Rutgers stuff, always fun ......

[pandaczar12]

The man is saying if Rutgers has a better Big Ten record, someone else will have a worse Big Ten record, I'm asking worse relative to what, last year? Every team we beat may have a better record than they had last year. It doesn't mean a damn thing but one loss.
Imagine a coach saying we just got beat by Penn St, now we have a worse record! LOL
Or is it that teams you beat don't have worse records.

Now you are trying to alter the discussion. I recommend you stop digging.

 

[michnittlion]

Fyi...if you knew who you were arguing with you might not be so quick to dismiss his opinions on concepts in sports...you might even thank him for educating you. Not my place to expose him but plenty of people know who he is on these boards. I'll give you a hint...he is a former 1st round pick who had a 10+ year pro career. He wasn't a Rutgers football player so it might not be so easy to guess but I think he understands sports concepts.

You're usually a reasonable poster --- but come on. It doesn't matter WHO he is. It's a simple concept. Rutgers' 2015 B1G schedule is an exact mirror of their 2014 schedule. And if Rutgers is to win more B1G games than last year (3), when we compare (a) the number of teams they lost to in 2014 but beat in 2015 and (b) the number of teams that they beat in 2014 but lost to in 2015, (a) MUST be a larger number than (b).

Rutgers defeated Michigan, Maryland and Indiana in 2014. I can see them winning the latter 2 of those in 2015. Likely not Michigan. U-M will be better.

So (b) equals 1.

That means (a) needs to be at least 2. E.g., Rutgers has to win 2 of these 5: vs Ohio State, vs Michigan State, vs Nebraska, at Penn State, at Wisconsin.

Who would those 2 be? Perhaps us (2015 PSU is clearly more talented than 2015 U-M, and I've already chalked U-M up as a loss for Rutgers, but this could still happen), and perhaps Nebraska. But the other 3 --- not a chance.

Extending this further, if Rutgers DOES beat Penn State, we're going to necessarily finish with a worst B1G record unless we defeat at least one of Illinois, NW, U-M, MSU, OSU and Maryland (we lost to them all in 2014).

 

[zappaa]

Let's look at that .500 career Rutgers record in a relative sense.

The 8 schools that Rutgers has played most often in football are:

Lehigh (74 all-time games), Lafayette (72), Princeton (71), Stevens Tech (49), Columbia (49), NYU (43), Syracuse (43), and Colgate (42)

Outside of Syracuse, all those schools play minor-league football. Yet, despite them being Rutgers' most common historical opponents, Rutgers is still only 24 games over .500 despite playing 1312 career football games.

Seriously, look at this list of Rutgers all-time opponents. VERY VERY minor-league historic schedule. A legitimate school would have at least a .600 career win percentage vs. these folk.

Now you are trying to alter the discussion. I recommend you stop digging.

Stop digging?
If we win more games, the teams we beat will have one more loss, not worse records.

 

[zappaa]

Now you are trying to alter the discussion. I recommend you stop digging.

Stop digging?
If Rutgers has a better record that means the teams we beat will have one loss, not worse records.

 

[Art]

Stop digging?
If Rutgers has a better record that means the teams we beat will have one more loss, not worse records.

Try this: in the aggregate Big Ten teams have a .500 record in-conference. Simple math.

 

[ellobo]

For the record, he seems fairly level headed for a Rutgers fans, and I've even liked one of posts in another thread. But I don't care who you think he is, or what you think he knows about football. I dismiss his opinion on this issue because it makes no sense and his arguments are riddled with basic spelling and punctuation errors. It's not even a sports concept, it's just 6th grade math. For Rutgers to have a better B10 record, someone else will have to have a worse Big 10 record. That is just common sense. But since you think he is educating me, maybe you can explain how if Rutgers has more B10 wins, another B10 team won't have more B10 losses? Unless you or him have multiple PhD's in highly technical fields, I doubt there is anything you can teach me about math.

