Cheating: to deceive. Iowa gets an unfair competitive advantage by adding heaters to their sidelines during games. This in turn leaves Penn State to fend for themselves against the odds.
I already know some of you will say there is not a rule specifically stating how home teams must provide the same equipment to visitors, but there is in the pros.
This argument can be proven wrong on two different accounts. First of all, there are specific rules laid out about sportsmanship, and this act by Iowa violated every aspect of "good" sportsmanship. Therefore, it should be grounds for a forfeit.
Secondly, just because it's not a specific rule, does not make it right by any means. When a team acts in a manner that gives their own side an unfair advantage, it is outrageous and wrong. There is such a creed at the collegiate level called a "gentleman's honor" and Iowa should be embarrassed because theirs is tarnished.
The premeditated decision to alter the game based on protecting one team from the elements while exposing the other team is plain cheating. I cannot even come up with a euphemism to describe this situation.
The Coach and Athletic Director should be reprimanded and embarrassed publicly for cheating. It's wrong and it's time people are held accountable for their actions.
I would like someone to explain to me why this behavior by Iowa is appropriate even though it's so apparent that it gave an unfair advantage to the home team. I am okay with a loss, but it's the way it came about and how the elements were a factor, and Iowa willfully made it more difficult.
The reason teams switch sides at half-time is so one team doesn't get an advantage over the other, so why would this situation be any different?
80 comments Last one added 6 months ago — Leave a Comment
Joe G 7 months ago
Scottie Bowman used to do stuff like this back when he was coaching the Red Wings. When Colorado would come to town, he'd shorten the visitors bench and refuse to allow them to bring their own. He'd also have the visitors locker room painted a day before the game so that paint fumes were still lingering during the game. I don't know if it offers a physical edge, but it definitely gives a team a psychological one.
I don't see a problem with Iowa not providing heaters for PSU. It's Big Ten football on a big stage, and Penn State has nobody to blame for the loss but themselves.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lucky Riff 7 months ago
I'd say Iowa is smart, not cheaters. There are no heaters on the field and thats where Penn St got spanked. Your coach sat in a warm press box so its not like he was uncomfortable. I'm sure that FG at the buzzer will provide all the heat PSU will need this year.
FYI..The rules in the NFL are for communication equipment, nothing else.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ty Hegland 7 months ago
Haha, I like you Lucky! Great comment!
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
The rules in the NFL do specify about heaters and air-conditioners and other equipment that players use to help them get an edge. I remember when oxygen tanks became an issue and this rule was applied and home teams had to supply them if they were using them.
We are not talking about a psychological advantage but a physical one understand that is the difference. I am a Pitt Alumnus and really do not have a problem seeing Penn State lose but when someone cheats to gain a competitive edge that is wrong. Its like stealing signs in baseball from the stands and then calling them into the dugout to be relayed to the batter and that is cheating. Clearly one must put away emotions about how they feel personally about Penn State and think about this in terms of best interests of the game.
We are not talking about letting the grass grow longer to slow the ball down for a sinker ball hurler who would benefit from ground balls being slowed down because both sides play in the same conditions. The reason baseball has dugouts with a roof is to protect the players from fans, but more importantly from the sun.
The reason that major bowls are played in the South is to ensure a fairer field of play for all regions. I just think that if teams are exposed to the same elements fine but when players have access to get warm on the sidelines to keep hands and feet warm it makes a difference. Especially, when the home team brings out heaters and refuses to bring them out to the visitors team. That is poor sportsmanship and should be punished to prevent another school from pulling a stunt like this because it is clearly wrong!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
In other words, Penn State had a god-given right to win the game, and it was unsportsmanlike of Iowa to spoil that by actually playing to win. If it hadn't been the heaters, you would have found something else to whine about. I'm surprised you haven't cried about the pink visitors' locker room.
Let me explain a few things:
1) It's November.
2) Iowa tends to get very cold in November.
3) It's been like that since, oh, the beginning of time or so.
It's not Iowa's fault that PSU came to town so horribly unprepared. Major college football teams travel with huge semi-trucks full of equipment. If PSU forgot to pack the heaters, that's their own fault.
PSU's biggest mistake was thinking that they could already book the plane tickets to Florida. They overlooked the games they still had to play, and it cost them. Iowa made the same mistake earlier in the season, and it was equally costly.
Poor sportsmanship is finding things to whine and cry about after a loss. As I wrote in another comment, the PSU QB was man enough to admit his own mistakes in the game. You should look up to that.
Edit Comment Cancel
chuck hession 7 months ago
I respect the Penn State football team but some of the Penn State fans are just a bunch of whiners. Why don't you stop this silly stuff and quit embarrasing your team even more than they already are. If it will make you feel better, next time the team comes to Iowa City we will be waiting outside the stadium with some nice warm mittens and a mug of hot cocoa with little marshmallows for each of those big tough guys. We can also provide you with a grandmother to sit on the bench with her hanky in case anyone gets a runny nose.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lucky Riff 7 months ago
You have got to feel so much better after getting that out of your system!!
Your last four lines are as good as I have read on this website. Bravo!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
WAAAH! WAAAH! The Mighty Nittany Kittens get their tails spanked, and all their fans can do is whine about heaters! At least the PSU QB was man enough to take responsibility.
GROW UP, PEOPLE!
Edit Comment Cancel
Dick Hertz 7 months ago
Hey Bob-let me be the first Iowan to kick your ass over the Internet. What the hell is this reporting? I call it horse crap. What in God's name makes you want to pick on Iowa for this win? I don't think I heard Joe Paterno calling us cheaters. Are you going to say we cheated because the visiting locker room is pink?
This fourth-class article reminds me of the education system. A kid gets an F on a test. The parents and school administrators now blame the teacher for not teaching well. Of course the fact that the kid didn't take anything home to study and jacks off every day in class clearly takes the blame off him or her.
Chris Fowler said it best after the Iowa game: "This is the problem with BCS contenders and their fans. They worry about the title game when they SHOULD be worrying about winning out".
Bob-are you a Cyclone fan?
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Dick--I have to take exception to one point you made. This isn't "reporting". Reporting is done by someone with journalistic training, and the experience to know fact from fiction. This is the whining blather of a self-described 38-year-old child who can't reconcile himself with the fact that his team lost.
This isn't even a fourth-class article. It's more like kindergarten.
