What are your thoughts on why after 85, 86

[PSUPride1]

And playing for back to back NCs including winning a game of the century that Penn State didn't vault into the stratosphere as a program.
I lived through this time period but when you're living something sometimes you miss things that appear obvious down the line.
- Was it the staffs age? Most of these guys had been around for 20 plus years. I know we were pretty good in 91 but Joe usually closed the deal in the past when he had talent.
- was it motivation? I remember Joe saying in 89 he had lost his mojo after the 86 season.
- did the style of play in college football change which hurt us defensively. I think we've all agreed Penn State was not a great defensive team in the 90s.
You just wonder because in today's age when these teams make the playoffs it seems to elevate their program to where they are competing for the playoffs every year.
Anyway not complaining but I always wondered why we didn't become an absolute juggernaut after 86.

 

[PSU_Nut]

And playing for back to back NCs including winning a game of the century that Penn State didn't vault into the stratosphere as a program.
I lived through this time period but when you're living something sometimes you miss things that appear obvious down the line.
- Was it the staffs age? Most of these guys had been around for 20 plus years. I know we were pretty good in 91 but Joe usually closed the deal in the past when he had talent.
- was it motivation? I remember Joe saying in 89 he had lost his mojo after the 86 season.
- did the style of play in college football change which hurt us defensively. I think we've all agreed Penn State was not a great defensive team in the 90s.
You just wonder because I'm today's age when these teams make the playoffs it seems to elevate their program to where they are competing for the playoffs every year.
Anyway not complaining but I always wondered why we didn't become an absolute juggernaut after 86.

I think there are several reasons why...
-Slow decline in recruiting base. The talent produced by the region slowly declined.
-Paterno strictness was not always received well by many recruits. Players idolized guys like Deion Sanders and the team first mentality was the popular trend.
-Failure to keep up with modern trends. Paterno was stubborn and failed to adapt to changes in the game. The biggest example I can think about is the shot gun. Penn State for decades refused to use the formation.
-Age of Paterno and many staff members worked against them.

 

[Madsol]

I think there are several reasons why...
-Slow decline in recruiting base. The talent produced by the region slowly declined.
-Paterno strictness was not always received well by many recruits. Players idolized guys like Deion Sanders and the team first mentality was the popular trend.
-Failure to keep up with modern trends. Paterno was stubborn and failed to adapt to changes in the game. The biggest example I can think about is the shot gun. Penn State for decades refused to use the formation.
-Age of Paterno and many staff members worked against them.

Interesting thread. Had never really thought about it before. But as to these 4 reasons:

1. We went from losing 1 game in 1985/86 combined to being pretty pedestrian in 1987/88/89. That was the OP's point. Not sure demographic changes can explain that precipitous fall.
2. No idea if this is a valid point.
3. Lack of using the shotgun doesn't explain what happened immediately following 1985/86 seasons. Recently watched 1991 game vs. Miami. That Miami team was awesome. I don't think they ran a play out of the shotgun.
4. Maybe.

 

[RU31trap]

I firmly believe that number 1, 2 and 3 was the perception that at Penn State you were expected to be a student athlete, and Coach Paterno would enforce that rule. Other coaches like Bobby Bowden, Barry Switzer, Jimmy Johnson and Steve Spurrier (sp) used that angle with success to recruit top athletes of that era.

 

[PSUPride1]

Interesting thread. Had never really thought about it before. But as to these 4 reasons:

1. We went from losing 1 game in 1985/86 combined to being pretty pedestrian in 1987/88/89. That was the OP's point. Not sure demographic changes can explain that precipitous fall.
2. No idea if this is a valid point.
3. Lack of using the shotgun doesn't explain what happened immediately following 1985/86 seasons. Recently watched 1991 game vs. Miami. That Miami team was awesome. I don't think they ran a play out of the shotgun.
4. Maybe.

I agree with most of what you said but we had played for three NCs in the 80s up to 86. Recruiting should have been the least of our problems.

 

[Obliviax]

And playing for back to back NCs including winning a game of the century that Penn State didn't vault into the stratosphere as a program.
I lived through this time period but when you're living something sometimes you miss things that appear obvious down the line.
- Was it the staffs age? Most of these guys had been around for 20 plus years. I know we were pretty good in 91 but Joe usually closed the deal in the past when he had talent.
- was it motivation? I remember Joe saying in 89 he had lost his mojo after the 86 season.
- did the style of play in college football change which hurt us defensively. I think we've all agreed Penn State was not a great defensive team in the 90s.
You just wonder because in today's age when these teams make the playoffs it seems to elevate their program to where they are competing for the playoffs every year.
Anyway not complaining but I always wondered why we didn't become an absolute juggernaut after 86.

