penn state vs texas... 1969

[N&B4PSU]

I posted on this once before (long) and rather than go through it in depth...

Not sure how many people actually saw both teams play in 1969. I did. And i've watched quite a bit of video since then, also.

I researched the size of the players from both team. We were bigger and faster. I also researched how both teams (players) did in the nfl drafts to follow (we were much more successful) and how both teams faired against common opponents and in the big national picture. I probably should not place too much emphasis on how we throttled Texas in 1971 (2) but it is telling that we totally shut them down with a less powerful defense.

I still have a hard time imagining that UT team scoring more than 3 points (without huge miscues). And while we had a less than stellar offense, our D would have provided enough short fields to make scoring 17 or more fairly simple. For me, this is one that got away. Texas was an easier opponent than Mizzou which had far more explosive weapons.

Texas had the bone and wooster.. and he simply wasn't good enough.

To this day, it's my alter-vision dream game. Well, that and vs kNU in 1994.

 

[Cosmos]

I posted on this once before (long) and rather than go through it in depth...

Not sure how many people actually saw both teams play in 1969. I did. And i've watched quite a bit of video since then, also.

I researched the size of the players from both team. We were bigger and faster. I also researched how both teams (players) did in the nfl drafts to follow (we were much more successful) and how both teams faired against common opponents and in the big national picture. I probably should not place too much emphasis on how we throttled Texas in 1971 (2) but it is telling that we totally shut them down with a less powerful defense.

I still have a hard time imagining that UT team scoring more than 3 points (without huge miscues). And while we had a less than stellar offense, our D would have provided enough short fields to make scoring 17 or more fairly simple. For me, this is one that got away. Texas was an easier opponent than Mizzou which had far more explosive weapons.

Texas had the bone and wooster.. and he simply wasn't good enough.

To this day, it's my alter-vision dream game. Well, that and vs kNU in 1994.

Posts like these are why I come here.

Texas, as well as much of the old Southwest Conference, wore the dreaded tear-away jerseys. It would've required an adjustment in our tackling, so I'm not so sure we would've shut them down. Plus playing them in the Cotton Bowl on their home turf, I'm not sure we would have gotten a fair shake. As for '94, I would have spotted Nebraska 9 points on a neutral field.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

Texas was the last All-white MNC Team. There’s a reason why these schools quickly desegregated after a few beat downs (e.g USC and Sam Cunningham destroying Bama).

We would have whipped their ass. Too much speed and size. Then again, our fault for assuming OSU would beat Michigan that year and matching up with a team lower ranked than UT

 

[N&B4PSU]

Posts like these are why I come here.

Texas, as well as much of the old Southwest Conference, wore the dreaded tear-away jerseys. It would've required an adjustment in our tackling, so I'm not so sure we would've shut them down. Plus playing them in the Cotton Bowl on their home turf, I'm not sure we would have gotten a fair shake. As for '94, I would have spotted Nebraska 9 points on a neutral field.

Interesting point about the tearaway jerseys... and agree that playing in the CB would have been a challenge... esp in '69. Still think we kick their butts.

As to '94, a healthy PSU ramrods kNU. The team we fielded for the Rose Bowl... well, it would have been decidedly more difficult. still think we prevail, but a lot closer as our defense was a shell of the bunch we had out there to handle usc.

 

[Norm Petersin]

Reid, Smear and company would shut down any team. They were a force. F Nixon, he gave them the title

 

[olelion]

Dan Devine was coach of Missouri in 1969. Missouri was at or near the top of total offense that year but lost to PSU 10-3 in the Orange Bowl. After the game, when asked whether Penn State could beat Texas, he replied (paraphrased a bit), ".........I don't know, but Texas wouldn't have scored a touchdown". Maybe someone here knows or remembers the exact quote.

 

[mn78psu83]

Dan Devine was coach of Missouri in 1969. Missouri was at or near the top of total offense that year but lost to PSU 10-3 in the Orange Bowl. After the game, when asked whether Penn State could beat Texas, he replied (paraphrased a bit), ".........I don't know, but Texas wouldn't have scored a touchdown". Maybe someone here knows or remembers the exact quote.