Otherwise, you're right on target.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Tom and Chuck wrote responses but gives no bio's so their points are moot!
Lucky is a person that feels win at all costs is the American way but he will learn when the recession hits the farmer, remember your callous words, when they matter like necessities. Football is an extension of our moral and ethical standards and when blatant unsportsmanlike conduct is viewed as acceptable that is when we are in trouble as a nation.
US Automakers and their workers are going to find out what this attitude of greed and get rich quick scams has cost the average middle class family. We as a nation will all be crying when the country is in possibly the worst recession in over 80 years. What will it take for people to wake up and realize that this permissive attitude of stretching the social morays of right and wrong to a point where anything can be rationalized without any accountability. I think that lucky and all the other socially manipulated sheep that sing the praises of the fascists that promote this form of capitalism are to dim to get how they are getting cheated out of a quality of life. When someone can justify cheating in a gentleman's contest they lost the true meaning of what the contest was about in the first place.
Iowa is supposed to have one of the top American Studies program in the United States so forgive me for holding this institution to a higher standard. Iowa needs to look at their actions on Saturday against Penn State and use this incident to catapult their attitude to the very spirit for which America stands.
Americans have always been told work hard, play by the rules, be a good neighbor and help where needed and above all, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The reason why this creed is so important was that democracy works when people perceive the system is fair and it grows with confidence. When will people realize that if we rationalize cheating in stupid sports contest what will people do when it matters like business decisions that effect peoples lives?
Do you get it yet?
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Do we get it? Yes. You're trying to take some kind of weird flag-waving, capitalistic rant and wrap it around a football game.
You're too much of a coward to answer the posts which criticize you. You whine some nonsense about how the people who disagree with you didn't post bios, so our arguments are moot. Bull. You're a coward, and you're wrong, so you make up some kind of self-serving nonsense to avoid responding to the comments.
Understand this: Nobody cheated. Iowa violated no rules. If they had, Coach Paterno would have been the first to complain about it. He knows that there was no cheating. You're not man enough to admit it. You seem to be the only person in the world who thinks that something was wrong. Not Coach Paterno. Not the PSU beat writers. Not ESPN. Nobody else. Just one 38-year-old child who can't get over a loss.
Finally, understand this: THERE WAS NO CHEATING. IOWA WON, FAIR AND SQUARE. GOT IT? I doubt it...
Edit Comment Cancel
Lucky Riff 7 months ago
Robert,
It was just a game. You need to let it go. If there was a serious infraction of the rules, The Big Ten would be looking into it. Move on my friend....get back to talking about sports.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brad Williams 7 months ago
You mean PSU can't afford their own heaters?
Iowa travels with their own-they have common sense enough to read a forecast and plan accordingly.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Brad,
Point being PSU asked and they were denied, no justification except Iowa needed an unfair advantage so they took it knowing that in this day and age it would fly. Does the fact that it was deemed "ok" make it right? Obviously, something occurred that PSU needed heaters in a gentleman's game why would Iowa say no, that is just horrible.
Not one poster has justified why Iowa was right not to share heaters but everyone has shifted blame to PSU. So, let me get this right if I am walking late at night in down a dark alley, I should expect to get mugged rather than to travel unimpeded. Why because I should know not to walk at night alone in an alley? That logic is so wrong on so many fronts, why should I not expect a) walk without issue b) people to act right c) Law Enforcement to patrol cities better.
I realize that PSU left themselves open to be a victim but Iowa is wrong no matter how you break it down. If you cheat by knowingly and willfully take advantage of a situation that gives your team a perceived physical advantage than you are in contempt of exhibiting sportsmanship that is in the NCAA Football Rule book. Interpretation is the key problem we as a nation have evolved into a culture that permits this behavior using code phrases "Passionate about winning" and " Demands Results" and other phrases that usually are not tied into ethical standards.
Jim Harrick and his son at Georgia were caught in academic fraud but what Iowa did is worse. Iowa interfered with the fairness of competition, by not providing heaters, it was like getting extra foul shots in a basketball game. Gamblers should be outraged where it is legal and do not fool your self the only reason that it did not get publicized is that the Casino's made mint on the game which was heavily bet on PSU.
How do I know that someone was not paid to make the decision not to provide heaters, do you see the questions that when people act in a morally questionable way like Iowa? I am not stating that anybody took money but it is in the realm of possibility because why would they not give heaters?
Iowa had heaters and they are the home team and they should have provided them heaters, no excuses!
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
First, there is a rule in the NCAA Football Rule Book, granted its based on interpretation but that does not make the decision to not provide heaters right. When a University whom is supposed to be above the fray, makes a decision that lets say is morally questionable should that Institution take the high ground and not act in a way that casts doubt on their sportsmanship and character.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby...you make yourself look more ridiculous with every post. You cannot back up your position based on facts so you resort to childish personal attacks. You've been asked to provide ONE link--just ONE--to any credible source which states that what Iowa did or did not do violates the letter of any NCAA rule. You can't do that. The only "interpretation" of the rule book that supports your position is yours. Not the NCAA's. Not PSU's.
Instead, you go off on some sort of bizarre temper tantrum, calling me names simply because I point out how wrong you are. Sorry, I don't have time for Hee Haw. There's a symphony concert that I have to take my wife to. Yes, believe it or not, some of us who are sports fans actually have wives and lives.
And I'm sorry that your family tree looks like a telephone pole, but that still doesn't make your position right.
Get this straight:
1) If there had been *any* violation of the rules, Paterno or his AD would have been singing it to the reporters right there at the game. They did not.
2) If there had been *any* violation of the rules, at least one legitimate reporter would have said so. They did not.
3) If there had been *any* violation of the rules, the Big Ten office or the NCAA would be investigating, and would have made some public comment to that effect. They have not.
Plain and simple, you are wrong, both with your interpretation of the rules, and your attitude toward the game. If anyone is deserving of pity, sir, it is you.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Bobby, you still don't get it. You claim that PSU requested the heaters, but you provide no evidence to back this up. How about a link to an article from a real reporter, which can substantiate that claim with a little real evidence?
It's a "gentlemen's game", to be sure, but it's managed by men who are professionals. The PSU AD and his staff knows what their team needs to compete. It's their job to provide it, just as it's Iowa's job to provide for its team, and as the host to provide the facilities *that the rules require*. They did so. If the PSU staff failed to realize that November in Iowa is cold, and didn't provide for it, THAT"S THEIR FAULT. They are professionals, and they screwed up.