I think you completely missed his point entirely. If you want to discuss mastery of the English language: You asked him who would be worse. You did not ask him who would have a worse record. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant that but the fact remains you missed what he was saying.

He didn't give you an answer because his opinion is that Rutgers is or can improve as a team. This does not mean that other teams need to get worse for that to happen. Wins and losses are a zero sum game but teams getting better compared to themselves is not. It might sound like I'm being a bit coy and truth be told I kind of am.

It's just a guess but I think his point was to say if RU keeps improving as a program and raising its talent level wins will start to take care of themselves (maybe it's becoming more competitive making more games toss ups or the ability to pull off an upset they weren't able to before). He probably is avoiding the question of who will get worse because he doesn't spend his entire life studying every single program in the B10...let alone the nation (if every program in the b10 keeps getting better we all could end up with better records because of OOC...so I'm that context even wins and losses isn't a zero sum game).

But back to the point of RU getting better compared to itself - As a Michigan guy the way I look at it is if we start getting better we will win more games. With the exception of tOSU I don't concern myself with comparing ourselves (long term) with other programs. I simply don't have the time beyond our hated rival. I just assume that some programs will get better and some will have harder times. But if my team takes care of itself so will the wins. So asking which teams will get worse is a futile exercise...and even if I had the time we aren't exactly talking about an exact science.

 

[Bushwood CC]

Let's look at that .500 career Rutgers record in a relative sense.

The 8 schools that Rutgers has played most often in football are:

Lehigh (74 all-time games), Lafayette (72), Princeton (71), Stevens Tech (49), Columbia (49), NYU (43), Syracuse (43), and Colgate (42)

Outside of Syracuse, all those schools play minor-league football. Yet, despite them being Rutgers' most common historical opponents, Rutgers is still only 24 games over .500 despite playing 1312 career football games.

Seriously, look at this list of Rutgers all-time opponents. VERY VERY minor-league historic schedule. A legitimate school would have at least a .600 career win percentage vs. these folk.

FWIW, Penn State's career win percentage is at .687, and OUR most 8 frequently played schools are Pittsburgh (93 all-time games), Syracuse (71), WVU (59), Penn (47), Temple (43), Bucknell (40), Navy (39), and Maryland (38). Yes, an Ivy League and Patriot League team are there, but definitely more legit overall.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/r/rutgers/opponents.php
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/p/penn_state/opponents.php

Honestly, your post shows quite a bit of ignorance about "major college football" itself. 100% of PSU's games versus both UPenn and Bucknell took place while both teams still played "Major College Football" - I think PSU's last game against Bucknell was in the 1940s and UPenn in the 1950s. "Division I-AA Football", also called "Mid-Major Football", was not even created by the NCAA until 1978. Little known fact by you Midwestern scUM-loving neophytes, Ivy League continued to play DI-A football for several years after the NCAA created the DI-AA classification in 1978 (believe Ivy League went DI-AA in 1982. UPenn was regularly ranked as late as the 1940s - UPenn was the 2nd Winningest Program in all of "Major College Football" from 1869 - 1949 (510-193-33)!! Bucknell was a middle of the road "Major College Football" program with occasional good years through the period PSU last played them (1947). Absolutely absurd to imply that UPenn and Bucknell were "lower level" opponents and not "Major College Teams" in the years PSU played them.

 

[michnittlion]

Honestly, your post shows quite a bit of ignorance about "major college football" itself. 100% of PSU's games versus both UPenn and Bucknell took place while both teams still played "Major College Football" - I think PSU's last game against Bucknell was in the 1940s and UPenn in the 1950s. "Division I-AA Football", also called "Mid-Major Football", was not even created by the NCAA until 1978. Little known fact by you Midwestern scUM-loving neophytes, Ivy League continued to play DI-A football for several years after the NCAA created the DI-AA classification in 1978 (believe Ivy League went DI-AA in 1982. UPenn was regularly ranked as late as the 1940s - UPenn was the 2nd Winningest Program in all of "Major College Football" from 1869 - 1949 (510-193-33)!! Bucknell was a middle of the road "Major College Football" program with occasional good years through the period PSU last played them (1947). Absolutely absurd to imply that UPenn and Bucknell were "lower level" opponents and not "Major College Teams" in the years PSU played them.