Not exactly what you're looking for from the below article - excellent read too - but:

The Lions' defense intercepted Missouri quarterback Terry McMillan nine times, and recovered two fumbles. The Lions also held the Tigers' lethal offense to 189 rushing yards and 117 yards passing.

"Penn State did some things to us like no one else did," Missouri coach Dan Devine said afterwards.

I think the author is wrong about the number of INTs. It was ONLY seven.

LINK: Two (1968-69) Sterling Seasons

Also, here is the Orange Bowl on youtube.

 

[Bob78]

Not exactly what you're looking for from the below article - excellent read too - but:

The Lions' defense intercepted Missouri quarterback Terry McMillan nine times, and recovered two fumbles. The Lions also held the Tigers' lethal offense to 189 rushing yards and 117 yards passing.

"Penn State did some things to us like no one else did," Missouri coach Dan Devine said afterwards.

LINK: Two (1968-69) Sterling Seasons

I think the article is wrong on the turnover stat: I'm pretty sure we intercepted 7 passes (not 9), and had 2 fumble recoveries, for 9 total turnovers. I'm going off the top, so big margin for error and all.

Missouri had one of the top couple of offenses in the nation that year. They had beaten Michigan earlier in the season, too, if I recall, by a wide margin. They ran over most of the Big 8 with ease, but had one upset loss on the road. Joe considered them to be every bit as good as Texas, and certainly much more to handle offensively.

Again, from what I recall, one of PSU's issues with the Cotton Bowl was the expectation of running into a hostile, racist contingent of Texans, not necessarily Texas fans, in Dallas, and taking away from the overall quality of the trip. As most of us old guys remember, Joe was big on blending the hard work of bowl prep with a good amount of fun time for the players.

I have no doubt we would have prevailed in '69 vs. Texas, even in the Cotton, and vs. Nebraska in '94, anywhere. Oregon was a better team than Miami was at the end of that season. Not sure Nebraska beating Oregon would have been a given if the bowl matchups were different.

Without playing H-t-H, no one can say for sure, of course. But I consider PSU '69 and '94 National Championship Teams without any hesitation, and I think definitely '68, '73, and perhaps even '77 and '81 if there was any semblance of a real playoff, are in the conversation. I concede '05 grudgingly. '78, '85, '05, were all worthy of a NC, but didn't come through when they had the chance. So be it. Still great teams, great memories, great players, great coach.

 

[mn78psu83]

I think the article is wrong on the turnover stat: I'm pretty sure we intercepted 7 passes (not 9), and had 2 fumble recoveries, for 9 total turnovers. I'm going off the top, so big margin for error and all.

Missouri had one of the top couple of offenses in the nation that year. They had beaten Michigan earlier in the season, too, if I recall, by a wide margin. They ran over most of the Big 8 with ease, but had one upset loss on the road. Joe considered them to be every bit as good as Texas, and certainly much more to handle offensively.

Again, from what I recall, one of PSU's issues with the Cotton Bowl was the expectation of running into a hostile, racist contingent of Texans, not necessarily Texas fans, in Dallas, and taking away from the overall quality of the trip. As most of us old guys remember, Joe was big on blending the hard work of bowl prep with a good amount of fun time for the players.

I have no doubt we would have prevailed in '69 vs. Texas, even in the Cotton, and vs. Nebraska in '94, anywhere. Oregon was a better team than Miami was at the end of that season. Not sure Nebraska beating Oregon would have been a given if the bowl matchups were different.

Without playing H-t-H, no one can say for sure, of course. But I consider PSU '69 and '94 National Championship Teams without any hesitation, and I think definitely '68, '73, and perhaps even '77 and '81 if there was any semblance of a real playoff, are in the conversation. I concede '05 grudgingly. '78, '85, '05, were all worthy of a NC, but didn't come through when they had the chance. So be it. Still great teams, great memories, great players, great coach.

Great post!

BTW, I had gone back and pointed it out that it was only 7 INTs. I kept looking at 9 and thinking that wasn't possible. Heck, 9 total turnovers is pretty hard to imagine. But that defense. Wow.