Your comparison to getting mugged in an alley is so ridiculous it defies description or a rational answer.
Your definition of "cheating" means doing something to take an unfair advantage. By your definition, PSU should have shared some of its better players with Iowa, so that PSU wouldn't have an unfair advantage. They didn't. WAAAH, WAAAH! Penn State cheated!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
OK...here's the letter of the rule that Bobby seems to be referring to. From the 2008 NCAA Football Playing Rules, Rule 1-2:
"ARTICLE 9. a. No material or device shall be used to improve or degrade the playing surface or other conditions and give one player or team an advantage (Exceptions: Rules 2-15-4-b and c).
PENALTY—Live-ball foul. Five yards from the previous spot [S27]."
It's *really* a stretch to try to make the argument that the home team failing to provide heaters violates this rule. However, even if it did, the decision is that of the referee, and the sole remedy is a five-yard penalty. Period. End of discussion. The referee calling the PSU-Iowa game made no such call, so that's it. The PSU coaching staff had every opportunity to bring this alleged "cheating" to the attention of the referee. They did not.
It's over, Bobby. Done. Finished. There was no cheating. Joe Paterno holds Kirk Ferentz in high regard, and the feeling is mutual. Neither has ever said anything to suggest that the other cheats or tries to take an unfair advantage. It's unfortunate that a few PSU fans can't do the same.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Keep defending the poor sportsmanship by Iowa University, so you admit that what was done is unethical due to knowingly and deliberately taking a known advantage by not providing heaters to PSU. Again, GIRLS you really need to look at the Sportsmanship rules to appreciate the gravity of the infraction that Iowa committed. How is Notre Dame looking this week?
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby, it's the *University of Iowa*, not "Iowa University". You can't even get the most basic facts correct, so how can anybody give any credibility to your pathetic whining about the football game?
Your other childish comments don't deserve the dignity of a reply.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Please read and understand that IOWA is wrong based on sportsmanship guidelines!
This is the html version of the file http://www.wiacsports.com/handbook/0809_t_SportsmanshipHandbook.doc.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct
Expectations and Guidelines
For
Institutions, Coaches,
Student-Athletes and Fans
January 13, 2005
WIAC Position on Sportsmanship and
Ethical Conduct
The WIAC considers good sportsmanship and ethical conduct to be essential foundations for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics. The WIAC is committed to promoting excellence in academics and athletics…excellence as manifested in an environment of sportsmanship, fair play, and ethical conduct.
It is a fundamental value within the WIAC that winning, or at least striving to win, and sportsmanship/ethical conduct are not exclusive goals. Rather, they are very compatible and complimentary goals.
The WIAC views participation in intercollegiate athletics and attendance at campus athletics events as privileges that can and will be revoked when such action is deemed appropriate.
Individuals who choose to compete outside the acceptable norms of sportsmanship and ethical conduct may achieve temporary success. However, their achievements will not serve them well in the long-term inasmuch as any success that is realized will forever be tainted by the knowledge that it was gained in the absence of fair play and/or sportsmanship.
Sportsmanship is everyone’s responsibility—do your part to keep the WIAC “A Conference of Character”.
NCAA Policies on Sportsmanship and
Ethical Conduct
The NCAA Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct Committee has developed the following definitions for sportsmanship and ethical conduct:
* “Sportsmanship” is a set of behaviors to be exhibited by student-athletes, coaches, game officials, administrators and fans in athletics competition. These behaviors are based on values, including respect, civility, fairness, honesty and responsibility.
* “Ethical conduct” is a set of guiding principles with which each person follows the letter and spirit of the rules. Such conduct reflects a higher standard than law because it includes, among other principles, fundamental values that define sportsmanship.
NCAA Bylaw 22.2.4.4 – Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct. It is a principle of the Association that student-athletes, coaches and all others associated with intercollegiate athletics adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. Consistent with this principle, the institution shall:
1. Demonstrate that in the area of intercollegiate athletics, it is committed to these fundamental values of sportsmanship and ethical conduct;
2. Have established a set of written policies and procedures in this area;
3. Demonstrate that educational activities related to sportsmanship and ethical conduct exist for individuals and groups associated with the intercollegiate athletics experience; and
4. Provide evidence that the effectiveness of activities in this area are monitored, evaluated and addressed on a continuing basis.
WIAC Policies on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct
Article 10 Ethical Conduct/Sportslike Behavior
1. General Principle. Individuals associated with the WIAC are expected to deport themselves with honesty, integrity and fair play. Their behavior shall at all times reflect the high standards of honor and dignity that characterize participation in competitive sports in the collegiate setting. Displays of sportslike behavior and mutual respect of competitors and officials shall be considered an integral part of all athletics competition. Administrators, coaches, student-athletes and officials shall abide by the rules governing both the WIAC and the NCAA and fully cooperate in any and all inquiries related to possible violations of those rules.
2. Institutional Responsibilities. Each member institution is responsible for instilling an atmosphere consistent with the provisions of NCAA Constitution 2.4 and WIAC Bylaw 10.1. In doing so, institutions will ensure that all individuals associated with the athletics program are aware of the institutions expectations for such conduct and that appropriate action is taken against those individuals who choose to act in an unacceptable manner.
3. Unsportslike Behavior. The commissioner shall be authorized to investigate cases involving unsportslike conduct of any of the participants on teams representing member institutions; and, if sufficient evidence is found that they have been guilty of unsportslike conduct, the commissioner shall be authorized to impose such penalties as in the commissioner’s judgment the case warrants.
10.3.1 Profanity. Displays of public profanity on the part of coaches or student-athletes shall be grounds for suspension from the next immediate contest. [Adopted 5/6/05]
10.3.2 Contest Suspensions. Coaches are not permitted be on the site of an athletics event in instances in which they are serving a suspension imposed by the NCAA, the WIAC, the institution, or the playing rules of that sport. Furthermore, coaches are not permitted to travel with the team or perform any other coaching related duties on those days in which a suspension is being served. Exceptions to these requirements may only be granted by the commissioner. [Adopted 5/11/07]
4. Public Comments. All individuals associated with the WIAC and/or its member institutions (e.g., administrators, coaches, game officials) are to refrain from making public comments of a negative or derogatory nature about other institutions, coaches, enrolled or prospective student-athletes or the conference office. Individuals found to have violated this provision are subject to disciplinary action.
