If you think Penn State wasn’t using them I got a bridge to sell you. The problem with Penn State strength program was not chemistry.
What are your thoughts on why after 85, 86
- Thread starter PSUPride1
- Start date
I do not know this as fact but
Reinforces how incredible difficult it is to play and certainly to be a star D1 football player.
Reinforces how incredible difficult it is to play and certainly to be a star D1 football player.
I have that Ken Denlinger book, “ For The Glory” that covered that recruiting class and featured Renkey, among others. Lots of injuries and recruits in that class that just never panned out due to personal and academic issues.
The main point you make is valid, which is Paterno turned from a huge asset into a detriment. I don't have enough knowledge of the depth chart in those years to intelligently comment about the drop off but your premise seems accurate. We still had studs but I can't recall a good RB for example between Curtis Enis and LJ? Receivers seemed to drop off as well.
Here is another interesting angle to examine with this thread. How did O$U ascend to elite status? Clearly the obvious answer is Meyer and yes that is certainly a key factor but I would argue Tressel got them going. They hired Tressel during our dark years and he took advantage of us being a sleeping giant. He dominated us versus what happened in the '90's under Cooper. Tressel started in '01 and he lost to us that year but overall he went 7-3 against us. Cooper went 5-3. My point being that O$U made a good hire (granted it did not end well but he was a good coach and elevated the program) while we struggled with Paterno.
Matt Knizer was not “horribly slow”...he was actually more of a runner.
Tony Sacca was a darn good college QB...and PSU won quite a number of big games with him at the helm.
It would be really cool to go on a run like that again, Play in 3 title games in 5 years and win 2 of them. That would be Elite.
Because Joe didn’t have anything to prove in ‘87, ‘88, etc. this was true throughout his final 20-25 years. When he felt he had something to prove there were some special seasons. When he didn't, we saw what that was like
Not enough with Tony Sacca apparently. He beat ND in '90 and '91 are his claims to fame especially knocking off #1 ND in South Bend in '90. The Tenn Fiesta bowl win at the end of the '91 season was his finale and certainly a good win.
BUT, the OP's question was why did we not stay elite after '85 and '86. Paterno was still relatively young and we still recruited well in the late 80's. A 4-5 year cycle would have put us playing for a NC or winning one in '90 or '91. We were good but not good enough. Lost to Texas and U$C in '90 then FSU in the Blockbuster Bowl. Far from elite. In '91 we lose to U$C and Miami. Sacca won games but if you hone in on the key cross sectional games the record was poor. I won't blame all the losses on him but again his predecessors found ways to win games that he did not. He was also more talented than Shafer. I will agree that their schedule in '90 and '91 was most likely more difficult than '85 and '86 but it is all about results.
I understand the OP point but PSU had a very good 10 year run from 1990-1999. In that ten year span PSU was ranked in the top 10 four times (2, 3, 7, 8) and in the top 11 six times. So six top 11 finishes in ten years... if more than 2 or 3 other programs accomplished this I will be surprised. The overall winning percentage for the decade was just a tick under 80%, 96 wins and 26 losses. Of the other four seasons, they finished 13, 16, 17 and unranked. That is a pretty darn good program for a sustained period of time. In those ten seasons PSU defeated AL, ND, BYU, ND again, TN, USC, TN again, USC again, Michigan, Ohio State, Oregon, Michigan again, Auburn, USC again, Michigan again, TX, OSU again, Kentucky, Arizona, Miami, OSU again and A&M.
I understand that for three of those seasons PSU was not in the Big 10, but IMHO it will be a long time, if ever, before we experience a decade in which PSU football will defeat non-con teams the caliber of Alabama, Notre Dame, BYU, Tennessee, USC, Oregon, Arizona, Auburn, Texas, Kentucky, Miami and Texas A&M. For a program and staff that had all of the flaws listed in this thread, that's not too shabby.
I understand that for three of those seasons PSU was not in the Big 10, but IMHO it will be a long time, if ever, before we experience a decade in which PSU football will defeat non-con teams the caliber of Alabama, Notre Dame, BYU, Tennessee, USC, Oregon, Arizona, Auburn, Texas, Kentucky, Miami and Texas A&M. For a program and staff that had all of the flaws listed in this thread, that's not too shabby.