I know you get a hard-on anytime you see "michnittlion" along with an opportunity to "attack" me, but I never implied UPenn and Bucknell were not "Major College Football" at the time we played them.

My main point --- whether you look at where the programs play now or where the programs play historically (for the sake of simplicity, I looked at the former) --- in the aggregate, our 8 most common opponents are a hell of a lot better than Rutgers' 8 most common opponents. And even despite that, our win % is higher by about 18%.

On a side note, I'm pretty confident that if we had a "history of college football contest", I'd win. I'll be in Philadelphia in 5 weekends for the Temple game, I'd love to make that happen (perhaps I can "prove" to you that I'm a Penn State alum and fan too).

 

[BOGDANOVICH]

I'm sorry your reading comprehension isn't so good. I put forth an extremely simple concept, and you can't seem to grasp it. For Rutgers to have a better B10 record, someone else will have to have a worse Big 10 record. You also apparently missed the "underserved sanctions" part of my post. Yeah PSU lost to some doormats, yes they should have beaten a few of the teams they lost to, but PSU was also playing with a depleted roster. Maybe in your world where everyone wins and everyone gets better, there are no doormats. But in the real world, there were always be teams at the bottom, and I think those young athletes can handle it, don't belittle them by thinking they can't.

No one knows if their team WILL be better next year, you can only hope. But since the unjust sanctions were lifted, and PSU has more scholarships... PSU is more likely to improve than most teams.

Good luck next season. I'm sure this is just the beginning of Rutgers becoming a perennial national power. We all know that this sort of thing happens all the time in CFB, a team puts 146 years of losing behind them and joins the nation's elite. It will probably help if Phil Knight went to you school... did he?

146 years of losing? If you know football history , you will know that Rutgers fielded some very good teams in the first half of the twentieth century, and Rutgers had undefeated seasons in 1961 and 1976. It was only in the 1990s that Rutgers started to lose big time as it made the difficult transition to playing outside the Ivy League and Patriot League. Since then Rutgers has struggled, but, starting with Greg Schiano, has gradually been getting better. But 146 years of losing? Not quite.

 

[mal359]

146 years of losing? If you know football history , you will know that Rutgers fielded some very good teams in the first half of the twentieth century, and Rutgers had undefeated seasons in 1961 and 1976. It was only in the 1990s that Rutgers started to lose big time as it made the difficult transition to playing outside the Ivy League and Patriot League. Since then Rutgers has struggled, but, starting with Greg Schiano, has gradually been getting better. But 146 years of losing? Not quite.

True, but even in the "old days," Rutgers was usually a mid-pack small Eastern team and a penciled-in W for Princeton. That being said, they did field some competitive teams.

Calling the program a historic dumpster fire a la Columbia or VMI is unnecessarily harsh and untrue, but they weren't great.

The 1961 and 1976 teams certainly don't get respect that they deserve.

 

[rutgersal]

So not only have they been mediocre for their entire existence, they've been at it longer than anyone else.

Football success was not important to Rutgers for most of its history and football was treated as a loss leader, for the most part. Facilities were bare bones, and coaches were hired on the cheap. That's why results were inconsistent, to be charitable.

Rutgers only became serious about football once we hired Schiano in 2001. Till then, the complete infrastructure for football success wasn't in place. The most important thing Schiano did was to install a championship culture. And the administration backed him up with 150 million dollars in facilities improvements. In 2014, Rutgers went 8-5, squarely in the middle of the B1G. This year, Rutgers is well positioned to improve upon that.