Great question...IMHO, the world changed and PSU did not. There were always teams cheating but previous to that timeframe, college ball was regional. Fandom, recruiting, and media included. There were only three networks; ABC, CBS, NBC. There were also some smaller UHF stations. Then, At that time, cable TV came along. With cable came a national reach, national exposure, national recruiting and national PR. Schools that made millions were in line to make tens to hundreds of millions. ND signed an entire network leaving two. That forced conferences to align with TV outlets and then for conferences to realign. College football went 365 days a year and even recruiting became a revenue source. Suddenly, big money was involved and universities wanted their pie.

Joe tried to stick to the notion of the student/athlete with "student" coming first. Other schools, Oklahoma, Pitt, SMU, etc. cheated like crazy and no longer cared about the "student" part of athlete. It was common for NFL players to be illiterate after graduating college. Joe also tried to stay regional and to not expand when the region was compressing.

I don't think PSU woke up to the new world until CJF took over. We still miss the boat; not having a B/W game was a PR missed opportunity, for example.

 

[YogiMan71]

I firmly believe that number 1, 2 and 3 was the perception that at Penn State you were expected to be a student athlete, and Coach Paterno would enforce that rule. Other coaches like Bobby Bowden, Barry Switzer, Jimmy Johnson and Steve Spurrier (sp) used that angle with success to recruit top i

 

[YogiMan71]

I totally agree.

 

[heckmans]

Great question...IMHO, the world changed and PSU did not. There were always teams cheating but previous to that timeframe, college ball was regional. Fandom, recruiting, and media included. There were only three networks; ABC, CBS, NBC. There were also some smaller UHF stations. Then, At that time, cable TV came along. With cable came a national reach, national PR, national recruiting and national PR. Schools that made millions were in line to make tens to hundreds of millions. ND signed an entire network leaving two. That forced conferences to align with TV outlets and then for conferences to realign. College football went 365 days a year and even recruiting became a revenue source. Suddenly, big money was involved and universities wanted their pie.

Joe tried to stick to the notion of the student/athlete with "student" coming first. Other schools, Oklahoma, Pitt, SMU, etc. cheated like crazy and no longer cared about the "student" part of athlete. It was common for NFL players to be illiterate after graduating college. Joe also tried to stay regional and to not expand when the region was compressing.

I don't think PSU woke up to the new world until CJF took over. We still miss the boat; not having a B/W game was a PR missed opportunity, for example.

One other thing that took affect through the 80s and 90s was schollie limits. The affects weren't seen overnight but took a little time for players to move up the depth charts and for other schools to adapt and invest to take advantage.
In 1978, schollies were capped at 95 per team. In 1992, it came down to the current cap of 85.
This reduced the ability of the Blue Bloods to hoard top talent and spread it to the 2nd tier of CFB.

It's potentially hard to name one thing that goes from 85/86 to 87-89 mediocrity, but it could be as simple as a few key recruiting misses at QB. In 1987, the starting QB was Matt Kninzer. In 1988, Freshman Tony Sacca got the majority of snaps. I can only assume those were on the 2nd half of the season after Tom Bill and Lance Lonergan didn't work out. That coupled with the aging PSU staff recruiting more regionally in a declining talent base and the fall can happen quick. A few key players can make a difference.
Just remember the dark years of 2001-2004. JVP said they were a couple players away. Enter DWill and couple guys stepping up like MRob down to walk-on WRs Ethan Kilmer, Deon Butler, & Jordan Norwood and there was some magic.

 

[bcspsu]

And playing for back to back NCs including winning a game of the century that Penn State didn't vault into the stratosphere as a program.
I lived through this time period but when you're living something sometimes you miss things that appear obvious down the line.
- Was it the staffs age? Most of these guys had been around for 20 plus years. I know we were pretty good in 91 but Joe usually closed the deal in the past when he had talent.
- was it motivation? I remember Joe saying in 89 he had lost his mojo after the 86 season.
- did the style of play in college football change which hurt us defensively. I think we've all agreed Penn State was not a great defensive team in the 90s.
You just wonder because in today's age when these teams make the playoffs it seems to elevate their program to where they are competing for the playoffs every year.
Anyway not complaining but I always wondered why we didn't become an absolute juggernaut after 86.

