So here's the thing

[lowhandicapper]

Agreed. But “possible” and “might be” based on paper has demonstrated to be something very different on the field.

There is still plenty of time remaining in the season for Ohio State to prove they are as great as some think they are.

Until they do, it’s show me time.

I actually believe the Ohio State team has put themselves in the perfect position. They got a loss out early to a top ranked team and haven't peaked yet. When you peak is super important in any sports season. Only 11 national champions this century have finished undefeated. Its less than typical. Very few teams this century have operated like a perfect well oiled machine from season's beginning to end.

 

[lowhandicapper]

Do you ever wonder or think we can pull an upset? Or do you expect and are satisfied with always losing when we are an underdog no matter what?

This staff has obviously done a horrific job of winning games not in our favor on paper. At such a low rate it defies the odds of a typical "upset."
Penn State has the resources and ability to win a third of these games just based on odds and opportunities. They haven't been able to do it. So losing these "winnable" opportunities time and time again has set everything up to have to be a monumental upset at this point. Not being able to pull out 2 or 3 of those one score games over the course of the last 8 years has made the mountain higher to climb instead of more regular to find a way to win.

 

[PurposePitch]

A few days later, after emotions subside, I agree. In fact, I didn't watch the game because I no longer want sports to ruin my day.

You didn't watch a game because watching a game would ruin your day? Wut? So you either don't like the sport anymore, or you're too emotionally fragile to handle an outcome? This is a game fans wait around for, not avoid.

 

[tboyer]

A few days later, after emotions subside, I agree. In fact, I didn't watch the game because I no longer want sports to ruin my day.

• at no time did I expect PSU to beat tOSU this year.
• 
  
• At the same time, a chain is only as good as it's weakest link. Our WR room is vastly inferior to tOSUs. Ours is "OK" while their's is A-. I expected our Freshman to play but he didn't.

Glad to see some logic and good sense getting posted. I too kind of "missed" the tOSU game because I was pretty sure it would turn out the way it did and -- why go through the anguish of it?

* College football is very much a weakest-link sport. You can work around a weak unit, but it will limit the ceiling for a team. A less talented unit creates dominoes that fall and create obstacles for other units. If your receivers can't get separation or have the size and skill to win 50-50 balls, that allows a defense to stay closer to the LOS and clamp down on your running game. Not being able to run the ball limits scores, first downs and hands possessions to your opponent, helping them wear down your defense.

In Franklin's early years the team lacked OL and DL talent and depth. Now it's wideouts. If Ohio State has a weak unit, they usually fix it in a year or two -- they can do that because they're Ohio State. PSU has had trouble with wideout recruiting for 6 years now and just can't seem to fix it. God Franklin has tried, but changing wideout coaches almost every year hasn't fixed the problem.

* There's a really big difference between top 10-15 recruiting (where PSU averages out) and top 3 recruiting. And a big difference between a roster with a $20m NIL budget and whatever PSU's is.

* I've seen this asserted more and more lately and I think it's true -- college football outcomes at the highest level are 80 percent determined by roster -- talent. size, speed, depth. At the VERY highest level games are often decided by 2 or 3 superlative players -- like some of the Alabama QBs or Marvin Harrison. PSU gets lucky sometimes (Barkley, Godwin) but doesn't generally compete for such players.

* Coaching matters but it matters less and less the higher you go. Perfect example was Saturday. Andy Kotelnicki can scheme PSU to wins against top 10-15 teams. But against top 3 teams, schemes work less because players are so good and their athleticism can cancel out whatever advantage comes from creative play design.

* So -- be happy. PSU's a perennial top 10-15 team. PSU is not a national championship contender. Deal with it. A new head coach almost certainly would not magically lift PSU into the top 5 and would be much more likely to see PSU slide down to the lower reaches of the top 25-30.