 

[Bob78]

Great post!

BTW, I had gone back and pointed it out that it was only 7 INTs. I kept looking at 9 and thinking that wasn't possible. Heck, 9 total turnovers is pretty hard to imagine. But that defense. Wow.

After the game, a reporter asked Denny Onkotz "How long could you have held Missouri's offense in check?"
Onkotz answered "Forever."

Sends shivers up my spine just remembering that.

 

[Option Bob]

I posted on this once before (long) and rather than go through it in depth...

Not sure how many people actually saw both teams play in 1969. I did. And i've watched quite a bit of video since then, also.

I researched the size of the players from both team. We were bigger and faster. I also researched how both teams (players) did in the nfl drafts to follow (we were much more successful) and how both teams faired against common opponents and in the big national picture. I probably should not place too much emphasis on how we throttled Texas in 1971 (2) but it is telling that we totally shut them down with a less powerful defense.

I still have a hard time imagining that UT team scoring more than 3 points (without huge miscues). And while we had a less than stellar offense, our D would have provided enough short fields to make scoring 17 or more fairly simple. For me, this is one that got away. Texas was an easier opponent than Mizzou which had far more explosive weapons.

Texas had the bone and wooster.. and he simply wasn't good enough.

To this day, it's my alter-vision dream game. Well, that and vs kNU in 1994.

Well, N&B, I've posted on this topic quite often, for I lived through that mess right in the very heart of it. Here are some of the reasons I still believe the Rover Boys would have defeated the Longhorns in 1969:

1. Penn State's defense was built on speed and quickness, years before Miami made such an idea famous. Reid was a converted FB; Smear, an End; Onkotz, QB; Ebersole, LB; Kates, FB; Mike Smith, RB; Ham, S; Hull, LB. Reid, Smear, and Kates would have shut down Worster and the rest of that swarming defense would have shut down the outside option.

2. The Lion defense had experience that year against the Wishbone when it met unbeaten West Va which had -- before the game -- the #1 rushing offense in the country. Result: Penn State shut out the Mountaineers.

3. Texas had a solid defense, but it had not faced an offense with 3 All-American caliber RBs like Charlie Pittman, Lydell Mitchell, and Franco Harris. Penn State would have had short fields given to it by the turnover-inducing defense, and these 3 backs would have scored enough to beat Texas.

4. Texas beat Arkansas on a "fluke" 4th-down deep pass late in the game. Had UT tried passing on PSU, it would have gone against a team with 28 interceptions, 10 by FS Neal Smith alone. Trying to throw short on the Lions' 4 LBs proved equally futile all year, as Onkotz alone was a potential pick-6 on any throw over the middle.

5. As all Penn State fans should know, JoePa at that time was at the very top of his game. Entering the Cotton Bowl as a consensus #2, getting blasted from all sides in the media, he would have had a game plan to decisively shut down the Longhorn Wishbone. Penn State in bowl games was always a tough nut to crack.

Like so many myths of the past, the whole "Penn State turned down a chance to play Texas" is totally bogus. Ohio State was the 1968 NC (over an 11-0 PSU, of course), and was rolling toward another when when it rolled highly ranked Purdue. SI rans an article that ranked the Buckeye offense #1 and its defense #2 following the rout of the Boilermakers. Because of inane Big Ten rules, OSU couldn't repeat its trip to the Rose Bowl, and no other Bowls were options for Big Ten schools back then. Hence, once the Buckeyes swept through a Michigan team that Missouri absolutely crushed in Ann Arbor 40-17, they would be duly anointed NV again no matter what Texas or Penn State or Arkansas did in a Bowl game. When the Lion players voted on Bowl bids (in November, prior to the end of the season), the racial tension in Dallas was a definite factor, as was the weather. Since both the AP and UPI announced that its NC would be awarded before the Bowls (because of the OSU situation), the players opted for sunny, warm, hotel-accommodating Maimi. Going to Dallas, risking having its Black players prohibited from staying in the same hotel, having predictably miserable weather in Dallas, and still having no shot at getting to #1, the players opted for the Orange Bowl. Note, too, that Penn State clearly did not "dodge" UT, for the Texas-Arkansas game hadn't even been played yet when the bids went out.

