Offside Number 76

Notice that three TE set against the Cards (part 3). Interesting. Can anyone other than the Cheats pull that off today?

Or a prominent publication like The Tonawanda News to back up your opinion. Kelsay is far from great. And I don't play video games.

You did lay out your arguments well, I just don't agree with them. I've seen enough schools go through bowl suspensions, TV suspensions, and reduced scholarships, and they all bounce back. I don't think it's "almost unanimous," either. We'll know in a few years. Until then, it's just competing opinions.

Ok; fair enough. Suffice it to say that we disagree on what an appropriate penalty would be. Let's see lots of Buffalo wins in 2012!

I've already stated what I think would be an appropriate penalty at Penn State. (See post number 33 in this thread.) I believe you've been criticizing that view, which is fine (but the snarky manner you initially chose wasn't). I believe that PSU football should cease, completely, until Penn State demonstrates that it has got its priorities straight. I believe that taking away scholarships and bowl games is appropriate for recruiting violations. (E.g., USC.) Not for this.

I do see it as nothing more than a bump in the road; it's ok if you see it differently. My thoughts on Ramius's post are covered in my response to it. I am certain that any Penn State player has options available to him, but perhaps not the two schools that I used as examples. I'm not sure why that's offensive to you. Actually, it's pretty bizarre if that's offensive to you. I think you are very deliberately confusing the Miami portion of the argument in your quest to "be right." It should be obvious that I do not think that the transgressions are the same, but rather, that I think the penalty imposed upon PSU would be more appropriate for recruiting violations than for the complete tragedy that happened at Penn State.

Bold # 1. You tell me what part was difficult for you to understand, and I'll try to explain it for you. But I think you got it, and just had to disagree in a disagreeable way. Bold # 2. Who cares? People dreamt of working for Credit Suisse and got laid off, too. This life is supposed to be full of guaranteed dreams? The students will be just fine playing for WVU or Ohio State. I understand, but just disagree. I think PSU's football program will be in perfect shape as soon as the ban ends. (Well, obviously, I do; I've said it three times now. Sorry for the redundancy.) It will be interesting to resurrect this thread then, I guess.

angryfan, what a great piece. I'm only about a third of the way through it (there's a lot to digest, as you said), but it's terrific. Thanks for sharing it.

Write this down: with this "punishment," PSU will be in a bowl game the first year that it is eligible. They will go at least the minimum 6-5, and will get into one. (They likely will go 9-2 or something and be a preseason favorite like USC, but let's leave that alone for now.) This is no real change. There will be no real inducement for PSU to properly focus its priorities.

The players are welcome to transfer without penalty. They are not bearing the brunt of anything.

Oh come on; they'll be back in a bowl game in 2016. It will be like this never happened. This punishment was more appropriate for what went on at Miami than for what went on at PSU.

Really? Reducing scholarships by 20 and no bowls for four years is harsh? No football at all until they straighten out priorities would have been the appropriate response. I hope the Big "10" does kick them out, but it won't happen.

Correct.

The other "joke" circulating is that they'll put the statue in the library to remind people to keep quiet. I don't find either one to be that funny though. EXACTLY. If this were UB, the program would be shut down. But no way is the NCAA going to kill one of its cash cows. Huh? Rose Bowl 4 years ago; 2 BCS bowls in the last 7 years. What is "some time ago?"

That would have happened with the penalty PSU should have received, too.

Not very severe at all.

I read this all the time and wonder why people don't realize that practicing the wildcat also takes valuable time away from the Bills' offensive gameplan. And how hard is it for another team to plan for the Bills' version of the wildcat? They know he's going to run 95% of the time. I can understand the posts above about Smith keeping a roster spot because he can back up so many positions. That's legitimate. The wildcat is not.

He scored a pretty important touchdown on a run that started inside and moved to the outside. Any Texas or USC fan will tell you all about it. That said, I still can't stand the wildcat, no matter who is under center. It's a completely stupid proposition when teams don't throw out of the formation. Just direct snap to the running back and get on with it.

They can't direct-snap to Freddy or CJ? If you think he was automatic on third down because he has some special third-down mojo, then I don't know what to think.

You're not missing anything. The Wildcat was outdated the weekend after Miami started using it (does any team pass out of that formation more than 5% of the time?), and Brad Smith, while probably a great guy, has no purpose for this team.

Immediately get away from wherever I'm watching the game and go home. I live near Elmwood and I don't want to be near any riots. And then I would go to the parade down Delaware in the morning.

It may very well come from that. When I met him, he seemed somewhat shy and humble (of course, this was less than 24 hours after being drafted, so maybe he was overwhelmed by attention), and that also can be misinterpreted as a lack of intelligence. My bet is he's just fine.

Excellent change-of-pace back, and he was every bit as important to the comeback against Houston as Reich and Reed were.

It's not for everybody.

I'm sure it would. We can say whatever we want here. We can stay still when asked to move. We can be Americans. And I'm not anti-cop at all, not for a minute.