Just what does the average margin of victory have to do with the outcome of the 2014 game, the 3rd down bounce pass completion game or the George fumble not called game? Nothing!
tOSU and UM discussion
- Thread starter Alphalion75
- Start date
You're talking about bias when you're looking exclusively through biased lens. No evidence just a narrative made up to make yourself feel better.
There is absolutely nothing biased about what I said. I simply stated facts. You don't like them, so you kick into spin mode.
I'm curious... What did I say (write) with which you disagree?
Splitting the teams was done for league strength balance. Everyone knows that. Even though the teams where split the precious "game" was protected to accommodate the Michigan and OSU fan bases. I can remember the lobbying and board discussions that took place to not only keep the game protected but make sure its played the last game of the season at the "appointed time slot". I remember a few posters even calling for MI and OSU to start their own conference if they couldn't have their "game" when they wanted it. So if "the game" is kept to meet the desires of both fan bases, then neither fan bases better be complaining about what it does to their SOS. If both sides in the game were so concerned about SOS, then they wouldn't have demanded that "the game" continue to be played. I can't believe you even bring up the SOS. That's like 2 fatty's sitting down for dinner in a swanky establishment, insisting on ordering cake for dinner, and then complaining afterward about the calories they just ingested.
Oh and now that the divisions have been realigned again, OSU & MI have gotten their desired cohabitation regardless of what it does to conference power balance. Personally I'm happy that PSU is in the perceived stronger division, but from a conference perspective, I'm not sure that breaking the divisions with this power imbalance was a good thing.
I see no facts is what you posted other than the Big Ten rights are more valuable with Penn State than they are without them. I cannot argue that.
It's also not the point. To Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana...a Penn State program that's competing for national titles is worth real dollars in their pocket MORE than a Penn State program that's second fiddle and spending every January in central Florida. Why would they not want those dollars for the benefit of Ohio State and Michigan? It makes no sense whatsoever.
I'll type slower so you'll understand: If team A is beating team B by more than 3 touchdowns on average, it's hard to argue that the refs, either thru incompetence or bias, are generating 22 points for team A. Nor would they need to. In a close game, on the other hand, a blown call here or there is more likely to swing the game one way or the other.
Whether the current alignment is a good thing or not...your 1st sentence is the point...if tOSU and Michigan had as much influence as some conspiracy people claim, tOSU and Michigan would have been placed in the same division from day one - period and end of story. In addition, when the initial decision was AGAINST those two schools wishes the effort to keep the integrity of "The Game" WAS NOT a sign that the schools wielded special power. Rather it was a move by the B10 to not be idiots and destroy something that brings a lot of exposure and mystique (for lack of a better word) to the conference...and money as it is an asset that the conference sells.
Last edited:
Ugh. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. A good Penn State team that loses to OSU and UM most of the time is not any less valuable (on the whole, on the net) to the B1G than a Penn State team that is winning B1G championships.
Every B1G championship season for Penn State is one less for OSU or UM.
The B1G gets MAX NET VALUE out of Penn State being in the conference when they win all their games not against OSU and UM -- While winning occasionally against UM and OSU.
Plus -- and this obvious facts seems to escape you guys -- these guys running the conference are alumni and fans too. Money trumps all (usually), but when all things are equal, they want their blue blood B1G traditionals -- of which many are probably grads -- OSU and UM to win.
When all things are equal (or close to it) and a decision comes down to a coin flip, they're going to chose the option that is advantageous to OSU and/or UM rather than flipping the coin.
Just so it's clear, Jim Delaney is a North Carolina grad. He has no personal connection to any of the B1G schools.
The problem with your argument is that over time PSU's brand equity would erode if it never beat tOSU or Michigan. The B10 needs schools like PSU to make a serious (national) run at least once in awhile to keep up the perception that a win over them matters. You might think you covered that point but unless you are saying that Delaney is some puppet master dictating who wins every game (including OOC and post season) then the best way to have that happen is to let things play out and let the best team (in a given year) win.
Last edited:
Apparently you missed this line in my post -> "While winning occasionally against UM and OSU"
So, yeah, I agree with you.
The B1G powers that be aren't opposed to PSU beating PSU and UM from time to time. In fact, when OSU and/or UM are in down seasons, they want PSU to win in those years.