 

[kijanacat]

I don't remember black players being shut out of hotels as a problem in 1969. The Civil Rights Act had been passed. Still, I just don't remember that being an issue. If I recall uNDie played in that CottonBowl. But I could be wrong.

 

[crm114psu]

Well, N&B, I've posted on this topic quite often, for I lived through that mess right in the very heart of it. Here are some of the reasons I still believe the Rover Boys would have defeated the Longhorns in 1969:

1. Penn State's defense was built on speed and quickness, years before Miami made such an idea famous. Reid was a converted FB; Smear, an End; Onkotz, QB; Ebersole, LB; Kates, FB; Mike Smith, RB; Ham, S; Hull, LB. Reid, Smear, and Kates would have shut down Worster and the rest of that swarming defense would have shut down the outside option.

2. The Lion defense had experience that year against the Wishbone when it met unbeaten West Va which had -- before the game -- the #1 rushing offense in the country. Result: Penn State shut out the Mountaineers.

3. Texas had a solid defense, but it had not faced an offense with 3 All-American caliber RBs like Charlie Pittman, Lydell Mitchell, and Franco Harris. Penn State would have had short fields given to it by the turnover-inducing defense, and these 3 backs would have scored enough to beat Texas.

4. Texas beat Arkansas on a "fluke" 4th-down deep pass late in the game. Had UT tried passing on PSU, it would have gone against a team with 28 interceptions, 10 by FS Neal Smith alone. Trying to throw short on the Lions' 4 LBs proved equally futile all year, as Onkotz alone was a potential pick-6 on any throw over the middle.

5. As all Penn State fans should know, JoePa at that time was at the very top of his game. Entering the Cotton Bowl as a consensus #2, getting blasted from all sides in the media, he would have had a game plan to decisively shut down the Longhorn Wishbone. Penn State in bowl games was always a tough nut to crack.

Like so many myths of the past, the whole "Penn State turned down a chance to play Texas" is totally bogus. Ohio State was the 1968 NC (over an 11-0 PSU, of course), and was rolling toward another when when it rolled highly ranked Purdue. SI rans an article that ranked the Buckeye offense #1 and its defense #2 following the rout of the Boilermakers. Because of inane Big Ten rules, OSU couldn't repeat its trip to the Rose Bowl, and no other Bowls were options for Big Ten schools back then. Hence, once the Buckeyes swept through a Michigan team that Missouri absolutely crushed in Ann Arbor 40-17, they would be duly anointed NV again no matter what Texas or Penn State or Arkansas did in a Bowl game. When the Lion players voted on Bowl bids (in November, prior to the end of the season), the racial tension in Dallas was a definite factor, as was the weather. Since both the AP and UPI announced that its NC would be awarded before the Bowls (because of the OSU situation), the players opted for sunny, warm, hotel-accommodating Maimi. Going to Dallas, risking having its Black players prohibited from staying in the same hotel, having predictably miserable weather in Dallas, and still having no shot at getting to #1, the players opted for the Orange Bowl. Note, too, that Penn State clearly did not "dodge" UT, for the Texas-Arkansas game hadn't even been played yet when the bids went out.

PSU did in fact decline to play Texas in the Cotton. That is no myth.

Games are decided on the field, not by comparing stats or past performance, so we will never know how that would have turned out.

How many predicted a victory against Bama in the 79 Sugar? PSU was ranked #1 with the #1 scoring defense and favored. How did that turn out?

 

[JosephNit]

I posted on this once before (long) and rather than go through it in depth...

Not sure how many people actually saw both teams play in 1969. I did. And i've watched quite a bit of video since then, also.

I researched the size of the players from both team. We were bigger and faster. I also researched how both teams (players) did in the nfl drafts to follow (we were much more successful) and how both teams faired against common opponents and in the big national picture. I probably should not place too much emphasis on how we throttled Texas in 1971 (2) but it is telling that we totally shut them down with a less powerful defense.