Article 25 Awards
25.10 All-Sportsmanship Team. An All-Sportsmanship team will be named in each of the conference’s championship sports at the conclusion of reach respective sport season. The team will consist of one member from each team (as selected by that team) who displays exemplary sportsmanship throughout the season. Each member of the All-Sportsmanship team will receive a certificate from the conference.
Article 27 General Regulations
5. Spectator Control. Every effort shall be made by competing institutions to emphasize the importance of good sportsmanship by fans and spectators at all athletic events. Athletics administrators from each institution have the responsibility to control and assist in the curtailing of unsportslike behavior from their respective fans, coaches, or athletes. However, in the event crowd control procedures must be initiated, this responsibility rests with each host institution, or with the tournament or meet director at off-campus championship events. Host institutions are responsible for taking reasonable measures (e.g., adequate security, public address announcements) to ensure that events are conducted in a safe and controlled environment, particularly in those instances in which questionable behavior or disruptive activities are foreseeable. The host institution shall take steps to ensure the safety and unabated movement of opposing teams and officials at the contest site.
1. Pep Bands/Noise Makers. All pep bands and noise makers must be cleared through the host athletics director’s office before they can be brought into a contest area during indoor athletics events. No pep band music or noise makers shall be used during a live ball period. Arrangements for visiting bands (e.g., admission, seating, marching) must be approved by the host athletics director prior to the event.
2. Stoppage of Play. Once a contest is underway, the Referee/Head Official determines if the situation is too detrimental to continue play and has the authority to stop the contest. If a contest has been stopped by the Referee/Head Official, the decision to continue the contest is solely the authority of the host athletics director (or designee) in consultation with the Referee/Head Official.
2. Comments on Officiating. Coaches and officials will refrain from post-game comments on officiating. Any comments, criticisms or complaints of game officials’ performance should be directed to the conference office by a written memorandum from the head coach through the athletics director. In the sports of football, basketball and volleyball coaches also may forward their comments via the written evaluation forms submitted to the conference office. Complaints pertaining to officials shall not be released to the press or public either in written or verbal form. The distribution of a videotape of “questionable” calls to members of the media or general public is also prohibited. Any coach, student-athlete or other institutional personnel connected with an institution who publicly criticizes officials shall be subject to severe disciplinary measures including, but not limited to, suspension from future contests.
State of Wisconsin and UW System Policies
Related to Sportsmanship
UWS Chapter 18.06 (30) – No person shall engage in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance, in university buildings or on university grounds.
WIAC Expectations and Guidelines for Promoting
Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct
Establish clear expectations for the behavior of administrators, coaches, players, fans and officials.
* Include specific expectations for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in contracts and job descriptions of all athletic administrators, coaches and other athletic staff members. (See Attachment No. 4)
* Incorporate expectations for sportsmanship and ethical conduct into departmental and student-athlete handbooks.
* Include sportsmanship and ethical conduct as a point of emphasis in interviews of prospective athletics administrators and coaches. Conduct a thorough background check with respect to the sportsmanship and ethical conduct history of all prospective employees.
* Adopt specific expectations related to the behavior (and standards of accountability) of fans at campus athletic events.
* Establish acceptable protocol (e.g., remain on the bench) for all team personnel (e.g., coaches, student-athletes, managers) should a fight or other disturbance occur during an athletics contest or the team be subjected to debris and/or verbal taunts by fans.
* Incorporate expectations for maintaining control of athletics contests in all officiating handbooks. Empower and encourage officials to enforce sportsmanship expectations.
* Establish and communicate expectations and responsibilities for team captains related to ensuring that their team members are exhibiting positive sport behaviors.
* Increase campus and public awareness of the WIAC commitment to sportsmanship, including expectations for positive behavior.
* Display the WIAC sportsmanship sandwich boards prominently at athletics events.
* Include a sportsmanship message in all game programs. (See Attachment No. 1.)
* Make a public announcement just before the start of each event. Have the announcement read by a student-athlete. (See Attachment No. 2.)
* Include expectations for sportsmanship in booster club charters, constitutions, bylaws and/or newsletters.
* Have administrators and/or coaches attend booster club meetings and encourage booster club members to promote a positive sports culture.
* Develop means by which the adherence to the conference’s expectations related to sportsmanship and ethical conduct can be monitored and reported to the conference office and the appropriate campus officials.
* Compile and distribute reports (e.g., technical fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls, red/yellow cards) for various sports which reflect the perpetrators and the number of incidences in which coaches and/or student-athletes have engaged in unsportsmanlike behavior.
* Incorporate items concerning the behavior of coaches, student-athletes and fans on the game reports filed by officials, coaches and neutral observers.
* Establish expectations that video taping should continue in instances in which unsportsmanlike conduct is being exhibited by coaches, student-athletes and fans prior to, during or immediately following (including intermissions and the post game handshake) any athletics contest.
* Establish, communicate and follow-through on the consequences for exhibiting unsportsmanlike conduct or engaging in unethical behavior on the part of coaches, student-athletes, fans and others
* Include sportsmanship and ethical conduct as part of the overall annual evaluation process for athletics personnel, including specific references to these areas on any evaluation instruments.
* Take decisive and immediate action (e.g., reprimand, suspension) against those coaches or student-athletes who display poor sport behaviors.
* Intercede and (if necessary) eject fans displaying unacceptable forms of behavior. Serious or chronic violations should result in a temporary loss of ticket privileges or even a permanent banishment from all athletics events.
* Enforce to the fullest extent possible the disciplinary measures (e.g., ejection, suspension) stipulated in the playing rules of each sport for fighting and other unsportsmanlike behavior.
* Develop and employ specific strategies to reduce the severity or number of incidences of unsportsmanlike behavior on the part of coaches, student-athletes and fans.
* Train all security personnel with regards to identifying possible “hot spots” (e.g., areas behind visiting team’s bench, pathways for officials/teams to exit the field or court) and for the appropriate manner to intervene with disruptive fans and/or anticipate outbreaks of violence or unruly behavior (e.g., fans rushing the court or field).
* Designate an “administrator in charge” for each athletics event. Ensure that visiting coaches and game officials are aware of the identity and how best to locate this individual, if necessary.