While not a supremely elite program from 1989 to 1999, PSU still had several teams with very good records and many bowl wins over blue bloods. Just from memory, the 91 team went 11-2, the 93 team went 10-2, the 94 team went 12-0, the 96 team went 11-2, the 97 team was undefeated until the Michigan game in November, and the 99 team was undefeated until the Minnesota debacle in November. PSU also had several award winners in that date span.

The real problem was the poor recruiting results that led to lousy seasons in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004. I hate to say it, but the program probably needed a change of leadership after the 1999 season.

 

[BBrown]

While not a supremely elite program from 1989 to 1999, PSU still had several teams with very good records and many bowl wins over blue bloods. Just from memory, the 91 team went 11-2, the 93 team went 10-2, the 94 team went 12-0, the 96 team went 11-2, the 97 team was undefeated until the Michigan game in November, and the 99 team was undefeated until the Minnesota debacle in November. PSU also had several award winners in that date span.

The real problem was the poor recruiting results that led to lousy seasons in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004. I hate to say it, but the program probably needed a change of leadership after the 1999 season.

I also thought the program had a really bad run of untimely deaths and horrible injuries. Adam in 2000, Karen Ganter (Frans wife) in '02 and then George Paterno in '02. I'm not sure how much longer Fran was involved with the team before he was "moved". Then some pretty questionable coaching hires by Joe (Jay was just not a good hire) and then all the love and awesome refs we got from the B1G and it was a "perfect" storm.

 

[kijana]

Don’t forget, PSU lost a lot of senior leadership after 1986. This was the era of the famous Joe Paterno 4-year cycle theory- every 4 years, PSU would either play for, win, or at least have an unbeaten season and it usually coincided when he had a senior-dominated team. Under the Paterno 4-year cycle theory, PSU should have been in a position to play for a MNC around 1990 or 1991. PSU lost a lot of close games during these 2 seasons. 1990, in particular, was a wacky season. Colorado with a loss and a tie won a share of the MNC and GT- playing in the weak ACC prior to FSU/Miami joining, won a share as well with a tie. PSU lost 2 close games to USC and Texas to start the season and then went on a 9-game win streak. Had they only lost one game that season, they very well could have been the team playing Colorado in the Orange Bowl for all the marbles. They were right there. They were somewhat closer in 1991- they finished 3rd- but they lost to Miami(who finished co #1) and Washington(co #1) was unbeaten. So, even if PSU didn’t crap the bed against USC, they still would have been behind the 8-ball with Miami and Washington ahead of them. You could argue a 100 different reasons why they fell short in 1990-91. Ultimately, these teams seem to lose some games that the 1981-1986 teams would have pulled out to win.

 

[PSUPride1]

While not a supremely elite program from 1989 to 1999, PSU still had several teams with very good records and many bowl wins over blue bloods. Just from memory, the 91 team went 11-2, the 93 team went 10-2, the 94 team went 12-0, the 96 team went 11-2, the 97 team was undefeated until the Michigan game in November, and the 99 team was undefeated until the Minnesota debacle in November. PSU also had several award winners in that date span.

The real problem was the poor recruiting results that led to lousy seasons in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004. I hate to say it, but the program probably needed a change of leadership after the 1999 season.

Well said.

 

[JoeBatters1]

I read this post a couple of times and I have no idea what you are talking about. You reference PSU not becoming a juggernaut after playing for/winning titles in 85-86 - hmmm that kind of means they already were a juggernaut. PSU was basically a juggernaut from 1968 up through 1996. Paterno during that span basically had teams who played/won titles or went undefeated every 4-5 years (Paterno even used that line as a recruiting pitch). I think people see Alabama under Saban and their memories of years past become skewed. Paterno had a process that relied on bringing guys up through the program who paid their dues and were prime time players as seniors/redshirt seniors. He generally didn’t recruit over guys and he was not big into transfers and Jucos. I would say he, Schembechler, and Bobby Knight had similar philosophies and all of them had juggernaut programs. What Saban and Alabama have done is certainly on a different level and has likely redefined the meaning of juggernaut. However, things are much different in college football these days than they were in say the 80’s.