I still have a hard time imagining that UT team scoring more than 3 points (without huge miscues). And while we had a less than stellar offense, our D would have provided enough short fields to make scoring 17 or more fairly simple. For me, this is one that got away. Texas was an easier opponent than Mizzou which had far more explosive weapons.

Texas had the bone and wooster.. and he simply wasn't good enough.

To this day, it's my alter-vision dream game. Well, that and vs kNU in 1994.

I saw (on television) both teams play that year. Believe me, Penn State would have handled Texas.

Don't get me wrong: Texas was good. Their 1969 team may have been the best of the Darrel Royal years.

But the 1969 Penn State defense was one of the best in the modern era of college football. If I recall correctly, it gave up less than 100 points the entire season. I think there were no less than five All-Americans (first- and second-team) on that unit-- to include the best defensive player in the country.

Meanwhile, Texas struggled to beat an excellent (but not overwhelming) Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl. It was back and forth the whole way until the Longhorns pulled the game out in the 4th quarter and ended up winning 21-17.

As one or two others here have mentioned, it was just luck of the draw that the two teams did not match up. Absolutely, there was a racial factor, in that the black guys on Penn State's team understandably had no great desire to go to a bowl game in Texas. If the team had known it would be for a national championship, it would have been an easy call. But when the decision was made, that was not at all clear.

At any rate, Notre Dame held Texas's wishbone to 21 points. Penn State's defense, which was considerably better, would maybe have given up 10, and that would have been more than good enough for us to win.

 

[N&B4PSU]

Well, N&B, I've posted on this topic quite often, for I lived through that mess right in the very heart of it. Here are some of the reasons I still believe the Rover Boys would have defeated the Longhorns in 1969:

1. Penn State's defense was built on speed and quickness, years before Miami made such an idea famous. Reid was a converted FB; Smear, an End; Onkotz, QB; Ebersole, LB; Kates, FB; Mike Smith, RB; Ham, S; Hull, LB. Reid, Smear, and Kates would have shut down Worster and the rest of that swarming defense would have shut down the outside option.

2. The Lion defense had experience that year against the Wishbone when it met unbeaten West Va which had -- before the game -- the #1 rushing offense in the country. Result: Penn State shut out the Mountaineers.

3. Texas had a solid defense, but it had not faced an offense with 3 All-American caliber RBs like Charlie Pittman, Lydell Mitchell, and Franco Harris. Penn State would have had short fields given to it by the turnover-inducing defense, and these 3 backs would have scored enough to beat Texas.

4. Texas beat Arkansas on a "fluke" 4th-down deep pass late in the game. Had UT tried passing on PSU, it would have gone against a team with 28 interceptions, 10 by FS Neal Smith alone. Trying to throw short on the Lions' 4 LBs proved equally futile all year, as Onkotz alone was a potential pick-6 on any throw over the middle.

5. As all Penn State fans should know, JoePa at that time was at the very top of his game. Entering the Cotton Bowl as a consensus #2, getting blasted from all sides in the media, he would have had a game plan to decisively shut down the Longhorn Wishbone. Penn State in bowl games was always a tough nut to crack.

Like so many myths of the past, the whole "Penn State turned down a chance to play Texas" is totally bogus. Ohio State was the 1968 NC (over an 11-0 PSU, of course), and was rolling toward another when when it rolled highly ranked Purdue. SI rans an article that ranked the Buckeye offense #1 and its defense #2 following the rout of the Boilermakers. Because of inane Big Ten rules, OSU couldn't repeat its trip to the Rose Bowl, and no other Bowls were options for Big Ten schools back then. Hence, once the Buckeyes swept through a Michigan team that Missouri absolutely crushed in Ann Arbor 40-17, they would be duly anointed NV again no matter what Texas or Penn State or Arkansas did in a Bowl game. When the Lion players voted on Bowl bids (in November, prior to the end of the season), the racial tension in Dallas was a definite factor, as was the weather. Since both the AP and UPI announced that its NC would be awarded before the Bowls (because of the OSU situation), the players opted for sunny, warm, hotel-accommodating Maimi. Going to Dallas, risking having its Black players prohibited from staying in the same hotel, having predictably miserable weather in Dallas, and still having no shot at getting to #1, the players opted for the Orange Bowl. Note, too, that Penn State clearly did not "dodge" UT, for the Texas-Arkansas game hadn't even been played yet when the bids went out.

