a ton of trust.

So you can imagine when three or four years later that same GOOF is talking about forming an all sports league how little appetite the rest of the schools had to partner with this maniac who had already proven that he was not going to be shy about throwing his weight around or nuking the whole thing if things didn't go his way.

I am telling you from a Pitt perspective that was a huge issue. They did not trust Paterno at all...at all!

Then, the terms started to leak out and it had nothing to do with egos. It was about business and what Paterno was proposing would've been great business for Penn State but terrible business for everyone else.

Penn State did not want to share any football money but they wanted to divide basketball money equally. Well, they played in tiny Rec Hall, which seats about 4,000 people. You can imagine the appetite Syracuse – which played in a brand-new dome that seats 30,000 people – had for such a partnership.

It would've been like the Texas situation on steroids and it would not have been sustainable. It would've choked the life out of every other team in the East.

I want to vomit when I hear people talk about this issue because it's like everyone involved was a buffoon who didn't see what was happening. Everyone saw where things were headed. They just did not have a mechanism to capitalize on that. However, there have been very few surprises to emerge from all this.

Also, there seems to be this prevailing myth that Penn State somehow emerged from this era and grew to become the most powerful program involved. That is offensively wrong. They were ALWAYS the wealthiest, most powerful program in the Northeast long before the all sports league discussion even began.

Had he proposed a league that was structured like every other major conference at the time, there would be an all sports conference in the Northeast. I will guarantee you that. Similarly I will guarantee you that if the other schools had capitulated to his demands, they would all be one FCS programs by now.

As for the alliances: it was basically Penn State all by itself. However, West Virginia, Rutgers and Temple were all extremely interested in doing an all sports conference and were willing to grant some of these demands. None of them had any other options. Maryland was said to be on the fence.

Boston College in Syracuse were already in the Big East, which at the time was in its infancy but was already showing remarkable promise. That left Pitt to basically decide the fate of the league and Pitt opted to join the Big East primarily because it did not like the proposed financial structure and because they simply did not trust Paterno.

What's incredible about the whole thing is that for decades thereafter Pitt was always destroyed during this conversation in college football communities and the media as being the idiots who screwed up the whole thing.

Joe Paterno was always portrayed as the victim in this whole deal. He was always cast as the visionary leader whose followers were too dim to fully comprehend the brilliance of his vision.

Also, when the question of ethics came up, people would incredulously ask you what you were talking about. After all, he was the most ethical and honest man in college athletics. Why wouldn't you trust him?

However, the events of the past few years have cast him in an entirely different light – a much more accurate light than the sainted version he always preferred – and it has changed this discussion as well.

Suddenly, people see those concerns not as the jealous barbs of an old rival but maybe valid reasonable concerns given everything else they have now read about the grandfatherly figure with an acute awareness and keen interest in how he was perceived.

I happen to know somebody who was very intimately involved in those discussions and he has detested Paterno ever since. He thought Paterno was the most arrogant and phony person he had ever done business with. My friend is a very mild mannered man and doesn't have too many bad things to say about too many people. However, I am telling you, for 40 years now, he has hated Joe Paterno. I happen to believe my friend.

One night, many years ago, we were having dinner and I asked him if he would consider writing a book on the matter. I told him I thought it would sell very well. I think it would be fascinating – especially in this era of duplicity and seemingly never ending conference realignment.

However, he said he has no interest in ever talking about that entire fiasco. He described his conversations as a complete nightmare on every front and he has no desire whatsoever to revisit those talks.

Also, just to be clear, he does not solely blame Paterno for ruining the whole thing. He thought every school involved – including Pitt – went into those conversations with exactly the wrong mentality. They were all Independents at the time and they were still thinking very much as independents going into those discussions. They were not looking to form a conference as much as they were looking into forming what amounted to a scheduling alliance – at least in football – and that simply doesn't work.

This is largely how this Western Pennsylvania native recalls those events.

(03-03-2017 11:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  This is largely how this Western Pennsylvania native recalls those events.

Yep.

Also why I personally have no interest in an ACC with Penn State in it. The arrogance and attitudes that emanated from Paterno infect the whole institution, as their child rape coverup demonstrated. The stories in the non-brainwashed athletic circles in central PA would curl your toes as to what has gone on up there.

(03-03-2017 01:00 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The arrogance and attitudes that emanated from Paterno infect the whole institution, as their child rape coverup demonstrated.

This might have been true at a time. But isn't true today.

Penn State is a world class research university, and very much has earned its place in the top research, athletic conference in the nation, the Big Ten.