And playing for back to back NCs including winning a game of the century that Penn State didn't vault into the stratosphere as a program.
I lived through this time period but when you're living something sometimes you miss things that appear obvious down the line.
- Was it the staffs age? Most of these guys had been around for 20 plus years. I know we were pretty good in 91 but Joe usually closed the deal in the past when he had talent.
- was it motivation? I remember Joe saying in 89 he had lost his mojo after the 86 season.
- did the style of play in college football change which hurt us defensively. I think we've all agreed Penn State was not a great defensive team in the 90s.
You just wonder because in today's age when these teams make the playoffs it seems to elevate their program to where they are competing for the playoffs every year.
Anyway not complaining but I always wondered why we didn't become an absolute juggernaut after 86.

 

[PSUPride1]

I read this post a couple of times and I have no idea what you are talking about. You reference PSU not becoming a juggernaut after playing for/winning titles in 85-86 - hmmm that kind of means they already were a juggernaut. PSU was basically a juggernaut from 1968 up through 1996. Paterno during that span basically had teams who played/won titles or went undefeated every 4-5 years (Paterno even used that line as a recruiting pitch). I think people see Alabama under Saban and their memories of years past become skewed. Paterno had a process that relied on bringing guys up through the program who paid their dues and were prime time players as seniors/redshirt seniors. He generally didn’t recruit over guys and he was not big into transfers and Jucos. I would say he, Schembechler, and Bobby Knight had similar philosophies and all of them had juggernaut programs. What Saban and Alabama have done is certainly on a different level and has likely redefined the meaning of juggernaut. However, things are much different in college football these days than they were in say the 80’s.

I thought I was pretty clear. I have a firm understanding of Joe's every four years plan. I completely agree Joe had a fabulous career. However, after the 85 and 86 seasons when we should have been in a position to recruit anyone we wanted (played for NCs in 82, 85, and 86) on a National basis and at least continue the every four years mantra the program never achieved that success level again. My question was why?

 

[BrucePa]

What defines the championship teams of the past two decades is recruiting dominance, which implies, directly or indirectly, some schools getting away with bending the rules. If you think the 5-stars that are lining up to get into Alabama and Ohio State aren't getting compensated, or required to attend classes, then you're not in the know.

Joe never was going to play that game. Miami and Florida State weren't recruiting high character kids but were winning championships.

 

[Still in State College]

I think what you saw was normal rise and fall for Penn State. You had a peak in 77 and 78 then a valley. A peak in 81 and 82 then a valley. Another peak in 85 and 86. The 90&91 teams were another peak that fell short. Then back again in 93 and 94.

Then they missed on a few QB's that led to the stumbles of the early 2000's.

 

[kijana]

I thought I was pretty clear. I have a firm understanding of Joe's every four years plan. I completely agree Joe had a fabulous career. However, after the 85 and 86 seasons when we should have been in a position to recruit anyone we wanted (played for NCs in 82, 85, and 86) on a National basis and at least continue the every four years mantra the program never achieved that success level again. My question was why?

Penn State had the #1 recruiting class in 1988 so they were getting pretty much anyone they wanted. That class just didn't turn out to be as good as advertised(for various reasons). I think there was a book written about this particular recruiting class- forget the title.

 

[PSUPride1]

Penn State had the #1 recruiting class in 1988 so they were getting pretty much anyone they wanted. That class just didn't turn out to be as good as advertised(for various reasons). I think there was a book written about this particular recruiting class- forget the title.

Thanks. That makes sense.

 

[BBrown]

I think what you saw was normal rise and fall for Penn State. You had a peak in 77 and 78 then a valley. A peak in 81 and 82 then a valley. Another peak in 85 and 86. The 90&91 teams were another peak that fell short. Then back again in 93 and 94.

Then they missed on a few QB's that led to the stumbles of the early 2000's.

+1 on the QB's but they also missed badly on WR's. The defensive side of the ball, however, was excellent. Some of the best defenses I've seen from us.

 

[BBrown]

Penn State had the #1 recruiting class in 1988 so they were getting pretty much anyone they wanted. That class just didn't turn out to be as good as advertised(for various reasons). I think there was a book written about this particular recruiting class- forget the title.

It was For The Glory by Ken Denlinger and its very, very good.

 

[stf110]

One thing to also remember when trying to compare recruiting over the past 10 years to back then is the rise of social media and off season all-star level camps/ 7 on 7 leagues for high school kids.

Back in the dark ages various 4 and 5 star recruits did not really know each other, they might have read about each other in some of the recruiting magazines, but that is about it. But now, they all know each other, many are friends because they have been going to the same camps and 7 on 7 leagues for 3 or 4 years, they are friends on social media with each other.

