Talk:Penn State Nittany Lions football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funding[edit]

How is this collegiate football program funded? Is it mostly through ticket revenue, sponsorships, tuition, fees, a combination of either, etc.? Inquiring minds want to know. 204.65.0.24 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is funded by ticket revenue. The NCAA chose a $60 million USD fine because that amount is approximately one years profit for the program. 68.48.126.95 (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs bulk![edit]

Folks, this is shameful. We need to bulk this page up. For some possibilities, look at the OSU or USC pages. C'mon, Lions! Where's your spirit?? Roar Lions Roar! (And I'll get to work too.) Kermitmorningstar 07:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a section on funding of the program might give it some encyclopedic relevance. 204.65.0.24 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh rivalry[edit]

Is it still fair to classify Pittsburgh as a rival in football? -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, probably not.. but it also doesn't look so good when the two rivals that we have listed don't list us as a rival... -- Billma 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that raises the question (probably not most appropriately here, but I'm here for now) as to how we should be defining a 'rival' or 'rivalry.' We have Michigan and Ohio State listed but not Michigan State or Minnesota, teams who we've established "rivalry games" with during our short tenure in the Big Ten. (Also, to note your point about 'reciprocal' mentions as rivals - neither OSU nor Michigan list us as rivals.) Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly certain that most Penn State fans, myself included, are looking forward to the UMich and OSU games more than the battle for the Land Grant Trophy, and I guess there could be an argument made for primarily geographic rivalries, but this might be worth investigating further. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be argued that Penn State has no football rivalries at the present time. Like you said, all of the teams PSU would list as rivals, like OSU and Michigan, don't see things that way. And every team that would list Penn State as a rival are overlooked by the Nittany Lions. But when you look at the college football world, there are a lot of teams in this position or perhaps with only one real rivalry. Monkey Bounce (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion of Penn State Football is incomplete without discussing our rivalries with other Eastern schools. We have a long history with Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, Boston College, etc. We should also talk about the controversy over our move to the Big Ten Conference. I, for one, believe that national resentment over this move was a factor in the polls for the 1994 season. All of these topics should be fleshed out in the article. WesleyMouch (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC) WesleyMouch 21:45 19 April 2008[reply]

If we're talking historical rivalries, then those teams belong, but none of them are current. And I have never heard about the "national resentment" over joining the Big Ten Conference. If you have legit sources on this, though, I'd be interested in seeing them.Monkey Bounce (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for online sources regarding resentment over Penn State's move to the Big Ten, but a lot of them require a fee to view the entire article. I was a student at Penn State at the time the move to the Big Ten was announced, and I remember the move generating both positive and negative press. The gist of the negative press was that Joe Paterno spent years promoting the strength of "Eastern Football" and now he is turning his back to Eastern Football. WesleyMouch (talk) WesleyMouch 10:01 27 April 2008

Rankings in season records[edit]

Does anyone know where the final AP and Coaches rankings came from in the season-by-season list? Some of the final rankings aren't matching other sources that I'm digging up. (ie. [1] [2] [3]) - Billma 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I've been using the AFCA site for Coaches' Polls up to 2005. The three sources you have are authoritative enough, also possibly CFBDW. As long as they're all the same, if the table differs, go ahead and replace them (the table's unsourced as it is right now anyway). Also, a note about the yearly record table, I'm in the process of converting that to template format over here using {{CFB Yearly Record Start}} and associated templates - feel free to stop by and help if you'd like. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finished it for you... The template seems a bit weird on the last column, but it looks good. I updated the poll rankings in your sandbox copy instead of the main article since it's going to replace the table in the main article anyway. I wasn't sure how to handle the Hollenbacks, so I stuck Jack before Bill, even if it does make 1909 and 1910 be out of order. Also, I dropped the ties column from the records starting in 1996 since that's when overtime was instituted. - Billma 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll go through and add the sub-headers/sub-totals later as well as fixing up the poll rankings (there's a bug with the template that I haven't gotten around to fixing yet). Hopefully I'll have the whole thing replaced on the article by sometime tonight. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's appropriate, I'd like to somehow link to the season articles as well if we can. I've been creating the various "Penn State Nittany Lions football under <coach>" pages, I've gotten all of them except for JoePa so far (haven't figured out how to handle his long tenure yet, a single article would be way too long). Articles that have been created so far:

- Billma 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undefeated seasons[edit]

There's no need to have the season record for the undefeated seasons here. I've linked to the season articles that have been created. Here are the tables for the seasons that don't have articles yet.