Franklin is a great recruiter. He gets really good talent. Players love playing for him. But expecting him (or a successor) to win recruiting battles regularly with tOSU, Alabama, Georgia, Texas etc. and assemble a top 5 roster of players -- if you want to be realistic, that probably is not happening, given geography, talent, culture. No PSU coach is going to defy the laws of physics of college football. Of course mathematically possible but realistically it ain't happening. PSU is PSU, Ohio State is Ohio State and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

 

[rmem]

For people that don't watch the actual games, you guys sure post a lot on this board.

 

[mgkpsu]

Glad to see some logic and good sense getting posted. I too kind of "missed" the tOSU game because I was pretty sure it would turn out the way it did and -- why go through the anguish of it?

* College football is very much a weakest-link sport. You can work around a weak unit, but it will limit the ceiling for a team. A less talented unit creates dominoes that fall and create obstacles for other units. If your receivers can't get separation or have the size and skill to win 50-50 balls, that allows a defense to stay closer to the LOS and clamp down on your running game. Not being able to run the ball limits scores, first downs and hands possessions to your opponent, helping them wear down your defense.

In Franklin's early years the team lacked OL and DL talent and depth. Now it's wideouts. If Ohio State has a weak unit, they usually fix it in a year or two -- they can do that because they're Ohio State. PSU has had trouble with wideout recruiting for 6 years now and just can't seem to fix it. God Franklin has tried, but changing wideout coaches almost every year hasn't fixed the problem.

* There's a really big difference between top 10-15 recruiting (where PSU averages out) and top 3 recruiting. And a big difference between a roster with a $20m NIL budget and whatever PSU's is.

* I've seen this asserted more and more lately and I think it's true -- college football outcomes at the highest level are 80 percent determined by roster -- talent. size, speed, depth. At the VERY highest level games are often decided by 2 or 3 superlative players -- like some of the Alabama QBs or Marvin Harrison. PSU gets lucky sometimes (Barkley, Godwin) but doesn't generally compete for such players.

* Coaching matters but it matters less and less the higher you go. Perfect example was Saturday. Andy Kotelnicki can scheme PSU to wins against top 10-15 teams. But against top 3 teams, schemes work less because players are so good and their athleticism can cancel out whatever advantage comes from creative play design.

* So -- be happy. PSU's a perennial top 10-15 team. PSU is not a national championship contender. Deal with it. A new head coach almost certainly would not magically lift PSU into the top 5 and would be much more likely to see PSU slide down to the lower reaches of the top 25-30.

Franklin is a great recruiter. He gets really good talent. Players love playing for him. But expecting him (or a successor) to win recruiting battles regularly with tOSU, Alabama, Georgia, Texas etc. and assemble a top 5 roster of players -- if you want to be realistic, that probably is not happening, given geography, talent, culture. No PSU coach is going to defy the laws of physics of college football. Of course mathematically possible but realistically it ain't happening. PSU is PSU, Ohio State is Ohio State and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

He's not a great recruiter. Please post the class rankings which support this often repeated claim. He's more like a 15-20 guy, which is only OK if he is great at development, which is also around "average".

 

[PurposePitch]

He's not a great recruiter. Please post the class rankings which support this often repeated claim. He's more like a 15-20 guy, which is only OK if he is great at development, which is also around "average".

So he’s a 15-20 recruiter who doesn’t develop kids beyond that 15-20 range, yet we usually finish above the 15-20 range. And I’m sure you don’t think he’s a top 15-20 gameday coach, either. Brilliant!

The math ain’t mathing.

 

[blair10]

Glad to see some logic and good sense getting posted. I too kind of "missed" the tOSU game because I was pretty sure it would turn out the way it did and -- why go through the anguish of it?

* College football is very much a weakest-link sport. You can work around a weak unit, but it will limit the ceiling for a team. A less talented unit creates dominoes that fall and create obstacles for other units. If your receivers can't get separation or have the size and skill to win 50-50 balls, that allows a defense to stay closer to the LOS and clamp down on your running game. Not being able to run the ball limits scores, first downs and hands possessions to your opponent, helping them wear down your defense.