And just to be clear, I don't think the B1G is sanctioning the outright fixing of games. There's just a general, pervasive, we-appreciate-psu-$$$-but-love-osu-and-um tone. And it, for the most part, only applies to the big power sports (football and basketball).
How else do you explain the 15-yard unsportsmanlike delay-of-game penalty that Mcgloin got for throwing the ball into the ground when the Wisky DL jumped off-sides and was coming right at him? This is a common reaction (to an off-sides, unabated DL rushing at the QB) that is taught, and that you see multiple times a week at all levels. I've probably seen this happen 300+ times, and it's NEVER been called an unsportsmanlike delay-of-game penalty -- That is until a Penn State QB does it in a B1G game.
I already said I'd agree to disagree. But I have a bridge to sell you if you think the conference is more valuable as is than it would be having played for/won titles in 1994,1997, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2014.
And yes, they're alumni too, from UNC (Delany), Northwestern (two: Deputy Commissioner, CFO/CCO and Associate Director - Football and Basketball Operations), Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Coordinator of Officials - Football), Texas A&M (Associate Commissioner - Football & Basketball Operations), Illinois (two: Associate Commissioner - Communications and Controller), UMass (Associate Commissioner - Technology), St. Thomas and Alabama (Assistant Commissioner - Compliance), and Ball State (Associate Director - Football and Basketball Operations). Why would they conspire for Ohio State and Michigan and/or against Penn State? There are two Michigan grads and one Ohio State grad with "Deputy Commissioner" title, but why would graduates of Northwestern and Illinois vote with them if it's only advantageous to Ohio State and Michigan?
Agreed for 3 year period the schools had to give a little and only get 90% of what they wanted. But even that was tossed in with the new realignment.
Wait...what?
How does something that happened in a game against Wisky connect to the tOSU/Umich conspiracy?
If you really want to go with a conspiracy theory maybe you should start believing that someone at MSU is blackmailing Delaney with a video of him doing cocaine off a strippers tits (or something like that)...because it was them who complained and got their way after the East/West thing had been decided after they were originally planned for the West to create balance.
I explained that. It's obvious you're minds are made up, and you have no real interest in hearing/understanding a perspective that is not yours (otherwise you wouldn't have just asked that question).
Oh...I see...you not only think the B10 is run by tOSU and Michigan but there is a cabal working specifically and only against PSU...well I guess that would explain The Land Grant Trophy...I mean it's pretty obvious that someone had to go out of their way to make something that ugly.
Not to mention, Jim Delany commissioned Chicago investment banking firm William Blair & Co. to do a few feasibility studies wrt Big Ten expansion.
The results of that study surprised a lot of people when it identified Penn State as the most valuable brand to the Big Ten Conference. I'm guessing this is what triggered all that chatter by Delany and Barry Alvarez about adding Maryland and Rutgers to appease Penn State in case we ever thought about jumping ship to the ACC.
When you think of all the money that Penn State's generated for the Big Ten, only to be curb-stomped, raped and pillaged at our time of greatest need... and knowing that the B1G lined OSU's pockets with bowl revenue when they were ineligible, it just makes you shake your head.
The results of that study surprised a lot of people when it identified Penn State as the most valuable brand to the Big Ten Conference. I'm guessing this is what triggered all that chatter by Delany and Barry Alvarez about adding Maryland and Rutgers to appease Penn State in case we ever thought about jumping ship to the ACC.
When you think of all the money that Penn State's generated for the Big Ten, only to be curb-stomped, raped and pillaged at our time of greatest need... and knowing that the B1G lined OSU's pockets with bowl revenue when they were ineligible, it just makes you shake your head.
Last edited:
So since PSU joined the Big, tell me one Big team other than OSU or UM that has won a NC. Hasn't seemed to hurt the Big any, has it?
Well actually it has...we've been passed by the SEC in part because they have had multiply programs challenge for and win NCs.
It didn't hurt OSU last year when they arguably should not have been in the playoffs in the first place and would have been there again this year had they won against MSU (the only ranked team they played) and then beat Iowa (only the second ranked team). A perceived weak Big 10 only hurts some of the Big teams and OSU ain't one of them. In fact, much of the Big 10's national success (ie OSU and UM's success) has been a direct result of a weak Big 10.
I believe it has been hurt. Ohio State got in because they creamed Wisconsin and the Big 12 thought they'd be cute and get two teams in.