 

[lionlurker]

Football success was not important to Rutgers for most of its history and football was treated as a loss leader, for the most part. Facilities were bare bones, and coaches were hired on the cheap. That's why results were inconsistent, to be charitable.

Rutgers only became serious about football once we hired Schiano in 2001. Till then, the complete infrastructure for football success wasn't in place. The most important thing Schiano did was to install a championship culture. And the administration backed him up with 150 million dollars in facilities improvements. In 2014, Rutgers went 8-5, squarely in the middle of the B1G. This year, Rutgers is well positioned to improve upon that.

A championship culture??? How does a Rutgers fan define that, precisely? It certainly cannot involve the actual winning of any championships, unless you are using Pitt math.

 

[pandaczar12]

A championship culture??? How does a Rutgers fan define that, precisely? It certainly cannot involve the actual winning of any championships, unless you are using Pitt math.

I'd like to know when the majority of their fans became complete intolerable douchebags? Maybe that is what he means about a championship culture?

 

[pandaczar12]

I think you completely missed his point entirely. If you want to discuss mastery of the English language: You asked him who would be worse. You did not ask him who would have a worse record. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant that but the fact remains you missed what he was saying.

He didn't give you an answer because his opinion is that Rutgers is or can improve as a team. This does not mean that other teams need to get worse for that to happen. Wins and losses are a zero sum game but teams getting better compared to themselves is not. It might sound like I'm being a bit coy and truth be told I kind of am.

It's just a guess but I think his point was to say if RU keeps improving as a program and raising its talent level wins will start to take care of themselves (maybe it's becoming more competitive making more games toss ups or the ability to pull off an upset they weren't able to before). He probably is avoiding the question of who will get worse because he doesn't spend his entire life studying every single program in the B10...let alone the nation (if every program in the b10 keeps getting better we all could end up with better records because of OOC...so I'm that context even wins and losses isn't a zero sum game).

But back to the point of RU getting better compared to itself - As a Michigan guy the way I look at it is if we start getting better we will win more games. With the exception of tOSU I don't concern myself with comparing ourselves (long term) with other programs. I simply don't have the time beyond our hated rival. I just assume that some programs will get better and some will have harder times. But if my team takes care of itself so will the wins. So asking which teams will get worse is a futile exercise...and even if I had the time we aren't exactly talking about an exact science.

Since he completely missed my point entirely, it's OK for me to completely miss the point of his reply.

146 years of losing? If you know football history , you will know that Rutgers fielded some very good teams in the first half of the twentieth century, and Rutgers had undefeated seasons in 1961 and 1976. It was only in the 1990s that Rutgers started to lose big time as it made the difficult transition to playing outside the Ivy League and Patriot League. Since then Rutgers has struggled, but, starting with Greg Schiano, has gradually been getting better. But 146 years of losing? Not quite.

Do all you Rutgers folks play semantics games? It's been 146 years of futility, going essentially 0.500 against cake schedules. Sure maybe you had a good year or two, but Rutgers has "not won" more games then they have "won".

Does it piss you off that Pitt cheated to win the 1976 national championship? For the record, I'm sure there are PLENTY of people who know a lot about CFB history, that know next to nothing about early 20th century Rutgers.

 

[scarlet devil]

I'd like to know when the majority of their fans became complete intolerable douchebags? Maybe that is what he means about a championship culture?

Ohh.... about 40 years after Penn State fans did. Just another thing you guys beat us at. Congrats!

 

[pandaczar12]

Ohh.... about 40 years after Penn State fans did. Just another thing you guys beat us at. Congrats!

Just like football.

Seriously though, thanks for proving just how delusional many of you are!

 

[rutgersal]

A championship culture??? How does a Rutgers fan define that, precisely? It certainly cannot involve the actual winning of any championships, unless you are using Pitt math.

It means putting the work in to perform at the highest level. We may not be the best, but we have a team that will perform the best it is capable of. In 2012, we won a share of the Big East Championship. This year, we should be a competitive B1G Ten Squad.

