Zurp
I have misplaced my pants.
I wonder how long they'll let that poll go....it seems that their desired result isn't quite as popular as they want it to be
It's already not letting me vote.
It's funny how they claim they are the best int he B1G, then in the same breath want to move to the powerhouse known as the ACC.
From their perspective, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, and Wisconsin are all "football factories". After those four teams, Penn State IS the best. Of course, what teams are left? Purdue? Indiana? I doubt they consider Michigan State, since Michigan State has had some recent success - they are probably also a "football factory" now. So, congratulations, Penn State: you're #1 in a conference with Illinois, Minnesota, and Rutgers. And being in the Big Ten is a constant reminder that Joe Paterno never would have gotten to 409 if he had been in the Big Ten his entire career.
Edit: Wow. I just did the math. Paterno was 409-136-3 in his career, and 95-54 (0.638) in the Big Ten. He had been coaching 27 years prior to joining the Big Ten. He was 247-67-3 (0.784) prior to joining the Big Ten. Take out 8 games per year for each of the years from 1966 to 1992, and apply the 0.784 to the remaining 2-5 games (depending on the year). For those 101 "non-conference" games, Penn State would have won 78.18 and lost 21.82. (I made ties into 1/2 win, 1/2 loss for these calculations.) Then, the remaining 8 games each year (216 games total), apply the 0.638 percentage, and we get 137.72 wins and 78.28 losses. The total record for that time period would be 217 wins, 100 losses. 30 fewer losses than he really got. Add in the 162 wins and 69 losses Penn State had under Joe Paterno from 1993 to 2011, and you get 379 wins, 169 losses.
How long would it have taken Penn State to win 30 more games? At his 0.692 win percentage, it would have taken 43.3 more games. At 13 games per season, 3-1/3 more seasons.
Last edited:
Upvote
0