1994 Penn State Nittany Lions
Date Opponent PF PA Location Date Opponent PF PA Location
Sept. 3 Minnesota 56 3 Minneapolis, MN Oct. 29 #21 Ohio St. 63 14 State College, PA
Sept. 10 #14 Southern Cal 38 14 State College, PA Nov. 5 Indiana 35 29 Bloomington, IN
Sept. 17 Iowa 61 21 State College, PA Nov. 12 Illinois 35 31 Champaign, IL
Sept. 24 Rutgers 55 27 State College, PA Nov. 19 Northwestern 45 17 State College, PA
Oct. 1 Temple 48 21 Philadelphia, PA Nov. 26 Michigan St. 59 31 State College, PA
Oct. 15 #5 Michigan 31 24 Ann Arbor, MI Jan. 2 #12 Oregon 38 20 Pasadena, CA
Total 564 252 #2 AP, Coaches
  • 1994 Nittany Lions
1973 Penn State Nittany Lions
Date Opponent PF PA Location Date Opponent PF PA Location
Sept. 15 Stanford 20 6 Stanford, CA Oct. 27 West Virginia 62 14 State College, PA
Sept. 22 Navy 39 0 Annapolis, MD Nov. 3 Maryland 42 22 College Park, MD
Sept. 29 Iowa 27 8 State College, PA Nov. 10 North Carolina St. 35 29 State College, PA
Oct. 6 Air Force 19 9 Colorado Springs, CO Nov. 17 Ohio 49 10 State College, PA
Oct. 13 Army 54 3 State College, PA Nov. 24 #20 Pittsburgh 35 13 State College, PA
Oct. 20 Syracuse 49 6 Syracuse, NY Jan. 2 #13 Louisiana State 16 9 Miami, FL
Total 447 129 #5 AP, Coaches
  • 1973 Nittany Lions

—PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think they need seperate articles, or should they just be condensed down to a "Penn State football under Joe Paterno" article? When I got around to creating that one (after figuring out if it should be one article, and if not how to split it out), I was going to combine the 1968 and 1969 into it, and only leave 1982 and 1986 as seperate articles. -- Billma 12:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PSU logo.gif[edit]

Image:PSU logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms[edit]

Is anyone against me adding this pic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PS_Uniform.jpg to the article? 須藤 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks black and white to me. It's supposed to be navy and white. Dincher (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Against -Billma (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very dark blue (you are correct, it does look black), which can be changed rather easily to a more easily perceptable blue.須藤 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is now outdated (with the stripes on the sleeves and collar), I do think we could greatly use an illustration like this. --Hoyadonis (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alamo Bowl[edit]

Some Add that psu beat Teaxas A&M in the almo bowl just a moment ago.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Games[edit]

I've noticed that other schools talk about some of their notable games. We have had quite a few of these over the years, even when we were not in contention for the national championship. For example, on November 7, 1964, a Penn State team with an ultimate record of 6-4-0 beat No. 2 ranked Ohio State 27-0, in Columbus! [1].

There was also the game at Notre Dame in the 1990 season. Notre Dame was ranked No. 1 in the nation going into the matchup, and had beaten Penn State soundly the previous two seasons. Penn State pulled off a dramatic come from behind victory that started it back on the road to national prominence. [2].

Lastly, there was the 1981 matchup with Pitt. Pitt went ahead 14-0 in the first quarter, then Penn State scored 48 unanswered points to win the game. [3]

I'm sure our fans and alumni can remember a few more of these games.

References

  1. ^ http://pennstate.scout.com/a.z?s=157&p=2&c=310625
  2. ^ http://und.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/092006aai.html
  3. ^ http://www.mcall.com/sports/columnists/all-psu-pittcolumn.6151769nov25,0,2906821.column

Winning %[edit]

The winning % was messed up. Whoever was calculating it was using ties as loses. The correct way to calculate win% is 821/1190 = .690. Ties are counted as .5 win and .5 loss, therefore 42 ties = 21 to the win collumn.

Rivalry with Ohio State?[edit]

An anonymous editor wrote this in the article (I have since deleted it to move it here):

"Citation needed that this is actually a rivalry?! Michigan and Ohio State are great rivals; Ohio State and Penn State could very loosely be classified as a rivalry - if at all. If this is a rivalry, any two teams could be. Wiki needs to provide support to this assertion."

--ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Americans[edit]

Someone keeps changing the all americans from 107 to 39. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebteck002 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that I found a website that looks like most people are siting now from the NCAA and PSU has 39 according to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebteck002 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Season[edit]

Added a Current Season info box. Copied info box from OSU page. If you have a better one, feel free to update. 148.134.37.3 (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC) There is no mention of Jerry Sandusky, the most notorious/ famous Nittany Lion football coach of all time. Yes, I understand he reflects badly on the program. But do you think that's honest, complete, etc to not mention the scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.95.138 (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nittany![edit]

what the heck does the NAME mean?!

i can't believe this isn't in the first SENTENCE on the page, let alone nowhere ELSE!!!!

i found the answer via google, but how can i add it when the page is locked??

again, i am DUMBSTRUCK that this wasn't in the article from the gitgo. i bet 70% of the people viewing this page came just to find that out!

well, until *THIS* week, anyways.... 66.105.218.50 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of the team name is not relevant to the football program's article, but you can view the origins at Nittany Lion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"S" section[edit]

This is a ridiculous section. At no point do you explain the significance or meaning of the "S". Either it needs to be explained, or the section deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfo 0 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects here[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Mitinger Award, four articles were redirected here: Frank Patrick Memorial Award, Robert B. Mitinger Award, Jim O'Hora Award, Red Worrell Award.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion discussion[edit]

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_28#File:PSUHelmet.PNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandusky?[edit]

He doesn't merit a mention of any kind? Even though there is a "coaches awards" section, and Jerry Sandusky "received Assistant Coach of the Year awards in 1986 and 1999" according to Wikipedia's own article on the man? Which also states "Sandusky served as an assistant coach for his entire career, mostly at Pennsylvania State University under Joe Paterno, and was one of the most notable major college football coaches never to have held a head coaching position."? So one of the most notable college football coaches to never be head coach is not even worth a mention, but Rip Engle and Stan Hixon are? And before you tell me to BE BOLD! and change it, this is the sort of hot button issue that needs to be discussed first regardless of one's bold-ivity.Thedoorhinge (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Kermitmorningstar (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal section?[edit]

No, this doesn't need its own section. This is largely duplicative material from Penn State sex abuse scandal and several other articles. And there aren't sections dedicated to scandals at University of Colorado football, Miami Hurricanes football, USC Trojans football either. I added a prominent link to the lead, but that's apparently not ignominious enough. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion- just because it is not included in some other articles does not make it worthy of note here- I give SMU football as an example. Removing the material without consensus isn't a fair way at deciding what is worthy and what is not. A scandal of this magnitude which directly involved one of the largest names in college football history along with a prominent school's football program is certainly worthy of its own section. To not include it is a shocking omission, and I object to it being placed at the very bottom of the article as if it was a footnote. This scandal forever changes the legacy of Joe Paterno's program and the school. Monsieurdl mon talk 17:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. This scandal has so far resulted in the firing of the university's popular and prominent president, the firing of a legendary coach, the successful indictment of a former assistant coach, and the ongoing prosecution of two other senior administrators. It's attracted enormous national attention, most recently due to a scathing report issued by a former head of the FBI. And there is certainly more to come given the contents of that report and the evidence it presents. It may be a bit much to dedicate a large section to this incident but at the same time it would be too little to only mention it in passing. ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if there are other programs with significant scandals in their history that don't discuss those scandals then those articles need to be corrected. But there haven't been many scandals of similar magnitude as the one still unfolding at Penn State. ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't mentioned in passing at all. I added a link to the article in the lead, so it wasn't just shuttled to the bottom of the page. And yes, it is my opinion and it holds the same validity as both of yours. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned it up. The bigger issue for me was that it was essentially a copy-paste of the other article's lead, so I framed it in the context of this article. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vacation of wins[edit]

Seemed like the best place to put this:

Someone is going to need to go through all the Penn State season and bowl game win articles since 1998 and add a paragraph about how the season's wins/bowl win was vacated as of today. Would do myself, but no time.

82.37.25.44 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, just toss all of it. It doesn't exist anymore. Read WP:V. Qworty (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 24 July 2012[edit]

Rivalry records need to be updated to reflect vacated wins. (i.e. the record with Notre Dame, 9-9-1, should be updated to 8-9-1 due to the 2007 win at Beaver Stadium being vacated)