* Recruit individuals to serve as “WIAC Ambassadors” to monitor and promote positive sports behaviors at athletics events. (See Attachment No. 3.)
* Set aside seating blocks reserved for visiting fans, preferably behind the visiting team’s bench area.
* Establish expectations for cheerleaders and bands to dissuade or “drown out” negative cheers on the part of fans.
* Require that public address announcers refrain from making inflammatory comments during games.
* Provide adequate security for game officials and opposing student-athletes to exit the playing field or court and for the post game handshake between teams.
* Train gate and security personnel to deny admission or eject fans exhibiting behaviors attributable to alcohol use.
* Provide game officials with a private and secure dressing area.
# # # # #
Attachment 1
[PROGRAM INSERT]
THE WIAC…A CONFERENCE OF CHARACTER
* The WIAC is committed to excellence as manifested in an atmosphere of sportsmanship and fair play.
* Sportsmanship is about demonstrating respect for opposing teams, coaches and fans, as well as officials.
* Competition and sportsmanship are not mutually exclusive…they are compatible and complimentary goals.
* Sportsmanship is everyone’s responsibility…do your part to ensure that the WIAC remains “A Conference of Character”.
A Message from the Student-Athletes of the WIAC
“Do It Right”
Attachment 2
A Message to our Fans
The WIAC promotes good sportsmanship by student-athletes, coaches and spectators. We request your cooperation by supporting all those participating in this competition in a positive manner. Profanity, racial or sexist comments, or other intimidating actions directed at student-athletes, coaches or officials will not be tolerated and are groundsfor removal from the site of competition.
Sportsmanship is everyone’s responsibility—do your part to keep the WIAC—‘A Conference of Character’
# # # # #
Attachment 3
WIAC AMBASSADOR PROGRAM
* The primary purpose of the ambassador program is to have individuals attending WIAC athletics events who are expected to remain visible during the various athletics contests as a way to curb unsportsmanlike behavior.
* Ambassadors also may be utilized as “greeters” for visiting teams, fans, media and officials.
* While the greatest need for ambassadors will be at highly attended events with a greater likelihood of volatility (e.g., basketball and ice hockey), ambassadors should be encouraged to attend any and all athletics events hosted by our institutions.
* Ambassadors are not expected to act as event security. Their primary role is to act as a deterrent by virtue of being visible and in position to identify to game management any individuals who are behaving in an unacceptable manner. As such, ambassadors are expected to position themselves in seating or fan areas wherein problems may or often do occur (e.g., behind team benches, areas where the visiting teams and/or officials exit and enter the floor).
* Each school will be expected to designate as many as 12 individuals (e.g., boosters, retired coaches, retired faculty) to serve as their ambassadors for each sports season. These individuals should possess a high level of maturity and confidence so that they perform their assigned role competently, but with restraint.
* The use of enrolled students is strongly discouraged, but may be acceptable if approved beforehand by the conference office.
* Each ambassador is to be outfitted in apparel (e.g., baseball cap, polo shirt, t-shirt, light jacket) that clearly identifies that individual as a “WIAC Ambassador”. Each ambassador will be permitted to keep the cap, polo shirt and t-shirt, but the jacket should be returned to a designated individual in the athletics department.
* As a way to encourage ambassadors to attend away contests, each ambassador will receive a conference pass that will enable that individual to attend any and all WIAC athletics contests. If attending an away event, it is expected that the ambassador will clearly identify him/herself to the administrator in charge at the host institution. “Visiting” ambassadors are expected to position themselves amongst the fans from their own institution.
The WIAC—“A Conference of Character”
# # # # #
Attachment 4
CONTRACT LANGUAGE
NCAA Bylaws
11.2.1 Stipulation That NCAA Enforcement Provisions Apply.
Contractual agreements or appointment letters between a coach and an institution shall include the stipulation that a coach who is found in violation of NCAA regulations shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective actions as set forth in the provisions of the NCAA enforcement procedures.
11.2.1.1 Termination of Employment.
Contractual agreements or appointments between a coach and an institution shall include the stipulation that the coach may be suspended for a period of time, without pay, or that the coach’s employment may be terminated if the coach is found to be involved in deliberate and serious violations of NCAA regulations.
Proposed WIAC Contract Language
A coach or other institutional staff member may be subjected to disciplinary measures to include suspension for a period of time (with or without pay) or termination if that individual is found to be involved in deliberate and/or serious violations of NCAA, WIAC, or UW- regulations. These disciplinary measures may be prescribed by either the NCAA, WIAC or UW-.
# # # # #
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby...You've totally lost it. Please explain the authority which the rules of this small-time WISCONSIN conference of DIVISION III schools has on a game played in the Big Ten and NCAA DIVISION I, involving institutions from IOWA and PENNSYLVANIA. The WIAC has no authority over this game. You obviously cannot find the rules which might actually apply in this case, so you substituted this one hoping that no one would notice. Do you realize how stupid it makes you look to do this? How it makes it look like you've totally lost the argument? Yes, the Big Ten certainly has a policy which is very similar to the one you've posted. IT WAS NOT VIOLATED.
You insult your own team's coaches by suggesting that they failed in their responsibility to make the game officials aware of any problems, immediately, and before the game started. You owe an apology to Coach Paterno and his staff. You also owe an apology to the game officials, who are charged with ensuring that the game is played in an environment of fairness and sportsmanship. It goes without saying that you owe an apology to Kirk Ferentz and Gary Barta, both of whom you have libeled. Lesser men would contact their lawyers; Ferentz and Barta don't have time to deal with small-time chumps like you.
Bobby, baby, you're the epitome--the creme de la creme--of poor sportsmanship. Your team lost, FAIR AND SQUARE. Your dream of a national championship is over. Deal with it. You are an embarrassment to Penn State and the Big Ten, and to football fans everywhere.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Tommy Fool,
DID you miss the guideline that stated NCAA, trying to deflect the truth is just a pathetic move by person that has now moved his position several times. In the argument you say it might be argued, so that means you agree that not giving Penn State might violate sportsmanship rules. Again, where do you debate the local boys club on acceptable momma jokes, what a jackass. I am so tired of how moronic you have made the argument that you should just stop writing so as to leave a smidgen of doubt that "you are having bad day."