What a fantastic explanation!

What's interesting is thast in addition to being faster, we were also bigger (when you take the time to find the ht/wt charts, it's apparent we outweighed them pretty much across the board... and there's little doubt we were faster).

Thank you for the additional details and for clearing up the biggest piece of fake news of its tyime (lol).

 

[N&B4PSU]

PSU did in fact decline to play Texas in the Cotton. That is no myth.

Games are decided on the field, not by comparing stats or past performance, so we will never know how that would have turned out.

How many predicted a victory against Bama in the 79 Sugar? PSU was ranked #1 with the #1 scoring defense and favored. How did that turn out?

I think I'll trust OB on this one for a variety of reasons... his recollections are sharper than mine (I was younger) and I know we both watched the team that year. And yes, when you compare how teams matched up, you'd really be hard pressed to pick against us.

That said, I agree that stats don't tell the story... but I'd happily take my chances with that team against anyone else in 1969. No prima donna show-offs butchering things... just hard nosed kids who would have played with a huge chip on their shoulder.

BTW, I don't recall being surprised we lost to alabama.. unhappy, but hardly surprised. We knew they were a very good

 

[Diego Badman]

Not exactly what you're looking for from the below article - excellent read too - but:

The Lions' defense intercepted Missouri quarterback Terry McMillan nine times, and recovered two fumbles. The Lions also held the Tigers' lethal offense to 189 rushing yards and 117 yards passing.

"Penn State did some things to us like no one else did," Missouri coach Dan Devine said afterwards.

I think the author is wrong about the number of INTs. It was ONLY seven.

LINK: Two (1968-69) Sterling Seasons

Also, here is the Orange Bowl on youtube.

View embedded media

Out of curiosity: who ran the Penn State Defense in those days?

 

[BUFFALO LION]

PSU did in fact decline to play Texas in the Cotton. That is no myth.

Games are decided on the field, not by comparing stats or past performance, so we will never know how that would have turned out.

How many predicted a victory against Bama in the 79 Sugar? PSU was ranked #1 with the #1 scoring defense and favored. How did that turn out?

Watch both teams on tape and tell me who would have won. What stands out like a sore thumb about Texas compared to Penn State is how SLOOOOOOOOOW they appeared compared to us.

We would have beaten that team by 2 or 3 TDs and totally shut them down. The only hope they would have had is if we would have turned the ball over all day long. As disciplined as we were under Joe, that wasn't going to happen.

 

[nits74]

Well, N&B, I've posted on this topic quite often, for I lived through that mess right in the very heart of it. Here are some of the reasons I still believe the Rover Boys would have defeated the Longhorns in 1969:

1. Penn State's defense was built on speed and quickness, years before Miami made such an idea famous. Reid was a converted FB; Smear, an End; Onkotz, QB; Ebersole, LB; Kates, FB; Mike Smith, RB; Ham, S; Hull, LB. Reid, Smear, and Kates would have shut down Worster and the rest of that swarming defense would have shut down the outside option.

2. The Lion defense had experience that year against the Wishbone when it met unbeaten West Va which had -- before the game -- the #1 rushing offense in the country. Result: Penn State shut out the Mountaineers.

3. Texas had a solid defense, but it had not faced an offense with 3 All-American caliber RBs like Charlie Pittman, Lydell Mitchell, and Franco Harris. Penn State would have had short fields given to it by the turnover-inducing defense, and these 3 backs would have scored enough to beat Texas.

4. Texas beat Arkansas on a "fluke" 4th-down deep pass late in the game. Had UT tried passing on PSU, it would have gone against a team with 28 interceptions, 10 by FS Neal Smith alone. Trying to throw short on the Lions' 4 LBs proved equally futile all year, as Onkotz alone was a potential pick-6 on any throw over the middle.