In Franklin's early years the team lacked OL and DL talent and depth. Now it's wideouts. If Ohio State has a weak unit, they usually fix it in a year or two -- they can do that because they're Ohio State. PSU has had trouble with wideout recruiting for 6 years now and just can't seem to fix it. God Franklin has tried, but changing wideout coaches almost every year hasn't fixed the problem.

* There's a really big difference between top 10-15 recruiting (where PSU averages out) and top 3 recruiting. And a big difference between a roster with a $20m NIL budget and whatever PSU's is.

* I've seen this asserted more and more lately and I think it's true -- college football outcomes at the highest level are 80 percent determined by roster -- talent. size, speed, depth. At the VERY highest level games are often decided by 2 or 3 superlative players -- like some of the Alabama QBs or Marvin Harrison. PSU gets lucky sometimes (Barkley, Godwin) but doesn't generally compete for such players.

* Coaching matters but it matters less and less the higher you go. Perfect example was Saturday. Andy Kotelnicki can scheme PSU to wins against top 10-15 teams. But against top 3 teams, schemes work less because players are so good and their athleticism can cancel out whatever advantage comes from creative play design.

* So -- be happy. PSU's a perennial top 10-15 team. PSU is not a national championship contender. Deal with it. A new head coach almost certainly would not magically lift PSU into the top 5 and would be much more likely to see PSU slide down to the lower reaches of the top 25-30.

Franklin is a great recruiter. He gets really good talent. Players love playing for him. But expecting him (or a successor) to win recruiting battles regularly with tOSU, Alabama, Georgia, Texas etc. and assemble a top 5 roster of players -- if you want to be realistic, that probably is not happening, given geography, talent, culture. No PSU coach is going to defy the laws of physics of college football. Of course mathematically possible but realistically it ain't happening. PSU is PSU, Ohio State is Ohio State and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Let me make sure I understand your logic. So, it was NIL and Ohio State’s $20m roster that caused Kotelnicki to have a brain cramp and run 3 consecutive up the middle run plays to lose the game?

 

[blair10]

Glad to see some logic and good sense getting posted. I too kind of "missed" the tOSU game because I was pretty sure it would turn out the way it did and -- why go through the anguish of it?

* College football is very much a weakest-link sport. You can work around a weak unit, but it will limit the ceiling for a team. A less talented unit creates dominoes that fall and create obstacles for other units. If your receivers can't get separation or have the size and skill to win 50-50 balls, that allows a defense to stay closer to the LOS and clamp down on your running game. Not being able to run the ball limits scores, first downs and hands possessions to your opponent, helping them wear down your defense.

In Franklin's early years the team lacked OL and DL talent and depth. Now it's wideouts. If Ohio State has a weak unit, they usually fix it in a year or two -- they can do that because they're Ohio State. PSU has had trouble with wideout recruiting for 6 years now and just can't seem to fix it. God Franklin has tried, but changing wideout coaches almost every year hasn't fixed the problem.

* There's a really big difference between top 10-15 recruiting (where PSU averages out) and top 3 recruiting. And a big difference between a roster with a $20m NIL budget and whatever PSU's is.

* I've seen this asserted more and more lately and I think it's true -- college football outcomes at the highest level are 80 percent determined by roster -- talent. size, speed, depth. At the VERY highest level games are often decided by 2 or 3 superlative players -- like some of the Alabama QBs or Marvin Harrison. PSU gets lucky sometimes (Barkley, Godwin) but doesn't generally compete for such players.

* Coaching matters but it matters less and less the higher you go. Perfect example was Saturday. Andy Kotelnicki can scheme PSU to wins against top 10-15 teams. But against top 3 teams, schemes work less because players are so good and their athleticism can cancel out whatever advantage comes from creative play design.

* So -- be happy. PSU's a perennial top 10-15 team. PSU is not a national championship contender. Deal with it. A new head coach almost certainly would not magically lift PSU into the top 5 and would be much more likely to see PSU slide down to the lower reaches of the top 25-30.