So when one commits to school X, he tries to get his friends also to commit to school X, which is why you get a land-rush of high level recruits to the same small number of elite programs.

 

[Larryrise]

The program was badly hurt by the lack of top level quarterback play. Knizner was horribly slow and inaccurate, Neither Sacca nor Bill were ready the next season, after that Bill was done because of drinking, then Sacca wasn't quite elite even in 91. When 92 came around Paterno made a poor decision to keep his most talented qb on the bench, not to mention that he himself could not stay away from bar fights. It took until mid 93 to finally restore the program to its place after 86. When 95 came around the drop-off was like a cliff from 12 to 14 at the helm. 9 wasn't nearly talented enough in 97, and every one knows what happened from there.

 

[Larryrise]

+1 on the QB's but they also missed badly on WR's. The defensive side of the ball, however, was excellent. Some of the best defenses I've seen from us.

90 and 91 needed a better quarterback. Sacca was an average qb at best and his brother was worse.

 

[PSUPride1]

90 and 91 needed a better quarterback. Sacca was an average qb at best and his brother was worse.

Sacca was a top qb recruit in the country. He just wasn't consistent enough and his attitude was not the best. But Joe won a lot of games with his game manager at qb philosophy. Think of Schaeffer. John waa/is a great guy. Very intelligent and successful but he was a below average qb. Go watch the Oklahoma game from 85.

 

[BrucePa]

Sacca was a top qb recruit in the country. He just wasn't consistent enough and his attitude was not the best. But Joe won a lot of games with his game manager at qb philosophy. Think of Schaeffer. John waa/is a great guy. Very intelligent and successful but he was a below average qb. Go watch the Oklahoma game from 85.

Are we conveniently forgetting the quality of the QB coaching during this time period?

 

[BBrown]

90 and 91 needed a better quarterback. Sacca was an average qb at best and his brother was worse.

Tony S had to start a year too soon and he was a lot more talented than some of the others that followed or even preceded him. Yea the brother was a disaster.

 

[The Spin Meister]

One thing to also remember when trying to compare recruiting over the past 10 years to back then is the rise of social media and off season all-star level camps/ 7 on 7 leagues for high school kids.

Back in the dark ages various 4 and 5 star recruits did not really know each other, they might have read about each other in some of the recruiting magazines, but that is about it. But now, they all know each other, many are friends because they have been going to the same camps and 7 on 7 leagues for 3 or 4 years, they are friends on social media with each other.

So when one commits to school X, he tries to get his friends also to commit to school X, which is why you get a land-rush of high level recruits to the same small number of elite programs.

Excellent point. Kids are all close friends now and follow each other.

 

[brupsu]

And playing for back to back NCs including winning a game of the century that Penn State didn't vault into the stratosphere as a program.
I lived through this time period but when you're living something sometimes you miss things that appear obvious down the line.
- Was it the staffs age? Most of these guys had been around for 20 plus years. I know we were pretty good in 91 but Joe usually closed the deal in the past when he had talent.
- was it motivation? I remember Joe saying in 89 he had lost his mojo after the 86 season.
- did the style of play in college football change which hurt us defensively. I think we've all agreed Penn State was not a great defensive team in the 90s.
You just wonder because in today's age when these teams make the playoffs it seems to elevate their program to where they are competing for the playoffs every year.
Anyway not complaining but I always wondered why we didn't become an absolute juggernaut after 86.

Staff got old and tired.They knew Joe with his loyalty Would keep them on.

 

[PSUPride1]

Tony S had to start a year too soon and he was a lot more talented than some of the others that followed or even preceded him. Yea the brother was a disaster.

Tony's I was tired comment after not running for the first down against miami in 91 was brutal.

 

[PSUPride1]

Are we conveniently forgetting the quality of the QB coaching during this time period?

Was Anderson the QB coach during the 80s? I don't remember.

 

[ftlpsu]

Staff got old and tired.They knew Joe with his loyalty Would keep them on.

This was most of it...complacency!

 

[Larryrise]

Tony's I was tired comment after not running for the first down against miami in 91 was brutal.

He telegraphed his throws and was often inaccurate. Any and every game that required great qb play, they lost. The fact that he started so many games should not be mistaken for his effectiveness....they did not have anyone better and the only kid who was better could not stay sober.