I graduated from Pitt and again do not have a problem seeing PSU lose but when an injustice has occurred to interfere with an outcome of a game it violates the whole NCAA intercollegiate mission of sports which is fair play. Iowa needs to review the moral compass of its leadership position holders and see if they are projecting the values and the mission of their University.
Edit Comment Cancel
GatorJon 7 months ago
PSU never asked for heaters according to a blog post on The Daily Collegian Online (Penn State student newspaper):
"There's been some discussion about Penn State not using heaters on its sideline Saturday when temperatures were in the 30s and winds exceeded 20 miles per hour.
Punter Jeremy Boone crouched between two equipment containers to shield himself from the wind, and other players wore jackets and jumped up and down at an attempt for warmth.
As it turns out, sports information director Jeff Nelson wrote in an e-mail Monday night that Penn State didn't request heaters from Iowa, which would have provided them if they asked. The Hawkeyes did use heaters.
Nelson said it's been seven or eight years since Penn State used heaters in a game.
What's this mean? Who knows. Maybe sure-handed wide receiver Jordan Norwood wouldn't have dropped a first down, maybe Daryll Clark would have had a better grip on some throws (especially the interception), maybe none of this would matter if the defense got some pressure on Iowa QB Ricky Stanzi when it needed to. Despite the cold weather and Iowa using heaters, Penn State still had plenty of chances to win and still should have won.
Not using heaters is way, way down the list of Penn State's problems Saturday night, but it's interesting Penn State never asked."
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/blogs/footblog/2008/11/left_out_in_the_cold.aspx
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Well, isn't that interesting. Penn State NEVER ASKED, and Iowa WOULD HAVE provided heaters if asked. Straight from the keyboard of a PSU official.
Despite this, ol' Bobby would rather take the word of the ABC announcers, who made it very obvious during the game that they were not ABC's "A Team".
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Gator John,
thanks for the feedback but while I was watching the game broadcasters joked about how Iowa refused to give Penn State heaters. I was astounded when it was uttered in the first half. I hope that is what occurred but that was not what was stated, I would not have commented. I do find it interesting that Iowa chose not put heaters out there anyway just as a gesture of fair play. I think in the SEC has said that A/C equipment was expensive to travel with so the schools agreed to supply the cooling machines to visitors. I can not imagine what Joe Paterno was thinking if he turned down heaters, his team looked uncomfortable at best.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brad Williams 7 months ago
Hey genius
Here is Joe Pa's answer from today's presser...
You didn't have sideline heaters. Iowa did. What's your feeling on them?
I never felt we needed that kind of stuff. Everytime I've seen people with sideline heaters, the kids come out of the ball game, all they do is go around the heater to get all warmed up, and they're not in the ball game. So, I've never really liked it. Although, some of the kids I think will probably address that that maybe we oughtta have a sideline heater. But, we've never had it. You know, everytime something happens and you lose a game, it's the sideline heater, it's this, it's that. But, I don't think so. Certainly we have enough clothing we bring with us. They can come out, put a hood on, the coaches can get them together and pull them over here, here, you can get a quick switch and you gotta get some people in the ballgame and you've got guys stuck over there on the heater. You can't find them. So, I don't think it makes for good sideline discipline, personally. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't some guys on the staff that wouldn't agree with me. They don't all agree with me. But, that's basically my reason.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Brad,
In other words he did not make the decision on the field since he was not the field coach, he was up in the box. I think it is reasonable to assume based on broadcasters comments that stated Iowa turned down Penn States request for heaters that someone on the staff tried to get heaters without Joe Paterno in the loop. I also think that Joe Paterno is in the old school frame of mind that he will get even another day and will swallow the loss hard rather than appear indignant. Iowa was wrong if the report by the broadcasters was correct and Penn State did request the heaters and Iowa refused.
The NCAA should institute a rule for the mandatory use of heaters when game time temperatures fall at a specific temperature. Their is a potential for a student athlete, coach or any sideline personnel from getting hypothermia, frostbitten and other illnesses that exposure to the elements can cause. Withholding heaters at certain temperatures could cause a fluke incident that occurred to the Northwestern player who was dehydrated from too much heat and not enough water. The NCAA needs to protect the interests of the student athlete and that is why I was so appalled by the report that Iowa refused PSU heaters.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby...
You don't even understand the context of what you posted. You Googled something like "NCAA" and "sportsmanship" and that's what you came up with. The NCAA portion of the document you found is ONE PARAGRAPH of a ten-page document, and it is a broad statement of principles. It is nothing close to an actual regulation that governs game-day conduct, stadium operations, equipment issues, or anything of the sort. It's also very out of date. NCAA Bylaws, Article 22 no longer deals with ethical issues. Refer to Bylaw Articles 10 and 11. Neither article even *hints* that Iowa did anything the least bit unsportsmanlike or unethical. They deal with less important issues, like gambling.
What you posted is a GUIDELINE. Do you know what the term means? I have not moved my position one iota. IOWA DID NOT CHEAT. That's been my position all along, and always will be. I do not agree that "not giving Penn State might violate sportsmanship rules." Aside from being horrible grammar, it is incorrect. And I never said that "it might be argued". What you posted is an EXAMPLE of how a conference might approach sportsmanship problems, primarily those involving fans' conduct. NOWHERE in the example, nor in the NCAA Constitution or bylaws does it suggest that equipment issues are considered a failure of sportsmanship.
You have done nothing whatever to prove your case. When someone takes a position which opposes yours, particularly when they respond with facts that contradict your whining, you respond with childish remarks and insults. Nothing shows better how you have no argument. Penn State failed to provide *optional* equipment which might have made its players more comfortable on the sidelines, and you try to blame Iowa for that failure.
Again, I challenge you: Post an ACTUAL RULE THAT IOWA VIOLATED. Not some small-time conference's guideline. Not an NCAA statement of principles. AN ACTUAL RULE. And post a link to a real reporter's story where any PSU coach or official even *hints* that anything was done that was unfair or unsportsmanlike. I've asked you to come up with that evidence, and you don't. You don't, because you can't.
But speaking of cheating, go rewind the tape of the game, and watch the PSU punter fake being roughed by an Iowa player, to draw a flag. THAT'S unsportsmanlike conduct, Bobby. And the Football Code is quite clear that just because he wasn't caught cheating, he (the PSU kicker) is still unworthy of being part of the game of football.