Franklin is a great recruiter. He gets really good talent. Players love playing for him. But expecting him (or a successor) to win recruiting battles regularly with tOSU, Alabama, Georgia, Texas etc. and assemble a top 5 roster of players -- if you want to be realistic, that probably is not happening, given geography, talent, culture. No PSU coach is going to defy the laws of physics of college football. Of course mathematically possible but realistically it ain't happening. PSU is PSU, Ohio State is Ohio State and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

You are basically saying 110,000+ Penn State fans were wasting their time at the Ohio State game because it was a forgone conclusion.

Also, you are saying Penn State has zero chance of being a contender for the National Title under Franklin.

Based on your outlook, Penn State fans might as well check out now and find other things to do because the football team is hopeless under Franklin. Did I get this right?

 

[mgkpsu]

So he’s a 15-20 recruiter who doesn’t develop kids beyond that 15-20 range, yet we usually finish above the 15-20 range. And I’m sure you don’t think he’s a top 15-20 gameday coach, either. Brilliant!

The math ain’t mathing.

Except over 10 years his average final ranking is 16.5, and actually that's being generous by using 26th for the years when he completely shit the bed and ended up UNRANKED. And don't waste my time with excuses about Covid or sanctions. I hated O'Brien, but he left some players in the cupboard.

Gameday I am not sure he is even in the top 25 given the resources at his disposal.

2023: 13
2022: 7
2021: 26
2020: 26
2019: 9
2018: 17
2017: 8
2016: 7
2015: 26
2014: 26

 

[PurposePitch]

Except over 10 years his average final ranking is 16.5, and actually that's being generous by using 26th for the years when he completely shit the bed and ended up UNRANKED. And don't waste my time with excuses about Covid or sanctions. I hated O'Brien, but he left some players in the cupboard.

Gameday I am not sure he is even in the top 25 given the resources at his disposal.

2023: 13
2022: 7
2021: 26
2020: 26
2019: 9
2018: 17
2017: 8
2016: 7
2015: 26
2014: 26

Yeah, obviously it wouldn't be smart to include the sanction-effect years, but then that would hurt your argument, so you don't want to waste your time being reasonable. I liked O'Brien, and he left some talent, but that's not the point - the point is we were hamstrung by sanctions and the residual blowback over the scandal.

So 5 out of the last 8 years ... headed toward 6 of the last 9, we're above top 15. And that's using the AP, rather than the CFP, where we've been above top 15 in 6 of the last 8. So, like I said, we're usually above that.

And when you consider the relative consistency, Franklin probably ranks in the top 8 or so of most successful coaches, in terms of rankings, over his tenure at PSU.

And then we come to the gameday situation ... so if he's bleh as a recruiter, and bleh as a player development guy, and he's even worse as a gameday coach ... and then you look and see how successful the team has been.

Again, the math isn't mathing. It's complaining/whining overload. There's no way everything could be as mediocre or bad as all the JoeBots, and other critics, want to make them out to be, and us to have the relative success we've had.

I mean, if you believe the critics, almost none of our players match up with the better squads ... and we have a hapless coaching staff, always bumbling and underperforming. So how were we within a yard or two of tying or winning against OSU?

You guys have to be more reasonable to be taken seriously.

 

[mgkpsu]

Yeah, obviously it wouldn't be smart to include the sanction-effect years, but then that would hurt your argument, so you don't want to waste your time being reasonable. I liked O'Brien, and he left some talent, but that's not the point - the point is we were hamstrung by sanctions and the residual blowback over the scandal.

So 5 out of the last 8 years ... headed toward 6 of the last 9, we're above top 15. And that's using the AP, rather than the CFP, where we've been above top 15 in 6 of the last 8. So, like I said, we're usually above that.

And when you consider the relative consistency, Franklin probably ranks in the top 8 or so of most successful coaches, in terms of rankings, over his tenure at PSU.

And then we come to the gameday situation ... so if he's bleh as a recruiter, and bleh as a player development guy, and he's even worse as a gameday coach ... and then you look and see how successful the team has been.