Long.kyle (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the official NCAA process, updated 2011. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf - Pertinent paragraph
To record vacancies for NCAA tournament games, the wins and losses of the penalized team are dropped from its overall record and treated as if no games had been played. To record vacancies for regular season contests, the wins and ties, but not the losses, of the penalized team are dropped from its overall record. This affects season records, all-time records and coaches' records. Example: If Team A was 18-10 for the season but has to vacate three regular-season wins and a win and loss in the NCAA Tournament, then Team A's record would now stand at 14-9 for the season. All records that are changed should be asterisked with the footnote stating something to the effect of “Later vacated by NCAA action.”
Therefore, to comply with the NCAA regs, one would have to go through every Penn State record, removing all wins with a footnote stating "later vacated by NCAA action." In addition, every opponent they had played will have to have their own records adjusted with one less loss in the record with the footnote "Later vacated by NCAA action against Penn State." That's a lot of work, but is the only pertinent solution at hand. As I interpret the page, all scores and game stats stand, as this is not a forfeit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.151.54 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing teams records don't change, as per the linked guidelines.
The won-lost records for each of the opposing teams are not changed when games are vacated.
Those losses remain on record even if Penn State isn't credited with the win. Records reflect that the game still took place; it just has no winner now. The only team whose records are affected by vacating the wins is Penn State. Noting that the wins were later vacated on opposing teams' record pages isn't an issue, but the records stand even if the games were among those affected by the sanctions.Murphyr (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this, I'm going to go through and change a few of the 18 references to the "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" to something akin to "vacated by the NCAA". Dead horse is dead. Kermitmorningstar (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayal of Vacated Games in Wikipedia[edit]

I'm posting this on the Penn State page, but it is more of a general question. Penn State has more vacated games than anybody, so someone here probably has an answer.

Vacated wins occupy a peculiar statistical no-man's land. It's still a loss for the loser, but it's no longer a win for the winner. All of the individual statistical records are kept, but the winning team no longer gets the win.

This has long been a frustration for researchers. For example, if you're researching a question like "points scored per game," you might get the wrong answer if you use the right numerator but the wrong denominator. Although the NCAA vacates wins in their database, many other reputable sources retain the full history of the game. The rationale is that what happened happened, regardless of what might be said about it later on.

Even Wikipedia is not consistent, as on some pages a particular game might be portrayed accurately, with a footnote that the win was later vacated; but on other pages Penn State will be shown as having an "0-4 record" for a particular season. If I'm trying to piece together what happened that year, I have to manually look through the details to "re-assemble" the history.

Vacating games is the NCAA's strategy for recording punishments in enforcement cases. They choose, literally, to pretend that the win never occurred. Although Wikipedia must of course portray their decision somehow, I do not see why Wikipedia is obligated to replicate their strategy of "erasing history". The games were won or lost at the time they were played, even if the official governing body decides later on, for whatever reasons, not to recognize them.

As a researcher, I would find the Wikipedia pages more useful if won-lost records portrayed accurately what actually occurred at the time, with footnotes indicating the number of vacated wins. For many types of research questions, you are interested in what happened when the games were played, not the enforcement action that occurred possibly years later.

Obviously the enforcement action cannot be ignored, and I am not suggesting it ought to be. I just do not think Wikipedia ought feel obligated to erase any part of the events that pre-dated the enforcement action, just because another body chooses to do so. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Americans and Academic Awards ?[edit]

Any thoughts (or previous discussions) about adding in All-American and All-Conference honors and the various academic honors? I took the liberty to add John Urschel's awards in 2013 - William V. Campbell Trophy and the Senior CLASS Award. (Psubrian (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Reinstatement of wins[edit]

Now that the NCAA has reinstated the wins between 1998-2011, is it really necessary to say in the header of every season that the wins were vacated and then reinstated? It now just looks like a way to make sure that the issue gets into the header of each of those seasons without any reason. If people want to look for that, they can look elsewhere. The seasons are about the football season itself, and those sanctions are no longer relevant. Kermitmorningstar (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't list every undefeated season as an unclaimed national title.[edit]

The number and seasons related to unclaimed national titles should match the Wikipedia national championship article. Or you might say the NCAA criteria. The list of unclaimed national titles included a 2-0 undefeated year in 1894! Others included seasons with ties.

I would support a heading for undefeated seasons.

