"2016" to be added to honor roll
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
Excellent! I'm sure Pitt would love to be a member of the B1G and this should be antagonistic to them. Oh well!
In the spirit of Baron's civility mandate, Penn State should also honor all of Pitt's conference winning teams from last season. Oh wait, that will be an awkward moment of silence.
I'd like to see them remove the 2012 year from the wall (feel free to honor that team within the stadium, but the year being up there doesn't make any sense) and this is the time to do it when putting up a new year.
I have a likely unpopular opinion that I don’t like 2016 added, and I think the most recent season listed should be 1994. Last year was a 3-loss season that included a loss in the bowl game and a loss to Pitt. Big difference between that and 1982. Heck, 1981 was a better year than last year and I don’t want to see that one listed.
I remember watching Vikings games on TV when they were in the Metrodome, and they’d have a listing of playoff seasons on a banner you’d see on FG/EP attempts. I’d just think whoop-dee-doo, what did they really win?
It’s just a matter of preference.
I remember watching Vikings games on TV when they were in the Metrodome, and they’d have a listing of playoff seasons on a banner you’d see on FG/EP attempts. I’d just think whoop-dee-doo, what did they really win?
It’s just a matter of preference.
You don't have an unpopular opinion - it just doesn't follow any logic.
In 1994 - what did we win? The Big 10 championship.
What did we win in 2005, 2008 and 2016? The Big 10 championship.
The only difference is that in 1994 we went undefeated. By your logic only teams that went undefeated should be on the wall. Guess you'll have to take down 1982 then b/c we went 11-1. Take down 1947 b/c we were 9-0-1 that year. Take down 1921 8-0-2, 1920 7-0-2, 1911 8-0-1 and 1909 5-0-2. Finally take down 1894 b/c we were 6-0-1.
Your photo should be published and named the Rodney Erickson wall of Shame.Add it to the wall.
So winning the Big 10 championship is lowering the bar to you? Guess Franklin and the team shouldn't have accepted the trophy in Indy. He should have said, "ya know what - we lost 2 games this year, we might lose the bowl game, so we don't deserve this trophy." and tossed it in the trash.
In essence you're suggesting that unless we go undefeated and win the national championship, there should be no celebration or recognition of the team and their accomplishments.
Sorry, but that's just silly. We won the conference after winning the conference championship game. This wasn't some season where we finished 5-3 in the conference but because of all kinds of upsets finished in a 4 way tie for first and claim the championship. We are the undisputed, sole B1G Champions for 2016. If recognizing that is "lowering the bar" then I have no idea what would satisfy you.
I think you might be trying just a tad too hard to show how smart you are by taking a ridiculously contrarian position.
....the 2012 team is the reason why we even have a team today.
2012 should be up there bolded/underlined/italicized.
Boy, really couldn't disagree with you more. I think a very compelling argument can be made that 2012 is the MOST important year listed. Quite literally, the future of Penn State football hung in the balance. If 50 kids decide to leave during the absurd "free agency" period in 2012, there's no team and maybe no program for years and then, never the same again. Enough attention cannot be paid to that very special team IMHO.
I agree with you. I never understood the meaning of the years on the suites. Is there any real criteria? Though '94 might be out best team ever, I would be hesitant to even have that on the box. To me, the only 2 years listed should be 1982 and 1986.
Maybe below those 2 should be 1994, 2005, 2008, 2016 for conference championships.
Well you can boo lustily on September 9 when "2016" is revealed. Have fun with that.
These make far more sense. Personally, I would even like to see something similar to what Oklahoma has, honoring the total number of All-Americans. These all have clear headings of what the years are for. We have what? Any year someone deems as memorable?
Why would I boo? You might want to reread the last sentence of the post you replied to.
Agreed. Simply replace the 2 with a 6.
I respect the hell out of everyone involved with that 2012 team. But it wasn't a Championship team. They don't belong up there with our other Championship teams.
