Offside Number 76

Here we go again: Pro football stadiums are not for children. Neither are rock concerts. Kids like football; kids like music. But neither is an environment for children. Some places are meant for grownups to blow off steam and have fun. Deal. (And no, I do not get drunk at games, but I don't want to have to watch myself around your five-year-old, either.)

That is fantastic.

Very nice. IIRC, Gilchrist did a few things to alienate himself from the organization even in recent years. But he certainly was a hell of a ballplayer and stood up for himself, and others, off the field.

I don't agree with the parts about Duff (he didn't wow me, either, by any means, on the two occasions I tuned him in), and maybe I just need to listen a little more, but I certainly agree with the parts about Sylvester.

1. Haven't heard Murph's show yet but hope it's good. 2. Sylvester's show is only very, very mildly informative and not at all entertaining. Needs a ton of work. And I've got every reason to root for the guy, but wow, that show is bland and mostly devoid of information. 3. Don't miss Cowherd. 4. I think most people who hate S&B have called in drunk after a Bills game and received the hang-up treatment, because those two are entertaining even on a dead day (which is WHY they do country drafts, etc.) 5. How can you hate Rome? Are you humorless? Or just intimidated by a brash radio guy 3500 miles away? The dude is hilarious. And the brashness is schtick.

"The great thing is ... the Buffalo Bills, we're going to use [Tebow] 20 snaps, we’re going to use him two snaps, 50 snaps, they don’t know," Ryan said. Please, 50. Please?

Absolutely. The Bills rebuilt by drafting TE (didn't work out), QB, DE, RB, etc. Even that great line from the 90s had people to protect before they were there.

Another one of these?

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.