(03-03-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2017 01:00 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The arrogance and attitudes that emanated from Paterno infect the whole institution, as their child rape coverup demonstrated.

This might have been true at a time. But isn't true today.

Penn State is a world class research university, and very much has earned its place in the top research, athletic conference in the nation, the Big Ten.

It actually is very true today.

Their research output and funding have nothing to do with the deep seated cultural and institutional problems.

(03-03-2017 01:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  It actually is very true today.

... nothing to do with the deep seated cultural and institutional problems.

I think you're lying.

For some reason, you wish Paterno was still alive, so you'd have something to justify your hatred that stems from the 80's, 90's, and 2000's, but is irrelevant to today.

(03-03-2017 01:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-03-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2017 01:00 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The arrogance and attitudes that emanated from Paterno infect the whole institution, as their child rape coverup demonstrated.

This might have been true at a time. But isn't true today.

Penn State is a world class research university, and very much has earned its place in the top research, athletic conference in the nation, the Big Ten.

It actually is very true today.

Their research output and funding have nothing to do with the deep seated cultural and institutional problems.

It's especially true today - more than in the past.

(03-03-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2017 01:00 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The arrogance and attitudes that emanated from Paterno infect the whole institution, as their child rape coverup demonstrated.

This might have been true at a time. But isn't true today.

Penn State is a world class research university, and very much has earned its place in the top research, athletic conference in the nation, the Big Ten.

If you think the Penn State community has learned anything through the child rape scandal, then you clearly have not been being attention.

They honestly believe they are victims in all this and that nobody has been more victimized than Joe Paterno. I'm not kidding – that's honestly what those lunatics think.

My wife and I were at a wedding a few years ago in York, PA and during the father of the bride speech, the bride's father spent five minutes talking about how proud he was of his daughter to go to a world class institution like Penn State. He talked about it like she had graduated from Harvard. I whispered to my wife, "He realizes that Caitlyn went to Penn State and not Penn, right?"

She just gave me that disapproving look that she always gives me.

Then, this BONEHEAD spent the remainder of the speech – which seemed like 20 minutes – railing against the NCAA and what they did to "Joe" – like they knew the guy.

Weirder still, it was to thunderous applause from many of those in attendance. It felt like a preacher spreading the good word to his congregation and it was very troubling. The whole thing was just so bizarre because even if he was correct in his defiance, it was completely out of place to do it there in that setting AT HIS ONLY DAUGHTER'S WEDDING!

The fact that he was wildly incorrect made it all the more distasteful.

My wife is a proud Penn State alum but she's one of those ultra rare ones who is not insane when it comes to discussing her alma mater. That is to say that she can still be proud of it without burying her head in the sand or pretending that it is something that it is not.

I'm telling you that is not a common trait. It's kind of like marrying a grounded Scientologist.

She just kept grabbing my leg the whole time imploring me not to interject. Finally, after the wedding, we were all sitting around a smaller table talking about all sorts of things when the subject again came up and it was more of the same propaganda nonsense. It was like listening to North Koreans talk about global politics. It was incredibly tone deaf.

I held off as long as I could and then I finally went off on the husbands of one of her friends. I just told him the truth and as you can imagine it went over like a lead balloon.

He and others tried to debate it at first but it was a savage beating. It was terrible and made for a very awkward rest of the way.

The next morning, we went down to breakfast and we ran into a lot of the same people and they would not even look at me. That was palpable tension in the room - but I did not care and neither did my wife because it was getting way out of hand.

We have never been invited on a group trip ever since and that's probably for the best. I would never back down on that issue – even in deference to my wife. Child rape is just too repugnant to remain polite and silent over and I don't give a living shitt about their venerable football coach's tarnished reputation.

For years, I remained polite and silent while they fellated the guy at every turn and treated him more like a deity than a football coach. However, once it became about something more than horseshitt slogans and public relations ploys, and involved hurting children in the name of keeping up that charade, I no longer felt compelled to remain polite and turn the other cheek. At that point, it was time for some truth bombs to be dropped on Paternostad, regardless of how the Al Joe-zeera propaganda network handled it.

(03-04-2017 08:33 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(03-03-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2017 01:00 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The arrogance and attitudes that emanated from Paterno infect the whole institution, as their child rape coverup demonstrated.

This might have been true at a time. But isn't true today.

Penn State is a world class research university, and very much has earned its place in the top research, athletic conference in the nation, the Big Ten.

If you think the Penn State community has learned anything through the child rape scandal, then you clearly have not been being attention.

They honestly believe they are victims in all this and that nobody has been more victimized than Joe Paterno. I'm not kidding – that's honestly what those lunatics think.