That being said, Ohio State dropped, repeatedly, in the rankings in 2012, 2013 and 2015 because they weren't playing anyone and they had a few close calls. If some of those Big Ten teams had won something in recent memory, maybe those close calls get the pass that Alabama gets when they don't look like world beaters against Florida or Auburn.
So whether it's bias or having an OSU agenda, whatever the Big is doing is not working. We all know the Big has some good teams but it's not perceived that way. Only OSU is ever perceived as being a national contender type of team (and UM is the only other Big team that can suddenly jump into the national spotlight because of a coach they hire). Seems to me that the Big needs to start promoting all of their teams a little better to get them thought of in a better light.
The B10 does one hell of a job promoting it's teams by setting up a bowl ties ins that are 1b in prestige to the SEC. The problem is the B10 hasn't quite held it's own in bowl season (overall, some years have been better than others including last year/2014 season just in case you bring it up). The B10 cannot make individual teams perform better on the field against other conferences.
Even OSU was not perceived as a national title contender by most until they beat Alabama last year.
It's not really about marketing, it's about winning. In the BCS era, Ohio State made 10 BCS games and won 6* of them. The rest of the Big Ten combined made 18 and won 6. Michigan State had done a good job of this the past few years, but it's games like the Cotton Bowl and the Rose Bowl that set the perception back.
Well geez.. I may be slow, but I'm not blind! All I asked for was one example of an egregious call or calls that benefited and led to a win for PSU over OSU and Michigan. We can debate round and round but at the end of the day you can't provide an example where PSU won through the ref's incompetence or bias thus proving my point!!! I would type slower but I'm sure your quick on the uptake. That's all.
Please underline a fact showing Big 10's bias in any post not something you believe to be true but a FACT as you state. I have a feeling you may need to check the definition of the word fact first. I don't believe the Big 10 would knowly screw PSU to benefit either UofM or OSU and any unbiased observer (obviously not yourself) would agree. A powerful PSU would benefit the Big 10 that is obvious
You've obviously missed a few of the past PSU-OSU and PSU-UM games. The only reasonable explanation is they were screwing PSU....or do they always add extra seconds on to the end of a game? Or allow bounced passes to be catches? Or bounced passes to be interceptions and then have "problems" with the video feed? Or allow field goals to be kicked three seconds after the play clock has expired? All of those actually happened so I suppose under any definition they can be called facts.
2 things please specify what call you're talking about with regards to UM PSU in the past few years. Also are you saying if these calls went the other way PSU would've been guaranteed to win or just bad calls that made it harder on PSU?
The adding seconds into the clock did cost PSU the game. The game was over until they added the time on.
Which game? Are you going back to 2005? If so that time was rightfully put back on the clock but also don't forget Joe argued and had 2 seconds put back on the clock in that game. Are you saying that was incorrect as well?
How about ruling a 30 yard incompletion with only 42 seconds left a "catch" when the receivers first foot to hit the ground clearly is on the OB stripe? How about not even reviewing the call despite the b1g shiz-hole's "Instant Replay Rule" protocol saying that any play inside the last 2 minutes of the game which is even remotely close will automatically be reviewed by the "Replay Booth"? Go figure that the officiating (both field and replay booth) had all these breakdowns on "the critical call" that allowed Michigan to ruin PSU's undefeated season in 2005 - a horrendous BS call that cost PSU an undefeated seeason and a shot at the National Title Game that year....but it was all just a big double f'up horrendous butchering of an easy call by both the on-field and replay booth officials....a coinky-dink, don't you know. Go figure......
I'm not sure if it's your words or your (lack of) punctuation, but you really don't seem too bright. Just say'n.
Isn't it funny how all these calls can be explained and fans of the other teams explain them away and they ALL go against PSU and all have huge implications in the result of the game. Why are we never on here explaining why a critical call went our way against OSU or UM and won us the game? I think that's kind of the point. We're tired of being on the short end so many times yet not getting the crucial call in our favor ever. I suspect that's why we feel there's a bias, with or without a tin foil hat. At some point it just gets to be too much to chalk up to coincidence.
OK I guess if someone disagrees with youre fabricated theory they're not bright. However you never answered the question? Joe Pa argued to have time put back on the clock on PSU's final drive, was that incorrect or not?
So far you have shown 1 game against UofM over 10 years ago to try to prove the big 10 is somehow trying to keep Penn state down. I simply pointed out that bitching about seconds put back on the clock goes both ways Joe Paterno did the same thing in the very same game.