Interesting perspective. Some folks do lose their mojo after reaching the mountain top. I remember in 89 there was Article where Joe admitted he lost motivation after 86.
I watched the Kentucky game from 76 and George asked Joe if Penn State fans were spoiled, and this was in 76. Hey, Joe set a high standard. He was the best in the business and had Penn State as the top program in the country after the Miami game - no doubt. That's why it's fair to ask why we fell off from competing for NCs.
For example we lost to a shit USC team in 91 to start a promising season off on a terrible note.
Additionally I thought we would win a lot more BIG titles under Joe but I blame that on his age. Joe was a hands on, intense to the max guy and inevitably as you get older your energy level drops. Hell for the first 20 to 25 years of his career Joe would call plays. You never saw that from the mid to late 90s forward.
By the dark years of the early 2000s, PSUs offensive lines were much smaller than the rest of the Big Ten. Paterno hated fat players, but our 280-290 pounders just couldn’t compete with the 330-340 pounders Ohio State and Wisconsin were putting out.
As far as the defense regressing in 1990s, maybe there is something to Paterno’s accusations that Jerry Sandusky was shirking his duties as a coach in order to devote more time to his charity.
But then again, it was right after Sandusky left that we had the four very terrible seasons in five years.
He had something to prove again after joining the B1G and we got 1994. He had something to prove after 2004, obviously, because the program was on the brink and at some point he would have been forced out, and then we got a great 2005.
It really just goes to show how most programs are on the razors edge. If you look at PSU's QB recruits from the mid 90's through the early 2000's it is pretty alarming. Would they have been better if they went from Wally to Thompson without the stop on McQueary? Hard to say but they didn't brng in much quality at the position for a while.
It also shows how ridiculous the recruiting rankings are. Rashard Casey was supposedly the #1 player in the country. wtf. When Kendra, Simms, Smoker, and Henne chose other schools you would have thought that we missed on four Joe Montanas. And when Morelli committed you would have thought we landed Dan Marino.
The point here is we were not right there competing for a NC like in '82, '85 and '86, with the exception of '94.
If you look at the stretch from '87 to '99 you definitely can make the point that we lost a ton of big games. Hence proving the program was in a slow decline that bottomed out with the dark years.
Granted we had some good wins which you pointed out but let's look at the key losses in big games.
87-89-Can't recall many big wins except a ND win in there and Bama but there were many losses. We lost to Pitt in '87 and '88. Lost to Clemson after '87 which was brutal, etc. '88 was a total train wreck of a year and only two years removed from our NC. We did beat BYU in the '89 Holiday Bowl.
Start in '90, lose to Texas and U$C to open the season then we win against our traditional eastern rivals. Beat Bama and ND which were big wins and beat Pitt then lose to FSU. You could say that year we were 3-3 in big games.
Next year in '91 we lose to U$C and Miami, beat ND, BYU, Pitt and Tenn. 4-2.
Next year was lousy and surely lost more big games than we won. Losing to Miami and BYU come to mind. We did drub Pitt but lose to Stanford in bowl so 1-3.
Next year was first year in B10 and we promptly lose to O$U and blow it against scUM at home in a game we surely should have won. Beat Tenn in bowl. Call it 1-2.
'94 was great, obviously undefeated
'95 lose to Wisky and O$U beat scUM and Auburn. 2-2
'96 lose to O$U but beat scUM, U$C and Texas. 3-1. I know we lost to someone else (Iowa I think) but won't count that since it was not a big game and I am not giving credit to those wins that were not big.
'97 lose to scUM and Florida, beat O$U 1-2
'98 lose to O$U and scUM, win bowl game against Kentucky. 1-2
'99 lose to scUM. Could count MSU as big loss then cout A&M and Arizona as big wins. 2-2
I am sure I missed some games in here that were borderline big wins and this can be debated until the cows come home. I think that puts us at 18-19 for the decade in big games not counting '94. If you count '94 at 4-0 (U$C, O$U, scUM and Oregon) then we were 22-19. Yeah, certainly don't expect to win them all but an elite program does better than that.