My wife and I were at a wedding a few years ago in York, PA and during the father of the bride speech, the bride's father spent five minutes talking about how proud he was of his daughter to go to a world class institution like Penn State. He talked about it like she had graduated from Harvard. I whispered to my wife, "He realizes that Caitlyn went to Penn State and not Penn, right?"

She just gave me that disapproving look that she always gives me.

Then, this BONEHEAD spent the remainder of the speech – which seemed like 20 minutes – railing against the NCAA and what they did to "Joe" – like they knew the guy.

Weirder still, it was to thunderous applause from many of those in attendance. It felt like a preacher spreading the good word to his congregation and it was very troubling. The whole thing was just so bizarre because even if he was correct in his defiance, it was completely out of place to do it there in that setting AT HIS ONLY DAUGHTER'S WEDDING!

The fact that he was wildly incorrect made it all the more distasteful.

My wife is a proud Penn State alum but she's one of those ultra rare ones who is not insane when it comes to discussing her alma mater. That is to say that she can still be proud of it without burying her head in the sand or pretending that it is something that it is not.

I'm telling you that is not a common trait. It's kind of like marrying a grounded Scientologist.

She just kept grabbing my leg the whole time imploring me not to interject. Finally, after the wedding, we were all sitting around a smaller table talking about all sorts of things when the subject again came up and it was more of the same propaganda nonsense. It was like listening to North Koreans talk about global politics. It was incredibly tone deaf.

I held off as long as I could and then I finally went off on the husbands of one of her friends. I just told him the truth and as you can imagine it went over like a lead balloon.

He and others tried to debate it at first but it was a savage beating. It was terrible and made for a very awkward rest of the way.

The next morning, we went down to breakfast and we ran into a lot of the same people and they would not even look at me. That was palpable tension in the room - but I did not care and neither did my wife because it was getting way out of hand.

We have never been invited on a group trip ever since and that's probably for the best. I would never back down on that issue – even in deference to my wife. Child rape is just too repugnant to remain polite and silent over and I don't give a living shitt about their venerable football coach's tarnished reputation.

For years, I remained polite and silent while they fellated the guy at every turn and treated him more like a deity than a football coach. However, once it became about something more than horseshitt slogans and public relations ploys, and involved hurting children in the name of keeping up that charade, I no longer felt compelled to remain polite and turn the other cheek. At that point, it was time for some truth bombs to be dropped on Paternostad, regardless of how the Al Joe-zeera propaganda network handled it.

It's astonishing how accurate this is.

I'm a PSU alum who grew up a PSU fan, so I've seen it all first hand. It's truly bizarre, and the PSU faithful have turned into a cult now that Joe is seen as a martyr.

I've literally seen PEOPLE (plural) blame the kids.

what is almost as bad is the NCAA doesn't care either. they should have given PSU the stiffest penalty they could, not something that could be appealed and reduced. here we are a couple years later and PSU is able to add a new sport and continue on in FB as if nothing ever happened. the time was worth covering the crime

(03-04-2017 11:42 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  what is almost as bad is the NCAA doesn't care either. they should have given PSU the stiffest penalty they could, not something that could be appealed and reduced. here we are a couple years later and PSU is able to add a new sport and continue on in FB as if nothing ever happened. the time was worth covering the crime

The NCAA is corrupt. It's sad.

I think that my alma mater should have self-imposed a 4 year fb ban. The school needs to find an identity beyond football. I know that decision would not have been popular, but that's what leadership is sometimes - making the unpopular decision for the greater good.

(02-28-2017 03:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 01:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  JoePa's dream Eastern Conference was never ever close to becoming a reality, based upon all the articles I have read. At the time (when the NCAAs controlled the cfb TV contracts), football and basketball monies were more evenly matched. He wanted a larger portion of the proposed leagues football monies but wanted to divide up the basketball monies evenly.

The closest an "Eastern" Conference came to developing was circa 1993/1994 (iirc) when the BE football schools ADs (yes, the AD of the football schools, not the BE commissioner - who couldn't since 6 full members of the conference were not represented while 4 who were not were represented) negotiated a very large initial contract with CBS.

When they brought the contract to the entire Big East (at that time 10 schools) and asked that the football schools not already full members of the BE become so, the basketball schools objected to it, feeling they had already comprised themselves with the addition of Miami as a full member and allowing the football schools to have their own conference using the Big East brand.

The football schools who were full members (Syracuse, BC, Pitt, and Miami), responded to the objection by saying if they rejected the proposal they had a plan to split with the football only members (WVU, VT, Rutgers, and Temple) and form their own conference. At that time the split plan was supposedly to also invite both Louisville and Cincinnati as well, to make it a 10 team conference.

