James Franklin defeats a top 10 team
- Thread starter Psugo823
- Start date
Lol true but we should finish 7 or 8 anyway..
So, is this a GOOD WIN, or not?? Someone please let me know.
Excellent win that sets us up for a playoff run next year.
WE DESERVE BETTER
A good win congratulations. OSU squeaked by Utah last year. PSU won much more convincingly. Utah is a good program.
i'm here to tell you it's a good win
. landomando burando will find a way to minimize it(bowl games are meaning less), but it's a great win. notice we haven't heard much from coach wally cleaver tonight !!!!
Were you in there with him? How do you know he didn't just have to go #1 really badly? I hope he washed his hands afterward, either way. That's an expensive #2 if you're right, probably costing the team 7 points. It contributed to us hitting the over at the end of the game, which probably cost some bettors a lot of money as well. Franklin needs to add something to the binder about this so it doesn't happen again.
It was a good win, but now that Utah has 4 losses it's not as good of a win as it looked before the game.
It was a good win, but now that Utah has 4 losses it's not as good of a win as it looked before the game.
But why not? They were the best numerous loss number 7 team in the country.😲
An Ohio St fan pretending to be a PSU fan would do just that
Go to your Ohio St board and pimp your team that closed the season with 2 consecutive losses. Notre dame was absolutely terrible to start the year. Marshall beat them at home the very next week. PSU beat a top 10 team that had just won the PAC championship.
The pitters hate Penn State a lot more than they like their own team. They are willing to claim that their team sucks just to attempt to prove that Penn State's Rose Bowl victory was tainted. pitt fans are pathetic.
Great win, I thought PSU was well coached all season, sans Michigan.
The erratic number of changes to the offensive coordinator and offensive position coaches contributed to instability the past few seasons. Not making excuses, because you need to perform regardless but let's just say it certainly didn't help.
The erratic number of changes to the offensive coordinator and offensive position coaches contributed to instability the past few seasons. Not making excuses, because you need to perform regardless but let's just say it certainly didn't help.
If both teams played to win, then it's meaningful by definition.
In a meaningless bowl game but that's beside the point. The comment I replies to said it matters where they're ranked when you play them which is wrong.
It isn't. The season ended for us at 10-2. This was a reward for guys to get some swag and, for some of them, play one final time while for others it was an opportunity to get experience for next year. Great scrimmage....lots of good things and showed some thing we need to clean up. The extra practices were also a benefit.
What you seem to be missing is that the sport itself, and the competitiveness on the field, is meaningful. If you don't appreciate that, then why are you a fan? And if that's not enough for you, then how about the fact that this is the highest quality opponent we beat this year? It says something about how good a team we are. Unless you're telling me that Utah wasn't trying, then you can't dispute that.
This, I believe, is a very important benefit of PSU winning the Rose Bowl: the players psyche and confidence in going up against a physical team, and beating them rather soundly. The mental game matters - and now all the returning players know they can beat a physical, grinding type of team. No one is discussing this aspect of the win, but I think it will pay dividends next season.
It's a scrimmage. We have no idea if the outcome is the same if it truly mattered
Why are the rankings adjusted based on the outcome of a "scrimmage?" Why are the QB's not protected in this game and subjected to career-ending injury if it's just a scrimmage?
Because they want fans to spend money on the games and watch
For the record, I think we're better than Utah and other teams (like Clemson) but bowls dont prove that.
The rankings are not that important early in the year because no one really knows how good a team is and the rankings are just based on eye tests. Purdue is a good example. But by game 7-8, it’s fairly accurate to determine how good a team is so the ranking at the time the games are played are much more important.
Last edited:
There is a caveat to any game where one of the teams isn't playing at full strength. For example, PSU last year had so many guys sitting out the bowl game that it is impossible to evaluate what that game meant. The same thing can be said of regular season games missed due to injury.
Utah and PSU both had a few players out due to injury and a few players sitting out, but not the huge numbers of players missing that some teams have. Neither team seemed to have a decided advantage from that situation. Based on that it's quite reasonable to say that the bowl game was a good indicator of which team is better.
And if you claim the players don't care and weren't trying, that's BS. The first half scuffles disprove that in a heartbeat.
There is no caveat to anything. They're games after the season that aren't playing for a title. They're glorified scrimmages. I've gone over countless times why players care (last time playing, earning a spot for next year, etc) and competitive nature will always cause what we saw in the first half but bowls do not have meaning in the grand scheme of things. Imagine how much better that game would have been if it was a first round playoff game? Penn State > Utah but a bowl games doesn't prove that. That doesn't mean you and others can't enjoy the win but threads like this were started to claim people are wrong that don't think he can. He has to beat Michigan and Ohio State--has to. Once he does that regularly he'll start getting more credit. Hopefully we start playing some real non-conference teams and he might get a shot there too.
I'm not disagreeing with the general statement here but again that's not what was said. You can't cherry-pick what criteria you use. I know I'm annoying and frustrating because I don't alter it to benefit Penn State but I'm consistent. There isn't a single bowl outcome that I care about outside the playoff. Using Purdue, them getting destroyed yesterday doesn't alter that they were likely our best win this year during the regular season. Not a great win but still our best.
But my post wasn’t about importance of bowl games. It was about granting status to rankings early in the season vs near the end. Which is one reason why you are annoying and frustrating……
The bowl game won't impact that--has zero impact because teams change so drastically now. Believing that is thinking it's still 20 years ago. Michigan and Ohio State will still be ranked ahead of us. USC will still be ranked ahead of us. If Rising comes back Utah will probably be ranked ahead of us. Hell, some people will probably still have A&M ahead of us. It all comes down to how voters think Allar will do. We lack WRs but have an elite ground game with a potentially great defense. Can we score enough if we have to throw the ball next year? If anything playing Allar more this year would have helped us far more than anything else we could have done other than beating Michigan and Ohio State. So, yes, I'm annoying and frustrating for accepting how things actually work
No, it’s because you are totally ignoring my post because you know I am correct.
Do you think Utah tried to win the Rose Bowl?
Unless psu losses and then you act like it was an important game. Do you not cite bowl losses to too 10 teams?
You are assigning your own value system here. You are saying that any non-playoff post-season game doesn't mean anything. This is clearly false (wins and losses as well as team and individual stats COUNT for bowl games)
But if you follow your train of logic, once a team cannot go to the playoff (e.g. they 2 losses) none of their games matter. This is also obviously not true (again, the players care, the coaches care, the fans care, and the stats count).
It would have been better in that PSU would have advanced to the 2nd round. But the game itself would have been the same.
Yes it does. That's the way competitive sports work. They met on the field and PSU won. PSU was the better team.
You mean like scheduling a home and home with an SEC team that has been to the National Championship game in the past 10 years and won the NC in the last 15? And winning both games?
GMAFB.
How did I ignore your post? The only rankings that mattered were the final rankings before the bowl game
THe point is one can't say "we beat them when they were ranked" as an open statement then not use that for everyone.