 

[Bushwood CC]

Football success was not important to Rutgers for most of its history and football was treated as a loss leader, for the most part. Facilities were bare bones, and coaches were hired on the cheap. That's why results were inconsistent, to be charitable.

Rutgers only became serious about football once we hired Schiano in 2001. Till then, the complete infrastructure for football success wasn't in place. The most important thing Schiano did was to install a championship culture. And the administration backed him up with 150 million dollars in facilities improvements. In 2014, Rutgers went 8-5, squarely in the middle of the B1G. This year, Rutgers is well positioned to improve upon that.

For the record, I really don't root one way or the other as far as Buttgers goes except when they are playing PSU....and I think that's largely true for most other PSU fans regarding Buttgers (ditto our other former traditional Eastern annual opponent turned b1g Turd member) - especially given PSU's complete and utter domination of the traditional Eastern opponent series. As it applies to your b1g Turd games, I hope you win all your b1g Turd games except the PSU game, but doubt that's going to happen based on talent in some instances and the b1g can always use their wild card cheating refs if necessary and you threaten their preordained desired outcomes. Good luck to you, at least Buttgers' administration was smart enough to make sure that Buttgers was paid large sums of money to prostitute its Athletic Dept for use as the b1g turds whore and frauds. In PSU's case, we are paying and subsidizing the b1g Turd conference $hithole for such treatment & regular @ss-rapings.

 

[scarlet devil]

Ok... I'll level with you. No one at Rutgers (at least no sane people) will sit here and say that Rutgers football history is better than Penn State's. But if you look at where we were 15 years ago to where we are now, there is certainly reason for optimism. Us, Rutgers fans, feel that we can keep the momentum going. On the other hand, you, Penn State fans, seem to go out of your way to down-play our current trajectory. You seem pretty eager to put us down at every opportunity. I, for one, am proud of Rutgers place in history, am pleased with the relatively successful decade we had, and am excited to see where the future takes us with our new opportunity in the BIG. Nothing you can say can take any of that away.

 

[zappaa]

We're not allowed to be optimistic in the eyes of most PSU fans, I respect the history of PSU football excellence and I go out of my way to say that, not only that, but I think PSU will be very good to great in the near future.
I make no ridiculous predictions of RU victories, I do nothing but say we're gonna get better relative to us, and my delusion ends with I think we have good players and will be competitive.
My post should get responses relative to its content.

 

[lionlurker]

If Rutgers is going to compete in the Big Ten, then they need to keep the instate talent at home. To date, they have not done that. 2017 is not looking good, either, as the top 5 are leaning at this point to either PSU or Michigan.

I don't see much hope for Rutgers, given the strength of the Big Ten East. It's almost a cruel joke.

 

[pandaczar12]

But if you look at where we were 15 years ago to where we are now, there is certainly reason for optimism. Us, Rutgers fans, feel that we can keep the momentum going. On the other hand, you, Penn State fans, seem to go out of your way to down-play our current trajectory.

So we've come full circle!

You believe Rutgers is on a trajectory, rising through the ranks of the B10. For Rutgers to rise in the conference (i.e. win more games), others will have to fall (i.e. lose more games). So if Rutgers is going to get better, who is going to get worse? Indiana? Illinois? Even if you climb out of the cellar and over them, how much further could Rutgers possibly go?

 

[Art]

We're not allowed to be optimistic in the eyes of most PSU fans, I respect the history of PSU football excellence and I go out of my way to say that, not only that, but I think PSU will be very good to great in the near future.
I make no ridiculous predictions of RU victories, I do nothing but say we're gonna get better relative to us, and my delusion ends with I think we have good players and will be competitive.
My post should get responses relative to its content.

Not with the way Flood recruits and coaches.

 

[zappaa]

If PSU wins more games based on no more sanctions, great recruiting and coaching (the coaching part still a question, I really didn't think Franklin did a good job with your offense)
Who's going to get worse?