They were right there in 90-91, undefeated in 1995, preseason number 1 in 1999, 11 and 1 in 2005 and an upset loss to Iowa away from going unbeaten in 2009 I think it was. The every four year or so cycle really did continue through the 1990s and into the early 2000s.
In 68,69 we went undefeated. In 73 we went undefeated again and in 77 we went 11-1 and then in 78 played for the NC and lost. In 81 we went 11-2 destroying number one Pitt and then won the NC in 82. In 85 we played for the NC and then played for the NC again in 86 this time winning it.
In 90 we went 9-3, a solid year but nothing great. In 91 we were very talented but that team needed a playoff format.
So yes we had good years but in Joe's first 25 years he could close the deal. When you look at 99 two of our losses come at home.
It's really an all-of-the-above kind of answer.
1) Getting to the top is hard (took Paterno 15 years to win his first MNC?) and staying at the top might be harder.
2) College football changed. Instead of 10 teams with great coaching and great facilities, now it's 40 or 50 teams that train and coach at a very high level. And training better at HS level so there are a lot more elite athletes available to more colleges.
3) College offenses and defenses changed, allowing lesser teams to compete better -- PSU like a lot of bluebloods was slow to adapt. PSU's offense was based on overpowering people but that got harder to do. PSU's D was about dominating LOS and preventing big play, but quick consistent passing offenses could sometimes break through.
4) PSU coaching staff got old and tired and probably a little arrogant. But the biggest of these is old. In retrospect, Paterno should have retired in glory after he got PSU into the Big Ten.
1) Getting to the top is hard (took Paterno 15 years to win his first MNC?) and staying at the top might be harder.
2) College football changed. Instead of 10 teams with great coaching and great facilities, now it's 40 or 50 teams that train and coach at a very high level. And training better at HS level so there are a lot more elite athletes available to more colleges.
3) College offenses and defenses changed, allowing lesser teams to compete better -- PSU like a lot of bluebloods was slow to adapt. PSU's offense was based on overpowering people but that got harder to do. PSU's D was about dominating LOS and preventing big play, but quick consistent passing offenses could sometimes break through.
4) PSU coaching staff got old and tired and probably a little arrogant. But the biggest of these is old. In retrospect, Paterno should have retired in glory after he got PSU into the Big Ten.
The every four years cycle was really at the end, in my mind. '91, '94, '95, and '96 were all very good. 1997 was preseason #1 and 1999 was #2 most of the season. It was after 2000 when everything went in the dumpster and he started having success every four years. And it kind of seemed like the only reason for that was the way his staff developed the OL. They would be horrible for 2.5 seasons and then great in year 4.
We went undefeated in ‘94 and beat The Tattoo State 63-14 and still got no respect. That’s why.
The point is that we never closed the deal after '86. Close does not cut it. Even as bogus as it was in '94 we can't claim a NC. All the other years we had at least two losses, ain't going to cut it. In '05 even if we beat scUM it would have been that same bad movie of being undefeated but not getting a shot at the NC.
What were we supposed to do about '94?
Had we beaten Michigan, what else could we have done in '05?
The Big 10 is a mighty strong conference everytime OSU or UM needs it to be; why does it get considered weak when it's us needing it?
'94 was a NC team. No doubt about it. '05 we lost to scUM so irrelevant.
The OP's point was why we could not sustain the juggernaut excellence we had in the mid 80's. Many reasons why that have been discussed in the thread. We were certainly a very good program in the 90's but there was a drop off from the mid 80's.
Madsol, to your point 1, I'm not sure if that really is what the OP meant.
But if it is, there's a very simple answer. The '86 team was loaded w/ 5th year seniors at a time when almost all programs operated in a rebuild, not reload, mindset. Everything set up perfectly for the Greatest College Game Ever Played in Arizona against Miami. After that, Paterno expected there to be a drop-off, and it was almost a self-fulfilling prophecy