Again, the math isn't mathing. It's complaining/whining overload. There's no way everything could be as mediocre or bad as all the JoeBots, and other critics, want to make them out to be, and us to have the relative success we've had.

I mean, if you believe the critics, almost none of our players match up with the better squads ... and we have a hapless coaching staff, always bumbling and underperforming. So how were we within a yard or two of tying or winning against OSU?

You guys have to be more reasonable to be taken seriously.

His career numbers are what they are. Throwing out certain years and cherry picking to support a narrative does not make you correct or intelligent.

It's OK to admit that Franklin is average at best. And it's also OK for you to be OK with that. I personally dropped my season tickets and stopped donating, and if I decide to go to a game, which sometimes doesn't happen for years at a time, I have no problems getting a seat on Ticketmaster.

I bet you think you are some kind of superior fan for coming on here licking boots day in and day out.

So like I said, your act is tired, and so on Ignore you go, which I am confident is a pretty common sentiment on this forum.

 

[PurposePitch]

His career numbers are what they are. Throwing out certain years and cherry picking to support a narrative does not make you correct or intelligent.

It's OK to admit that Franklin is average at best. And it's also OK for you to be OK with that. I personally dropped my season tickets and stopped donating, and if I decide to go to a game, which sometimes doesn't happen for years at a time, I have no problems getting a seat on Ticketmaster.

I bet you think you are some kind of superior fan for coming on here licking boots day in and day out.

So like I said, your act is tired, and so on Ignore you go, which I am confident is a pretty common sentiment on this forum.

Yeah, Franklin is average, if being average is reestablishing a top 8 (out of 134) program after a near-death-penalty situation that was no fault of his own. #HaterLogic. The JoeBots are short-circuiting. Your support isn't missed. And now you have more free time to speculate on which athletes are closeted. So, win-win.

 

[LionDeNittany]

Yeah, Franklin is average, if being average is reestablishing a top 8 (out of 134) program after a near-death-penalty situation that was no fault of his own. #HaterLogic. The JoeBots are short-circuiting. Your support isn't missed. And now you have more free time to speculate on which athletes are closeted. So, win-win.

PeePee the multiple bans disbarred Whale shark of the small mind, how is your TSLA/Twitter short working out?

 

[Parkland Fan]

I think I would say it shakes out like this:

-the Buckeyes supposedly spent $20 million on this team. They retained a lot of players who would be NFL rookies today. They brought in a lot of high end portal guys. They recruited another top 5 class at the same time (none have made a bigger impact than Jeremiah Smith).

-the people saying OSU is down are making specific comparisons. This offense isn't as good as the Stroud years. Doesn't mean this version is devoid of talent.

Another comparison is "they lost to Oregon". Another big NIL team who probably spent nearly the same amount. Their advantage is they have the better QB. They also played at home.

It's pretty obtuse to rate a team 10 weeks into a season with 17 weeks. Every time we lose a close one to them, we hear "this was our best chance to beat them". '17, '18, '22, '23, now '24. At this point, it probably is a Franklin thing, but somehow we are right there in it with a chance to win.

Going forward, I think we have to manage our roster better. We retained 4 or 5 WRs who won't play over 15 snaps this year who should have been replaced with portal guys who could have pushed for time. We gotta be in the mix for starter types and not depth pieces. Tell me we didn't need another OT, DE, LB?

I am surprised that no one is mentioning Chip Kelly's role. He got players open on key plays all game.

 

[Delcolion915]

Frankly I don't think Ohio State really played all that well. Both teams played rather poorly, with Penn State playing just a bit worse than Ohio State. If Ohio State brings that same game to the Indiana game they will lose, and believe me as Penn State fans we DO NOT want that

 

[tboyer]

I am surprised that no one is mentioning Chip Kelly's role. He got players open on key plays all game.

Or Chip Kelly has five, count'em FIVE wideouts who will be fairly high NFL picks. they have size or extreme speed or both and they can run routes, and PSU doesn't have corners who can stay with them all day.