I'm actually having a very good day. It's a very pleasant day to prove just how wrong you are. And I'll continue posting whenever I choose.
You are so freakin' pathetic, to suggest that anyone else's "moral compass" needs to be reviewed. Look in the mirror, Bobby. You're an embarrassment to PSU, the Big Ten, AND Pitt.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
OH Tom Cat are you angry?
First off it is a guideline to be used by the Universities to self regulate. Secondly, the mere fact that a broadcaster said that Penn State had specifically asked for a heater and was declined, is grounds for an unsportsmanlike interpretation. Thirdly, the guideline states that any grounds that a team or official has about interpretation of these guidelines is prohibited from discussing the issue with the press. The Institution of higher learning will submit a formal complaint or the NCAA will conduct an investigation if there is any evidence of poor sportsmanship by a Coach or administrator.
Finally, my feline friend, you need to understand that you have switched your position several times whether you admit it or not, those are the facts. I am happy that you post as you choose because you make my point more by your temper tantrums than by any rational points that you may have. You and anyone else whom watched the game has failed to state that it was never aired and the mere fact that not one poster has said with certainty or uncertainty, for that matter, that the broadcasters did not say it or that they do not remember the broadcasters saying it lends me to stick to my story until proven that Iowa was not involved with HEATERS GATE!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Am I angry? Not in the least. I'm really enjoying watching you implode. I'm having a wonderful time watching the other posters working you into a lather. You're probably rabid by now.
Let's see if we can drill something into your tiny little brain. I HAVE NOT SWITCHED MY POSITION. Not once. Iowa did not cheat. Period.
On the other hand, you contradict yourself here. First, you state that the mere mention of the heaters by ABC's announcers is proof conclusive that Iowa cheated. Then, you mention that the rules prohibit the schools from discussing the issue with the press. So, it's impossible for ABC to have had a definitive statement from any PSU official during the broadcast, according to your scenario. And I think it's absolutely hilarious that you take as Gospel truth the *unsupported speculation* of an uniformed ABC announcer, but you will not believe your own head coach and SID. You're completely delusional. Did ABC mention it? Possibly. Would it be the first time a TV announcer got something wrong? Hardly.
There will be no investigation because there was no evidence of poor sporstmanship on the part of anyone associated with the University of Iowa. The heaters were not provided because they were not requested--so stated the PSU SID and head coach.
You simply cannot accept the fact that NOT ONE person responding to your drivel supports you, nor can you accept the FACT that both JoePa and the PSU SID stated publicly that the heaters were not an issue. You choose to live in your own little delusion, your own little fantasy.
So Bobby, it has been proven. JoePa has said so. He did not want the heaters, PSU did not ask for the heaters, the PSU SID stated that Iowa *would have* provided the heaters if asked. So it's been proven. You're wrong. There was no cheating.
Edit Comment Cancel
Alan King 7 months ago
I "heard" from another internet blog that the Penn State logo engraved on the side of their football has less surface area than the Iowa ball logo. This allowed PSU to grip the ball better since they didn't have as much of a slippery area than Iowa's. That is why PSU didn't have a fumble and Iowa did. That means PSU cheated with the equipment used. Robert, go investigate!
Edit Comment Cancel
jp meier 7 months ago
Iowa had to sell the visitors heaters to help out with the Flood Relief since the state of Pennsylvania didn't help aid the neighbors to the west in a time of need. Hope the pink locker room helps soften your tears!
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
no problem due to the rule that one hour before the game it is required to turn any balls that a team chooses to use to the Referees to inspect. The rule is on the books and I can only believe that the Refs did their job. Also, since the broadcasters never mentioned that PSU was using a ball that was not inspected then I have no reason to question the point. Please note that no team is allowed to mark a ball and again that falls squarely on the shoulders of the Referees. Good Try keep it coming another blog with no profile, interesting
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
You can't even tell when somebody is jerking you around, can you?
Edit Comment Cancel
Alan King 7 months ago
Robert, I'm still confused why you used a Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference rule to prove your point about a Big Ten game. I'm sure I can randomly find a rule involving rugby in Indiana to prove all my points, but I would rather poke holes in your terrible arguments.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Dr. John Gabbert Bowman, chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, is the highest-paid ($31,500) U. S. university president. He is also the bossiest. For 18 years he has ruled Pitt with an iron hand. Last week he came to the ominous pass that every dictator fears: his friends began to kick him around.
Lean, stiletto-nosed John Bowman was a shy, dreamy boy. At 7 he resolved: "I would be a poet. I would always feel beautiful inside and be large and kind and beneficial and be honored and do good." At Columbia University, where he went to teach English after graduation from University of Iowa, Dr. Bowman charmed Andrew Carnegie and Nicholas Murray Butler, who made him secretary of the Carnegie Foundation. In 1911, at 34, he went back to University of Iowa as its president, resolved to make it the "Athens of the West." But he failed to get along with the trustees, quit after two years, be came director of the American College of Surgeons (a hospital-improvement society). One day a Pittsburgh trustee, the late Alfred Reed Hamilton, heard him make a speech to Pittsburgh surgeons, exclaimed: "There's the next chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh."
Two things have made Chancellor Bow man one of the most talked-about U. S. educators: his football team and his (still unfinished) 42-story Cathedral of Learning, which he has been building these 18 years. To picture this cathedral to the architect, he played the Magic Fire Music from Die Walküre on a phonograph. "There you have it," he said. "Climax rising above climax." As Dr. Bowman's Cathedral rose, so did his highhandedness. He fired liberal teachers right and left; during the purge 25 walked the plank, 59 quit. When the American Association of University Professors blacklisted the university, Dr. Bowman snapped: "What of it?" He weathered an investigation by the Pennsylvania Legislature, which in 1935 threatened to cut off the university's life line of State aid (a fourth of Pitt's in come), but eventually let Dr. Bowman off with a mild bill permitting alumni to elect 15 of Pitt's 33 trustees.
All this failed to disturb Pitt's standpat trustees (including the late Andrew W. Mellon, Steelman Ernest Tener Weir*, Food-man Howard Heinz, Westinghouse Chair man Andrew Wells Robertson). But last spring the trustees were disturbed indeed when Football Coach John Bain ("Jock") Sutherland quit. Apparent reason for his resignation was a decision by Chancellor Bowman to purify Pitt athletics, but insiders knew that Jock had become fed up with Dr. Bowman. As Jock walked out, students staged a boisterous strike, proclaimed : "We've had enough of this dictatorship." Alumni began to demand that "Big John" and "Little John" (roly-poly Business Manager John Weber, John Bowman's right-hand man) resign. "At the request of Chancellor Bowman," the trustees hastily appointed a committee to investigate Dr. Bowman's administration.