 

[rutgersal]

If Rutgers is going to compete in the Big Ten, then they need to keep the instate talent at home. To date, they have not done that. 2017 is not looking good, either, as the top 5 are leaning at this point to either PSU or Michigan.

I don't see much hope for Rutgers, given the strength of the Big Ten East. It's almost a cruel joke.

This is simply incorrect, while Rutgers has continued to have problems landing Top 10 players in the jersey, we've landed our share of jersey #11-30 players, plus supplemented with talent from surrounding states. But the game changer for us has been to successfully recruit the state of Florida, since Schiano arrived, which is why we have the talent to beat most B1G squads.

 

[scarlet devil]

So we've come full circle!

You believe Rutgers is on a trajectory, rising through the ranks of the B10. For Rutgers to rise in the conference (i.e. win more games), others will have to fall (i.e. lose more games). So if Rutgers is going to get better, who is going to get worse? Indiana? Illinois? Even if you climb out of the cellar and over them, how much further could Rutgers possibly go?

You are hopeless.
So if you are watching an auto race, if the winner didn't start in first, that must mean some cars were going in reverse.

 

[lionlurker]

This is simply incorrect, while Rutgers has continued to have problems landing Top 10 players in the jersey, we've landed our share of jersey #11-30 players, plus supplemented with talent from surrounding states. But the game changer for us has been to successfully recruit the state of Florida, since Schiano arrived, which is why we have the talent to beat most B1G squads.

Are you putting your money where your mouth is, and betting on Rutgers for these games? You sound supremely confident. If you know something nobody else does, you could make a killing.

#11-30 isn't going to cut it, when you lose #1-10 to your division rivals.

I'm not saying it couldn't change, with a different head coach. But with your current one, no chance.

 

[fairgambit]

This is simply incorrect, while Rutgers has continued to have problems landing Top 10 players in the jersey, we've landed our share of jersey #11-30 players, plus supplemented with talent from surrounding states. But the game changer for us has been to successfully recruit the state of Florida, since Schiano arrived, which is why we have the talent to beat most B1G squads.

Beat them at what? Braggadocio?

 

[pandaczar12]

If PSU wins more games based on no more sanctions, great recruiting and coaching (the coaching part still a question, I really didn't think Franklin did a good job with your offense)
Who's going to get worse?

Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern. See how easy that was?

You are hopeless.
So if you are watching an auto race, if the winner didn't start in first, that must mean some cars were going in reverse.

That might be the worst analogy I've ever heard.

which is why we have the talent to beat most B1G squads.

Which perfectly explains why Rutgers lost to most of the B10 schools they played last year, usually in crushing fashion, and squeaked by the 2 of the 3 they beat.

 

[Bkn_Psu]

Football success was not important to Rutgers for most of its history and football was treated as a loss leader, for the most part. Facilities were bare bones, and coaches were hired on the cheap. That's why results were inconsistent, to be charitable.

Rutgers only became serious about football once we hired Schiano in 2001. Till then, the complete infrastructure for football success wasn't in place. The most important thing Schiano did was to install a championship culture. And the administration backed him up with 150 million dollars in facilities improvements. In 2014, Rutgers went 8-5, squarely in the middle of the B1G. This year, Rutgers is well positioned to improve upon that.

You went 3-5 in the B1G and got blown out 4 times. Please stop.

 

[Rollin Stone]

Ok make your predictions this year for Rutgers.

Norfolk State Win
Wash St. Win but I could see this as a L
PSU. L
Kansas. Win
Mich St. L
Indiana. Win. But close at IU
OSU. L
Wisconsin. L
U Michigan. L at Mich don't think so
Nebraska. L. But I think you have a chance at home
Army. Win
Maryland. L. But it is at home and you have a chance for 6-6. But Maryland maybe fight for bowl eligibility with game too.