 

[ryoder1]

Look at the QBs right after the '86 season. Knizner was below average and the '87 results reflected that. Then there was no one at QB in '88 and the results got worse. Tony Sacca was decent but could not win big games and that was the key difference versus his predecessors (Blackledge and Shafer) who did win the big games.

Post Tony Sacca we got a good QB with Kerry Collins but he needed to develop hence '92 was bad but we were good in '93 and great in '94 (I count that as another NC or at least on par with '85 and '86).

Post '94 is when you could say Paterno needed to retire. Wally Richardson was okay but again could not win big games. Then we got stuck with Mike McQueary in '97 then Kevin Thompson. The slide was on.

An aging Paterno who lost his edge and mojo coupled with a complacent staff starting post '94 were key factors in our slide to mediocrity. We had good talent in the mid to late '90's but could not produce those undefeated seasons due to average to below average QBs and subpar coaching. '99 was the classic example, we lose 3 straight games to end an underachieving season.

Then the dark years begin as recruiting is weak, continued sub par QB talent (MRob being the exception in '05) and an old Paterno who was way past his time to retire. Even in '05 we almost blew the Orange Bowl against a much inferior FSU.

 

[Nittanyfarmer]

Was Anderson the QB coach during the 80s? I don't remember.

Biographical details
1973–1983	Penn State (OL)
1984–1989	Rutgers
1990–1992	Penn State (OL)
1993–1998	Penn State (QB)

 

[BringBackStoneys]

Great question...IMHO, the world changed and PSU did not. There were always teams cheating but previous to that timeframe, college ball was regional. Fandom, recruiting, and media included. There were only three networks; ABC, CBS, NBC. There were also some smaller UHF stations. Then, At that time, cable TV came along. With cable came a national reach, national exposure, national recruiting and national PR. Schools that made millions were in line to make tens to hundreds of millions. ND signed an entire network leaving two. That forced conferences to align with TV outlets and then for conferences to realign. College football went 365 days a year and even recruiting became a revenue source. Suddenly, big money was involved and universities wanted their pie.

Joe tried to stick to the notion of the student/athlete with "student" coming first. Other schools, Oklahoma, Pitt, SMU, etc. cheated like crazy and no longer cared about the "student" part of athlete. It was common for NFL players to be illiterate after graduating college. Joe also tried to stay regional and to not expand when the region was compressing.

I don't think PSU woke up to the new world until CJF took over. We still miss the boat; not having a B/W game was a PR missed opportunity, for example.

Let’s also not forget another element of cheating - steroids- became commonplace in the 80s and some programs relied heavily on roids (Nebraska) to offset the talent gap.

 

[PSUPride1]

Biographical details
1973–1983	Penn State (OL)
1984–1989	Rutgers
1990–1992	Penn State (OL)
1993–1998	Penn State (QB)

Thank you.

 

[87 Penn St8]

It was For The Glory by Ken Denlinger and its very, very good.

A secretary at the ad agency I worked for had a relative featured in that book. Highly rated prospect who flamed out and never really contributed at all. The rise of recruiting publicity/ services has lead to higher expectations than warranted in many cases. McDonald, Quintus = example #1

 

[pioneerlion83]

It was a lot more than a few QBs; although the QB recruiting whiffs were critical. It was a lack of speed and skill at skill positions on O and D, especially with depth. The drop off between starters and the rest of the depth chart was huge. And although Joe famously anecdotally played some FR and SO, he mostly made players at all positions “wait their turn”, and 4 and 5* recruits got really turned off a lot by a rigid depth chart where they had to toil behind others that they felt clearly better than (and blocked playing time to get to the NFL faster). That, coupled with Joe’s other traditional student-athletic policies, led to the decreasing number of high end recruits from PSU’s traditional recruiting areas to even considering PSU; and Joe didn’t adapt accordingly to regularly expand his recruiting reach.

There’s a lot of reasons PSU declined after 86, with only 1994 and 2005 as two brief worthy high water marks, with a lack of sustained excellence. Schollies limits were key, but the lack of the head man to adapt in many many areas (rigidity to adapt to a more modern recruit’s individual mentality (i.e. tamping down on all on filed celebrations, like Rich Gardner in 2002 Neb game) and quicker to-the-NFL motivations, changes in recruiting footprint and expectations, general risk aversion on Gameday, more modern on-field O and D strategies, staff, etc) was the other dominant factor IMHO.

 

[PSUPride1]

Story on the recruiting class from 1988. Any of you Western, PA guys remember Eric Renkey?88 class