Not sure what I misread. You said you agreed with someone who questioned why PSU put years up to commemorate certain teams. You questioned having 1994 listed, even though that was an undefeated team that won PSU's first B1G championship. Given what you wrote, I can only guess that you'll be very upset seeing 2016 unveiled so I figured you would react accordingly.
I would most like to see just the 2 National Championships, however, wouldn't be opposed to B1G championships listed below or in smaller font. You know, because Conference Championships don't measure up to National Championships.
Why should an 8-4 season with losses to Ohio U and UVA be listed amongst championship seasons?
My point is, there's no standard criteria and it's apparently circumstantial. A fan of another team or even a lot of PSU fans don't know what some of those years are doing on the suites.
If a Penn State fan doesn't know what 2012 is doing on the suites, then they've been asleep for 5 years and their opinion is worthless. In the grand scheme of things, 2012 is AT LEAST as important as any championship team PSU has ever had, IMHO.
To each their own. That's a huge slap in the face to all teams who have won a national title though.
Other major programs recognize championships. We recognize "memorable years".
It would be nice if we didn't engage in such goofy s**t
How in the world is it a slap in the face to the 1982 and 1986 teams to recognize the team that literally saved Penn State football? That is not hyperbole, there is no program today if that 2012 team falls apart and they all transfer. I'm at a loss as to how any Penn State fan can minimize the contribution of that team. Maybe you're who Emmert was talking about when he said we only care about winning.
"Saved Penn State football"? I think you're trying a bit too hard to add dramatic effect. No doubt the team deserves a ton of credit. But, players stick with teams all time who are under sanctions (See Ohio State's 2012 undefeated season). It isn't that easy to just leave schools and begin somewhere new. A few players on the team left and it's certainly debatable whether they benefitted from their decision or not.
But, since you seem to have all answers, why isn't the 2014 season on the box? The team won a game in Ireland, first season with a black head coach, and beat BC in a bowl game in the first seasons post-sanctions. Certainly very memorable!
And what did the 2016 team do? Win a Big Ten Championship. Let's acknowledge and celebrate it.
PS4814 wrote: You don't have an unpopular opinion - it just doesn't follow any logic.
So you say let’s examine logic later.
PS4814 wrote: In 1994 - what did we win?
Uhhh…”we” won all the games played, although my contribution only consisted of viewing from the stands or TV.
PS4814 wrote: What did we win in 2005, 2008 and 2016? The Big 10 championship.
Well, two of those years “we” didn’t win the last game played, toss in another one or two along the way also. Want to have a plaque somewhere listing conference championships, fine. PSUoh provided good examples with how OU and the Illini differentiate meanings with their displays.
PS4814 wrote: The only difference is that in 1994 we went undefeated.
That’s all? Just a difference of a piddly 3 games? Does that mean 7-6 should be listed up there if the necessary combination of wins were to occur? Let’s bring back talk of lowering expectations then.
PS4814 wrote: By your logic
I did not list my logic. You created something in your mind
PS4814 wrote: only teams that went undefeated should be on the wall. Guess you'll have to take down 1982 then b/c we went 11-1.Take down 1947 b/c we were 9-0-1 that year. Take down 1921 8-0-2, 1920 7-0-2, 1911 8-0-1 and 1909 5-0-2. Finally take down 1894 b/c we were 6-0-1.
Now let’s revisit logic, you wrote undefeated and then listed a bunch of undefeated teams to be taken down. Do you understand the meaning of the word logic?
As for 1982, I would most certainly list that season. I can’t help you if you don’t understand.
So you say let’s examine logic later.
PS4814 wrote: In 1994 - what did we win?
Uhhh…”we” won all the games played, although my contribution only consisted of viewing from the stands or TV.
PS4814 wrote: What did we win in 2005, 2008 and 2016? The Big 10 championship.
Well, two of those years “we” didn’t win the last game played, toss in another one or two along the way also. Want to have a plaque somewhere listing conference championships, fine. PSUoh provided good examples with how OU and the Illini differentiate meanings with their displays.
PS4814 wrote: The only difference is that in 1994 we went undefeated.