I say 5-7 maybe 6-6. Tell me your predictions

 

[zappaa]

Panda-
You only named schools you lost to last year, so based on your answer I'm counting Michigan as a win for us.
So my answer to you is we're going to beat you...
By the way, I've played for a lot of coaches including hall of famers, I've never quite heard the question phrased "who's gonna get worse"
I said PSU in jest because I truly have no idea, beating you at your home would be a tall order for us...obviously
So my true answer to you respectfully is I think were going to upset someone who beat us last year, I have no idea who that is.

 

[zappaa]

Ok make your predictions this year for Rutgers.

Norfolk State Win
Wash St. Win but I could see this as a L
PSU. L
Kansas. Win
Mich St. L
Indiana. Win. But close at IU
OSU. L
Wisconsin. L
U Michigan. L at Mich
Nebraska. L. But I think you have a chance at home
Army. Win
Maryland. L. But it is at home and you have a chance for 6-6

I say 5-7 maybe 6-6. Tell me your predictions

I don't know why you'd include Maryland since we scored 30 points on them in the second half last year on the road.

 

[Bkn_Psu]

Ok make your predictions this year for Rutgers.

Norfolk State Win
Wash St. Win but I could see this as a L
PSU. L
Kansas. Win
Mich St. L
Indiana. Win. But close at IU
OSU. L
Wisconsin. L
U Michigan. L
Nebraska. L. But I think you have a chance at home
Army. Win
Maryland. L. But it is at home and you have a chance for 6-6

I say 5-7 maybe 6-6. Tell me your predictions

5-7 is about right. Vegas has their o/u at 5 with the under juiced.

 

[Art]

I don't know why you'd include Maryland since we scored 30 points on them in the second half last year on the road.

And your QB and OC are who this year?

 

[Rollin Stone]

I don't know why you'd include Maryland since we scored 30 points on them in the second half last year on the road.

Because in my opinion you lose to them this year. That's why I included it. State your opinion. Oh yeah and you won by 3.

 

[retsio]

Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern. See how easy that was?
Which perfectly explains why Rutgers lost to most of the B10 schools they played last year, usually in crushing fashion, and squeaked by the 2 of the 3 they beat.

How perplexing is it that the Rutgers posters refer to themselves as 'fans' rather than Alums. While the highest percentage of posters on this entire board are Penn State Alums and die hard experts in all things Penn State -- not just football. Academics, WVB, even experts in household, travel and tourist items.

Perplexing....also to the 12" seats in The Little House, overloaded with 'fans' rather than alums......wannabees!!

 

[zappaa]

How perplexing is it that the Rutgers posters refer to themselves as 'fans' rather than Alums. While the highest percentage of posters on this entire board are Penn State Alums and die hard experts in all things Penn State -- not just football. Academics, WVB, even experts in household, travel and tourist items.

Perplexing....also to the 12" seats in The Little House, overloaded with 'fans' rather than alums......wannabees!!

Amazing deduction.
The answer is quite simple for me, I'm not an alum of RU. I know dozens of PSU season ticket holders who are not alums.
I have access to PSU tickets because I have family that went there and have seats.

 

[Rollin Stone]

So I guess the Rutgers fans must think that my predictions are correct or at least close to their own expectations. Since no one has come on here to tell me I'm crazy. Ok

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Carli Lloyd and Todd Frazier, who from PSU made sports news this summer? Devon Still and John Urschel immediately come to mind. Still who plays for the Bengal received an Espy for both he and his young daughter Leah for their perseverance is battling Leah's cancer and Urschel who plays for the Ravens published a complex math paper in the Journal of Computational Mathematics entitled, "A Cascadic Multigrid Algorithm for Computing the Fielder Vector of Graph Laplacians and then later presented an algorithm he created to the NSA that helps sort complex data.

I love the bad karma you're creating for yourselves, the game this fall will come down to the 4th quarter, amazing for a team that can't compete. Possible but IMO unlikely considering RU will start the season playing with an untested QB and in his very first start on the road in one of the most loud and intimidating venues in college football.