This is the point when Mike Tranghese and the presidents of the full members (both football-centric and basketball-centric) told the ADs to get out of the room and they negotiated the compromise below:

1) WVU and Rutgers could have full membership - leaving VT and Temple swinging in the breeze.

2) the football schools would have to allow UConn and/or Nova to join them if within 5 years they decided to elevate to Div. 1A

3) the football schools would not object to the basketball schools bringing forth another school for membership who does play football on the condition their football was allowed to remain independent (citing the precedent of Miami being allowed to keep its men's baseball independent when they entered the league), even though baseball was a conference sponsored sport (unlike SU and lacrosse and BC and hockey).

4) everyone knew the above #3 was referring to ND.

I honestly think that the football schools thought VT would be invited as a full member when ND was, but that didn't happen until about 5 years later. Not sure why.

Anyway, as others have stated in regards to JoePa's dream conference of the late 70s/early 80s, even if this version of the Eastern Conference had come about the siren call of conference realignment would have dismantled it.

In other words, maybe what is was always meant to be at this moment in time?

Cheers,
Neil

Good description of the events. This link includes an interesting discussion of the 1994 events from Virginia Tech's perspective:
http://virginiatech.sportswar.com/articl...1990-1994/

The Big East had the same sized deal as the SEC did back at that time.

It's very hard to imagine that today.

Also with the CFA and NCAA contracts paying about 1 million per school the payday wasn't much bigger early on for the power conference. It was also the basis of starting out CUSA at about 1 million, though reputation of the metro it sounds like played a factor.

(03-05-2017 07:53 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 03:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 01:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  JoePa's dream Eastern Conference was never ever close to becoming a reality, based upon all the articles I have read. At the time (when the NCAAs controlled the cfb TV contracts), football and basketball monies were more evenly matched. He wanted a larger portion of the proposed leagues football monies but wanted to divide up the basketball monies evenly.

The closest an "Eastern" Conference came to developing was circa 1993/1994 (iirc) when the BE football schools ADs (yes, the AD of the football schools, not the BE commissioner - who couldn't since 6 full members of the conference were not represented while 4 who were not were represented) negotiated a very large initial contract with CBS.

When they brought the contract to the entire Big East (at that time 10 schools) and asked that the football schools not already full members of the BE become so, the basketball schools objected to it, feeling they had already comprised themselves with the addition of Miami as a full member and allowing the football schools to have their own conference using the Big East brand.

The football schools who were full members (Syracuse, BC, Pitt, and Miami), responded to the objection by saying if they rejected the proposal they had a plan to split with the football only members (WVU, VT, Rutgers, and Temple) and form their own conference. At that time the split plan was supposedly to also invite both Louisville and Cincinnati as well, to make it a 10 team conference.

This is the point when Mike Tranghese and the presidents of the full members (both football-centric and basketball-centric) told the ADs to get out of the room and they negotiated the compromise below:

1) WVU and Rutgers could have full membership - leaving VT and Temple swinging in the breeze.

2) the football schools would have to allow UConn and/or Nova to join them if within 5 years they decided to elevate to Div. 1A

3) the football schools would not object to the basketball schools bringing forth another school for membership who does play football on the condition their football was allowed to remain independent (citing the precedent of Miami being allowed to keep its men's baseball independent when they entered the league), even though baseball was a conference sponsored sport (unlike SU and lacrosse and BC and hockey).

4) everyone knew the above #3 was referring to ND.

I honestly think that the football schools thought VT would be invited as a full member when ND was, but that didn't happen until about 5 years later. Not sure why.

Anyway, as others have stated in regards to JoePa's dream conference of the late 70s/early 80s, even if this version of the Eastern Conference had come about the siren call of conference realignment would have dismantled it.

In other words, maybe what is was always meant to be at this moment in time?

Cheers,
Neil

Good description of the events. This link includes an interesting discussion of the 1994 events from Virginia Tech's perspective:
http://virginiatech.sportswar.com/articl...1990-1994/

The Big East had the same sized deal as the SEC did back at that time.

It's very hard to imagine that today.

Also with the CFA and NCAA contracts paying about 1 million per school the payday wasn't much bigger early on for the power conference. It was also the basis of starting out CUSA at about 1 million, though reputation of the metro it sounds like played a factor.

True, that is hard to imagine - today - and for all of this century really. But the Eastern Independents throughout the 80s and even into the early 90s had several good to great programs led of course by Miami, who finished 9, 1, 9, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3 , and 15 from 1980-93.

Pitt was good early in the 80s finishing 2, 4, and 10 in three of those years.