That’s all? Just a difference of a piddly 3 games? Does that mean 7-6 should be listed up there if the necessary combination of wins were to occur? Let’s bring back talk of lowering expectations then.
PS4814 wrote: By your logic
I did not list my logic. You created something in your mind
PS4814 wrote: only teams that went undefeated should be on the wall. Guess you'll have to take down 1982 then b/c we went 11-1.Take down 1947 b/c we were 9-0-1 that year. Take down 1921 8-0-2, 1920 7-0-2, 1911 8-0-1 and 1909 5-0-2. Finally take down 1894 b/c we were 6-0-1.
Now let’s revisit logic, you wrote undefeated and then listed a bunch of undefeated teams to be taken down. Do you understand the meaning of the word logic?
As for 1982, I would most certainly list that season. I can’t help you if you don’t understand.
Ah, I thought you were serious. It seems you're just flinging poo and seeing what might stick. Comparing the sanctions PSU was under to ANY other school's sanctions is a fatal flaw in your analysis. What those kids in 2012 were presented with has never before (and will never again) been an option...leave and be eligible to play immediately. Stay and never play in a bowl game, never play for a championship and play on teams with greatly reduced number of scholarship players. 40 kids transfer (and remember, it's about 6 weeks before the start of the season) and there is no team in 2012. And if there's no team in 2012, the future of the program is very much in doubt. But hey, why should we recognize that group of kids, they lost to Ohio and Virginia.
Who cares? They're all going to be taken down during the stadium rebuild, just wait and see. Time to "move on". Remember? Just another way to erase history.
Last edited:
I'll give it one more shot and try to keep it short.
You can't have it both ways. 1994 won all their games but were not national champs. 1982 were national champs but did not win all their games. So which should be recognized? If only teams that won all their games go up then 1982 comes down. If you include only national championship teams then 1994 comes down.
And the old teams I listed did not win all their games and should be taken down as that was your argument to having 1994 up there, ""Uhhh…”we” won all the games played"".
Last edited:
The criteria is simple: The years, with the exception of 1012, which has been discussed above, represent either undefeated teams, national champion teams, or conference champion teams.
If that is the case, they should be separated or labeled as such. It's aesthetically unpleasing.
PS4814 wrote: I'm coming to understand you're a loon
Are insults the only method you are able to use in a discussion with someone who you don’t agree with?
PS4814 wrote: You can't have it both ways. 1994 won all their games but were not national champs. 1982 were national champs but did not win all their games. So which should be recognized?
It is your prerogative to choose between them. I personally would list them both and nothing I have written to date conflicts with that.
PS4814 wrote: If only teams that won all their games go up then 1982 comes down. If you include only national championship teams then 1994 comes down.
You claim this criteria, not I.
PS4814 wrote:And the old teams I listed did not win all their games and should be taken down
Those teams did not lose, therefore, they were undefeated. Your inability to understand the meaning of the word undefeated is your problem. I made no statement regarding as to whether any of those teams should be listed.
PS4814 wrote: and therefore, your statement was not logical.
Quote my exact statement that you deem not logical, not whatever your imagination is inventing.
Are insults the only method you are able to use in a discussion with someone who you don’t agree with?
PS4814 wrote: You can't have it both ways. 1994 won all their games but were not national champs. 1982 were national champs but did not win all their games. So which should be recognized?
It is your prerogative to choose between them. I personally would list them both and nothing I have written to date conflicts with that.
PS4814 wrote: If only teams that won all their games go up then 1982 comes down. If you include only national championship teams then 1994 comes down.
You claim this criteria, not I.
PS4814 wrote:And the old teams I listed did not win all their games and should be taken down
Those teams did not lose, therefore, they were undefeated. Your inability to understand the meaning of the word undefeated is your problem. I made no statement regarding as to whether any of those teams should be listed.
PS4814 wrote: and therefore, your statement was not logical.
Quote my exact statement that you deem not logical, not whatever your imagination is inventing.
Similar threads