 

[tboyer]

Frankly I don't think Ohio State really played all that well. Both teams played rather poorly, with Penn State playing just a bit worse than Ohio State. If Ohio State brings that same game to the Indiana game they will lose, and believe me as Penn State fans we DO NOT want that

I'd be very surprised. Indiana will be overwhelmed at the LOS and things will not work out for their offense the way they do against lesser teams.

 

[Waltwam]

And root for the back up QB who has bern the best player on the team every year for the 65 years I have been a fan.

Well , if the starting QB is not getting it done, something has to be changed up!

 

[ryoder1]

This staff has obviously done a horrific job of winning games not in our favor on paper. At such a low rate it defies the odds of a typical "upset."
Penn State has the resources and ability to win a third of these games just based on odds and opportunities. They haven't been able to do it. So losing these "winnable" opportunities time and time again has set everything up to have to be a monumental upset at this point. Not being able to pull out 2 or 3 of those one score games over the course of the last 8 years has made the mountain higher to climb instead of more regular to find a way to win.

It's clearly is mental as much as physical now.

 

[Waltwam]

Glad to see some logic and good sense getting posted. I too kind of "missed" the tOSU game because I was pretty sure it would turn out the way it did and -- why go through the anguish of it?

* College football is very much a weakest-link sport. You can work around a weak unit, but it will limit the ceiling for a team. A less talented unit creates dominoes that fall and create obstacles for other units. If your receivers can't get separation or have the size and skill to win 50-50 balls, that allows a defense to stay closer to the LOS and clamp down on your running game. Not being able to run the ball limits scores, first downs and hands possessions to your opponent, helping them wear down your defense.

In Franklin's early years the team lacked OL and DL talent and depth. Now it's wideouts. If Ohio State has a weak unit, they usually fix it in a year or two -- they can do that because they're Ohio State. PSU has had trouble with wideout recruiting for 6 years now and just can't seem to fix it. God Franklin has tried, but changing wideout coaches almost every year hasn't fixed the problem.

* There's a really big difference between top 10-15 recruiting (where PSU averages out) and top 3 recruiting. And a big difference between a roster with a $20m NIL budget and whatever PSU's is.

* I've seen this asserted more and more lately and I think it's true -- college football outcomes at the highest level are 80 percent determined by roster -- talent. size, speed, depth. At the VERY highest level games are often decided by 2 or 3 superlative players -- like some of the Alabama QBs or Marvin Harrison. PSU gets lucky sometimes (Barkley, Godwin) but doesn't generally compete for such players.

* Coaching matters but it matters less and less the higher you go. Perfect example was Saturday. Andy Kotelnicki can scheme PSU to wins against top 10-15 teams. But against top 3 teams, schemes work less because players are so good and their athleticism can cancel out whatever advantage comes from creative play design.

* So -- be happy. PSU's a perennial top 10-15 team. PSU is not a national championship contender. Deal with it. A new head coach almost certainly would not magically lift PSU into the top 5 and would be much more likely to see PSU slide down to the lower reaches of the top 25-30.

Franklin is a great recruiter. He gets really good talent. Players love playing for him. But expecting him (or a successor) to win recruiting battles regularly with tOSU, Alabama, Georgia, Texas etc. and assemble a top 5 roster of players -- if you want to be realistic, that probably is not happening, given geography, talent, culture. No PSU coach is going to defy the laws of physics of college football. Of course mathematically possible but realistically it ain't happening. PSU is PSU, Ohio State is Ohio State and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

I think you can go back to losing Larry Johnson as a key point in our history.

 

[lowhandicapper]

I think you can go back to losing Larry Johnson as a key point in our history.

I actually think the choice to select Rahne as the OC instead of Gattis is the most consequential coaching change for this team under Franklin. It remains to be seen which one would have performed better as an OC, each has had a varying level of success in that position since that time but one thing is for sure since then....We haven't recruited or developed a great WR talent since then and the coaching carousel at that position has been a disaster with no continuity. Which has led to mediocre recruiting there.