It is a matter of opinion (with strong support) that the 1968, 1969, and 1973 seasons deserved to be championship seasons--but they weren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:324B:3210:850D:4C6D:223C:7B23 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Affiliates[edit]

I've again removed the list of Radio affiliates from this page. This material is simply a copy of the primary source, and adds no value. Per Wikipedia is not a Mirror, information like this shouldn't be copied to Wikipedia since it adds no encyclopedic value for the subject, and requires undue maintenance. Further, Wikipedia is not a directory, and isn't the place to look up such lists. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Penn State Nittany Lions football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penn State Nittany Lions football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame, USC rivalries[edit]

@Johncena5: recently added write-ups for several rivalries. Two or three of the additions had existing articles, and it was good to fill out this article with brief capsules descriptions. The additions also spurred me to add links to a couple of articles about those rivalries to the infobox. I did remove paragraphs describing rivalries with Notre Dame & Penn State, on the bases that neither series has a standalone "rivalry" article here, neither of those schools' articles lists PSU as a rival, and I couldn't (in an admittedly quick Google search) find much to support the description of those series as actual "rivalries". Thoughts, comments welcome - JohnInDC (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed National Championships[edit]

There seems to be a bit of disagreement on the subject, but the answer is "two", 1982 and 1986. This is what PSU itself says, see https://issuu.com/gopsusports/docs/2017_penn_state_football_yearbook at pp 4-5. The NCAA's listing of two others from the days before NCAA identified national champions is interesting and a handy resource, but it doesn't make those PSU teams "National Champions". Please leave the infobox as it is. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I misunderstand your 'talking' and went to another page for discussion. Yes according to this yearbook, we should just leave the infobox. But I may add the 2 NCAA official one to the context, and leave the infobox as it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.207.223 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the rivalries[edit]

Stop changing the rivalriesq Elo Cocko Chino (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elo Cocko Chino: As the user initiating the change, the burden of proof is on you to show that the rivalry is significant. If you cannot provide evidence for a series that only has 21 games total and is played, in large part, because they are members of the same division, then I humbly suggest that you stop changing the rivalries. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Elo Cocko Chino:Also, I have seen a draft on the rivalry, but where are the sources? I have reviewed it and it is poorly written. —Bey WHEELZ Let It RIP!✉📝Sign 00:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alabam-Penn State? A rivalry? Hugh?[edit]

I just saw down in rival section that Alabama is one of Penn State's Big rivals. When I saw that I thought no way they never play each other there are no bad blood between them. I never here a Tide fan talking about how much they hate Penn State, they usually talk about Auburn and LSU. But Penn State??!!! I understand Big Ten and SEC don't really like each other but seriously how is Penn State and Alabama a rivalry. When they play each other sure it s intense and a big primetime game but they don't pay each other that much. 

Boosama (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State has too much rivals[edit]

Pitt, Ohio State, Michigan State, and Michigan should be the only rivals down in the rivals section. Boosama (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the infobox probably shouldn't include Bama as a rival. Realistically it could be cut down to Pitt, Michigan St., and Ohio State. Lizard (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change it or not Boosama (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Nittany Lions Logo versus the Wordmark[edit]

The [Lions logo], not the [| wordmark], should be used in this article, and, furthermore, consistently all Penn State Nittany Lions sports articles.

Corkythehornetfan (talk) keeps reverting it back, his rationale being "Wikipedia's non-free guidelines prohibit the use of the main logo in this article. The wordmark, which is used frequently, is used instead due to being in the public domain"

1. Wikipedia's non-free guidelines do not prohibit the use of the main logo in this article. Its use is justified in the file's non-free media information and use rationale.

2. If this wasn't the case, it should not be used inconsistently in the general [State Nittany Lions] athletics article.

3. The wordmark in question is not used frequently. I posit: If it is used frequently, why is the wordmark not even used on http://www.gopsusports.com, while the Nittany Lions logo is displayed prominently?

4. Again, consistency: Team logos, not wordmarks, are used on every other college sports football team's article. (See: [State's article], [article], etc.)

I appreciate that Corkythehornetfan originally uploaded original wordmark and has maintained it. However, the much-more-recognizable main athletics logo should be used instead, as it is on the non-football-specific Penn State Nittany Lions page.

--Hoyadonis (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my rationale, and it is a standard among US sports articles. Here's my response:
Hope that helps. Corky 00:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; I didn't realize that the Nittany Lion logo was copyrighted whereas, to my shock, it seems that virtually every other collegiate sports team's :: logo is public domain.
(Ones similar to the Texas Longhorns logo, which features no text, especially threw me off guard. I guess it's because the Nittany Lion logo is simply younger than all the rest? I digress.)
Thank you for your explanation, Corky! Hoyadonis (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ps your link to "NFC#UUI§17" is not working for me. Do you have an alternative link to what you're referencing? Hoyadonis (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Texas had used the longhorn logo since the early 1960s so it is in the Public domain. Penn State has only used their current logo since 2005, which means it's copyrighted unless the school specifically says it is released in the Public Domain... which they don't. That link should've been WP:NFC#UUI§17 (sorry 'bout that!)... Corky 05:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football&oldid=1209693047"