5. As all Penn State fans should know, JoePa at that time was at the very top of his game. Entering the Cotton Bowl as a consensus #2, getting blasted from all sides in the media, he would have had a game plan to decisively shut down the Longhorn Wishbone. Penn State in bowl games was always a tough nut to crack.

Like so many myths of the past, the whole "Penn State turned down a chance to play Texas" is totally bogus. Ohio State was the 1968 NC (over an 11-0 PSU, of course), and was rolling toward another when when it rolled highly ranked Purdue. SI rans an article that ranked the Buckeye offense #1 and its defense #2 following the rout of the Boilermakers. Because of inane Big Ten rules, OSU couldn't repeat its trip to the Rose Bowl, and no other Bowls were options for Big Ten schools back then. Hence, once the Buckeyes swept through a Michigan team that Missouri absolutely crushed in Ann Arbor 40-17, they would be duly anointed NV again no matter what Texas or Penn State or Arkansas did in a Bowl game. When the Lion players voted on Bowl bids (in November, prior to the end of the season), the racial tension in Dallas was a definite factor, as was the weather. Since both the AP and UPI announced that its NC would be awarded before the Bowls (because of the OSU situation), the players opted for sunny, warm, hotel-accommodating Maimi. Going to Dallas, risking having its Black players prohibited from staying in the same hotel, having predictably miserable weather in Dallas, and still having no shot at getting to #1, the players opted for the Orange Bowl. Note, too, that Penn State clearly did not "dodge" UT, for the Texas-Arkansas game hadn't even been played yet when the bids went out.

On the money, Bob. Great post. The other myth in my mind was that Nixon gave Texas the title. The voters were going to give it to them anyway at that point, prejudice against Eastern football being what it was at the time. As it was, Texas was very lucky to have beaten ND in the Cotton bowl earlier that same day. If that had happened then things would have been different.

 

[brupsu]

Out of curiosity: who ran the Penn State Defense in those days?

I guess you are looking to bring Sandusky into this somehow?Look it up yourself but Sandusky was not a coordinator before 1977.He was a defensive line coach during those years.

 

[Diego Badman]

I guess you are looking to bring Sandusky into this somehow?Look it up yourself but Sandusky was not a coordinator before 1977.He was a defensive line coach during those years.

You could not be more wrong. I have no interest in bringing Sandusky into this. It was an honest question which, unfortunately, got a smart ass response.

 

[mn78psu83]

Out of curiosity: who ran the Penn State Defense in those days?

I do not know who was officially the D coordinator. From reading it sounds as if Joe was at least "involved" in the defensive tactics and strategy in those days.

From the article:

Once spring practice ended in 1967, Paterno took the initiative. He became obsessesed with improving the Nittany Lion program. The coach went to work on devising the perfect system: The supreme defensive system. No other collegiate team would be able to perpetrate this defensive scheme. It was to be universal, even if he did downplay its significance in true Paterno fashion.

"I think we have the makings of a good football team," Paterno said in the Aug. 10, 1967 edition of The Daily Collegian.

 

[Option Bob]

Out of curiosity: who ran the Penn State Defense in those days?

DB, back then, Penn State didn't have terms like OC or DC. I remember reading that Joe himself designed the 4-4-3 defense used by the Lions. The defensive coaches in 1969 were as follows:

1. Jim O'Hora - DL and I think he was primarily in charge of the defense, what we now call the DC
2. J.T. White - DE (the only Michigan grad I can tolerate )
3. Dan Radakovich - LB
4. Frank Patrick - secondary

 

[MrDibbs]

Penn State didn't get to break the wishbone in 1969, but when they played that offense in 1972, they snapped it like a twig.

Several years after that Cotton Bowl demolition (I still fondly remember LBJ in the stands with a dour look on his face) PSU played the U of Houston who ran the veer offense which was the same as the wishbone triple. Their QB was a guy named Danny Davis. Danny and the rest of the Cougars got a lesson in defense that day.

The reason PSU was successful against option teams was that the DE didn't play too aggressively and ran laterally to the line of scrimmage delaying the QB decision to run or pitch. The posse then showed up and beat the living daylights out of the QB.

The 1969 defense would have made mincemeat out of Texas. They were that good.