SU was good late 80s through early 90s, finishing 4, 13, 11, and 6.

WVU same time frame as SU finishing 5 and 7.

Even BC had a couple of good years in there finishing 5 and 13.

Then add in the fact that CBS also coveted Big East basketball and it is easy to see why getting money on a par with the SEC was possible. Unfortunately, the football didn't materialize as they had hoped and the basketball began to slide from it's 80s greatness.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-04-2017 08:33 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  that nobody has been more victimized than Joe Paterno.

I don't give a ___ about Paterno. If there was evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed crimes, then he should have been locked up, if he had lived.

(03-04-2017 11:42 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  what is almost as bad is the NCAA doesn't care either. they should have given PSU the stiffest penalty they could

Do you call the NCAA if a regular student gets robbed on campus?? Or the police?

Right. You let the police deal with crimes.


The NCAA is for if a player cheated classes or recruits were given impermissible benefits. Things like that.

(03-05-2017 12:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 08:33 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  that nobody has been more victimized than Joe Paterno.

I don't give a ___ about Paterno. If there was evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed crimes, then he should have been locked up, if he had lived.

(03-04-2017 11:42 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  what is almost as bad is the NCAA doesn't care either. they should have given PSU the stiffest penalty they could

Do you call the NCAA if a regular student gets robbed on campus?? Or the police?

Right. You let the police deal with crimes.


The NCAA is for if a player cheated classes or recruits were given impermissible benefits. Things like that.

The NCAA is an organization. Penn State is an independent, chartered institution. Institutions voluntarily decide to pursue membership in the NCAA and thus voluntarily subject themselves to its collectively construed constitution, rules, bylaws, and enforcement, for which Penn State itself helped to formulate and write. Some of the most fundamental constitutional constructs of the NCAA include mandates on institutional ethical behavior and integrity, oversight, and institutional control, as spelled out in Articles 2.1, 2.4 6.0.1, and 6.4 of the NCAA Constitution, not to mention several additional bylaws. These were deemed to be violated by the NCAA, by Penn State, and by an independent investigator. The NCAA has every right to enforce its constitution, rules, and bylaws on member organizations. What the NCAA has no right to do is prosecute individuals. That is the role of the justice system, and that is why the former university president, vice chancellor, and athletic director are awaiting trial well outside the NCAA's scope.

What Penn State sycophants like yourself don't get and what absolutely appalls the world outside the bubble of the Central PA cult of personality, is it is not about the crimes, it is the decade long coverup extending from Paterno on down to the President's office, athletic director, Vice Chancellor's office; decades of the systematic cover up of anything and everything to do with the school and athletic department, including, but not iin any way limited to, serial child rape, as the historic Clery Act fines levied against the school also help demonstrate. It is almost inevitable that sometime in the future similarly horrific things will happen there again, because despite some decades long overdue policies and rules finally put on the books (things that should deserve less praise than a "why the hell weren't they there 30 years prior"), the priorities and culture of the institution haven't changed one iota.

(03-05-2017 03:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  What the NCAA has no right to do is prosecute individuals. That is the role of the justice system, and that is why the former university president, vice chancellor, and athletic director are awaiting trial well outside the NCAA's scope.

Absolutely correct.

This should be framed, and hung on several posters' walls.


And in my opinion, the former prez, VC, and AD should all go to jail, if there is sufficient evidence proving that they committed crimes (which includes covering up crimes).

(03-05-2017 03:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  it is the decade long coverup extending from Paterno on down to the President's office, athletic director, Vice Chancellor's office; decades of the systematic cover up of anything and everything to do with the school and athletic department, including, but not in any way limited to, serial child rape

In other words: a few individuals took it upon themselves to do incredible things.

Things which a collection of buildings, hundreds of thousands of alumni, thousands of current students, staff, and research faculty, and billions of dollars in endowment funds, gifts, and yearly operating budgets had nothing to do with, have nothing to do with, and will never have anything to do with.

(03-05-2017 03:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  It is almost inevitable that sometime in the future similarly horrific things will happen there again, because despite some decades long overdue policies and rules finally put on the books (things that should deserve less praise than a "why the hell weren't they there 30 years prior"), the priorities and culture of the institution haven't changed one iota.

It is inevitable that sometime in the future, natives or longtime residents of PA who have hated Joe Paterno for many years, will go to any lengths necessary of hand-waiving to make it look like a school, and all that school touches, should be punished because of the incredible actions of a few individuals.

And THAT is sad.

Sad. You exemplify the problems there.

You're exactly the cult member type that von Yinzer was talking about.