Talk:Joe Paterno
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
Joe Paterno is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Penn State, an attempt to thoroughly cover topics related to the Pennsylvania State University. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] argument for including 1994 team on page
I think it is strange that all mention of the '94 team has been removed from the page. Although I see the argument for creating a page with this particular story, the fact of the matter is that the 1994 team was undefeated and denied even a share of the National Championship -- this is believed to be a major impetus for the creation of the current "Bowl Championship Series". This is a major part of Paterno's legacy -- he has had many undefeated, uncrowned teams. While you claim that saying something along the lines of the "most powerful offense" does not belong here, I believe that mentioning where this team stands in the NCAA rankings for certain statistical categories (which I believe they still are #1 in at least 1), and the fact that this team had 3 first round NFL draft picks from the offense, the entire offense go to the NFL for at least training camp, and has 5 players still active in the NFL after 10 years is unparalleled. These are facts, not opinions, about the strength of that 1994 Penn State team. Removing all mention of this team is doing a major disservice to Paterno in that it is well known by those of us who follow PSU football, but someone looking for info from the Wikipedia about his achievements will be left thinking that his last successful team was in 1986, 8 years prior to the 1994 team.
I find it quite odd that in defending why this team is not included in the page, the discussion has opinion about the strength of the 1994 Nebraska team. Why is sportswriter opinion about the strength of that team acceptable evidence of its strength, and yet opinion about Penn State's strengths are rejected as not fact? The article cited in the discussion about the strength of the Nebraska team merely ranks teams by number of championships and overall number of wins since 1869. What does this have to do with a comparison of the 1994 Nebraska team to the 1994 Penn State team? I think that for a sample of how football fans rank the 1994 Penn State team, you should see this link: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/readers/bestCollegefb.html
Since I'm new to this forum and new to making edits, I will not add text on a topic that you consider to be not relevant, but I think that you are 100%, absolutely wrong that a discussion of the 1994 team does not belong on this page. For balance, I would not object to adding information on Paterno's worst team statistically, or an overview of the losing seasons since 2000, but the neglect of the 1994 team is a travesty.
- Go for it. I won't object to putting it back up, though I think it's really not needed. In my opinion, it's just fodder for more Nittany Lion fans to vent about getting the shaft because they thought they were better than Nebraska that year. The BCS was coming regardless of the outcome of this game, it had been in the works before the season had even begun. If rehashing a silly argument like this helps you cope with it, then fine. I too follow PSU, I am a huge fan, and I know what lengths these devotees will go to make sure people know that they feel they were robbed of the MNC. YOu can cite ESPN opinion articles all you want, they are the same organization that said PSU was going to lose 5-6 games this year. AriGold 19:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
AriGold is 100% right. The 1994 controversy is nothing more than a speculation laced complaint against the system as it was at the time. The entry is also not neutral because it does not mention any reasons why Nebraska should have won the national championship. If it was listed under a separate listing citing Nebraska's point of view as well, then it has a place. However, leaving it under Joe Paterno's entry is really an insult against him, because instead of listing facts on his life, its a gigantic "what if."
- I'm sorry -- I guess I didn't get my point across. I am not advocating for discussing the controversy over who should have won the MNC in 1994, I'm saying that there should at least be some mention of the fact that the 1994 team was so successful. I just think you threw out the baby with the bathwater -- by removing the text on the controversy, it appears as if the 1994 team never existed. I'm envisioning something along the lines of, "In 1994, Joe Paterno coached Penn State to its fifth undefeated regular season and concluded with a Rose Bowl win over the University of Oregon." Add in some mention of the strength of that team, either via NCAA statistics or number of NFL draft picks (if I recall 3 in the top ten) and end with a sentence like "finished #2 in the polls to Nebraska, which was controversial".
[edit] 3.5 million dollar donation
Actually 250,000 with the Paternos helping to raise 13.5 million See: http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/Libraryfunding.html and http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/150_years/10961935.htm and http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tour/paternoext.html
[edit] "most powerful offense in the history of college football
That belongs on a PSU fan board for debate, not wikipedia. AriGold 5 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)
I'd imagine USC fans might have something to say about this.
[edit] '94 Nebraska
It is not a fact that most fans think PSU got snubbed, though they did ;-). The fact is, polls came out in NU's favor and so do most writers still, claiming that NU team was one of the best ever. See Billingley for just one example http://www.cfrc.com/Archives/Top_Programs_2004.htm AriGold 5 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)
[edit] Most Wins at 1 University
Paterno doesn't hold that record. John Gagliardi currently owns a 397-111-10 record at Saint Johns U, as of Nov. 13, 2004.
[edit] Bowden Issue
This is getting pretty petty with the whole Bowden's wins shouldn't count thing. I don't feel it's necessary on the page, but if the majority feel clarification is in order, I propose this:
"Though, many Joe Pa loyalists argue that 31 of Bowden's wins should not be counted as they came while Bowden was the head coach at Howard College, which is now Samford University, a Division I-AA football program. The debate arises because during the time Bowden was at Howard, there were no distinctions bewteen Divison 1 and Division 1-AA in college football. Bowden is credited with the record because the NCAA rule states that to be eligible for the record all one needs is 10 years at a major (Division I-A) school, and all wins at any four-year school at which you coached count on the all-time listing." Posted by AriGold --Spangineer (háblame) June 28, 2005 19:40 (UTC)
- I think it should be on here, though I agree that it's a bit trivial (especially considering the current size of the article). But as the article grows, a paragraph like the one you suggest is going to be necessary. I'd say put it in now, and maybe add another line right after it mentioning that JoePa has the record for most victories while coaching for a single school. --Spangineer (háblame) June 28, 2005 19:40 (UTC)
- Good call. I guess as the page gets bigger it won't seem so silly to have 1/4 of it dedicated to a silly argument. AriGold 28 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)
Actually it is the way the records' title is presented. Strictly speaking Bowden is the "Winningest division I-A coach of all time." Simply because he is currently a division I-A coach. We all know the phrase, perception is reality. The general public believes when they see this that it is like comparing apples to apples. They should simply say that 31 of Bowden's win's were accumulated at in division II-A schedule. They actually did have divisions back then they just were not called I-A and II-A. The Samford's of the world never played the larger moe powerful schools. (source Samford University archives, PDF file)I will give Bowden this he still had to win those games with the team he had.
[edit] Child of the Depression
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Paterno started life as a child of the Depression" would be inaccurate as the Crash didn't happen until 1929 and he was born in '26. He was born into the "roaring 20's". Semantics, I know, but this is an encyclopedia...
- Well, the article says he was a child during the depression which is true, not born during the depression. It even provides evidence to that fact with the line that he almost had to leave school because his family could not afford to send him to it. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sportsman of the year
A comment should be added about how Paterno was Sportsman of the year by Sports Illustrated for 1986, being the first (only?) college coach to be thus honored.
- Dean Smith (head basketball coach at UNC) was the 1997 SI Sportsman of the Year, so JoePa wouldn't be the "only college coach", but he was the first. AriGold 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Records and Controversies section out of control
As stuff has been added and added over time, the Records and Controversies section has gotten pretty large, and its content doesn't even reflect the title of the section anymore. I propose doing the following:
- Seperating "Accomplishments", "Controversies", and "History" or something along that line into seperate sections (all three of these things are currently blended together in that section)
- Organizing the Controversies into chronological order
- Fleshing up the information that's already there to give a more complete "History" section
Barring major objections, I plan to do this myself (or get it started, rather), but I wanted to put a topic on discussion first as this will be a rather big change. --Mithunc 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Go for it! Dincher 20:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds great to me. --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