Last fortnight the trustees heard their committee's report, discussed it for four hours. At the end, Dr. Bowman stalked out, frowning. Text of the report was withheld, but "Little John" handed newsmen a "summary." The summary saved Dr. Bowman's face but applied an unmistakable boot in the pants. Its gist:
> Dr. Bowman should be commended for raising $20,000,000 for the university and increasing its enrollment from about 5,000 to 12,600, acquitted of violating academic freedom.
>"However, the strength of the university . . . has not been developed in pace with its growth. . . . The university now suffers from an acute case of 'growing pains.' "
>"Dr. Sutherland's resignation was a distinct loss. . . ."
> The university lacked an adequate library and laboratories.
> The university's public relations were bad.
> Dr. Bowman should: 1) form an advisory cabinet of his deans, 2) form an advisory council of his teachers, 3) adopt a written code of tenure for teachers, 4) let faculty, students, alumni and trustees know what he does.
The most trenchant aspect of this report was that it was made by Dr. Bowman's erstwhile supporters.
Edit Comment Cancel
Alan King 7 months ago
I couldn't find the inspection rule in your Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference rule that you provided.
It is an interesting argument that you posted, but unfortunately, I think Penn State and the NCAA haven't been notified of your scandal. Maybe you should let them know. The Iowa victory must be tainted and the world needs to know!
Edit Comment Cancel
B10Fan B10Fan 7 months ago
I am confused. In the post above by Brad, JoePa said:"I never felt we needed that kind of stuff. Everytime I've seen people with sideline heaters, the kids come out of the ball game, all they do is go around the heater to get all warmed up, and they're not in the ball game. So, I've never really liked it."
This is a moot point then, right? Iowa either offered or did not offer the heaters. Either way, the decision was made by the man in charge of PSU to not use them - for his own reasoning.
Iowa did not cheat. Iowa did not act reprehensible. In fact, we don't know what happened in this game other than the PSU coach did not want heaters.
If you want to raise your issue for the greater good, I am behind you. This point you made about Iowa and PSU, however, is officially dead. You cannot retro-fit a new idea/direction. Sorry, but this one is behind us.
There is a reason that the car rearview mirror is so small compared to the windshield - spend less time looking backwards and focus yourself on the future.
Edit Comment Cancel
cowboy Henderson 6 months ago
the future comes from all directions
Edit Comment Cancel
Alan King 7 months ago
Since you looked up some random Division III Wisconsin Conference to prove a sportsmanship ruling in a Big Ten game, I have done my own research. I looked up my little kid's youth league rules. Did you know that they cannot wear decals on their helmets in this youth league? Maybe you can use that rule to prove that Iowa cheated since Iowa has decals on the helmets and PSU did not.
Or how about the CFL requirement that a field needs to be 110 yards long. Maybe both Iowa and PSU cheated by playing on this "crazy" American field.
You asked me to prove you were wrong, but you have yet to prove you are right. Joe Pa and reliable media outlets have mentioned this topic and both have shot them down as moot issues. Yet you use a DIII conference sportsman ship ruling to continue pressing the issue. I saw a couple Iowa posts against you, but I have yet to see support for your argument. I think PSU fans know better than to hook their wagon behind you.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
TOP TEN REASONS WHY ROBERT SHOULD BE BANNED AS A "BLEACHER REPORT" CONTRIBUTOR:
1) Accused an institution of cheating based upon unsubstantiated rumors.
2) Published those rumors without attribution, and in violation of ABC's copyright.
3) Failed to do any actual journalistic research to prove or disprove the rumors before publishing.
4) Failed to contact a responsible PSU official to obtain a statement, as a real journalist would have done.
5) Failed to contact a responsible Iowa official to obtain the other side of the story.
6) Libeled several Iowa officials.
7) Committed repeated grammatical atrocities.
8) Responded with vulgar comments to anyone who disagrees with his fantasy.
9) Refuses to retract his libelous comments, even after being proven wrong.
10) Failed to maintain any semblance of professional journalistic standards or ethics.
Edit Comment Cancel
B10Fan B10Fan 7 months ago
Robert - thank you for finally going quiet on this one. That is the best judgement you could have made at this point. I am honestly hoping that you and your favored team(s) have a great rest of the season!
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Tom,
censorship is always the answer to the truth in heartland, Kool-ade drinkers like your self make for great fodder, thank you!!!
I accused Iowa of acting in an unsportsmanlike manner based on the journalists who broadcast the game live and said that Iowa refused the request from Penn State for heaters. Subjective view points like sportsmanship is an opinion based on one's understanding of what ones definition and context of the word. I have a very narrow interpretation of sportsmanship because high ethical standards are needed due to the huge amounts of public funds that all Universities rely on and also the molding of our culture that these institutions influence on how we view the world in which we live.
I have asked repeatedly for people to discredit my story and no one has to my satisfaction. Joe Paterno never said directly that no one requested heaters, he went into how he does not use them but others on his staff disagree. One might deduce that while Joe was in the booth that the FIELD COACH might have requested the heaters due to the broadcasters saying that Iowa refused to give heaters.
I deal in the facts as they are presented and so far it has been my understanding that ABC did suggest that Iowa refused heaters and until they retract those comments I will stand by my comments period. I will not be bullied down by morons that think using words like libel and attacking my ethics is by any way going to persuade me from voicing my opinion.
The sports culture specifically in college sports has always frowned on complaining after a loss unless it is Duke basketball that is involved in a scandal. The goal of this article was to provoke thought and that has been achieved for many of those who read the article. Unfortunately, some are just to immature or lack the capacity in depth to grasp the ideology of sportsmanship as in Tom's case. Tom seems weak minded due to his apparent mindset of wins and losses being the only criteria that matters.
Some folks also get caught up on grammatical errors and dismiss content when they disagree with a point that can not be disputed on its own merit so they try a persuade by attacking the author. This is just a sad attempt at discrediting my point that Iowa was wrong if they were asked to provide heaters and did not while their team was using them.
B10 fan is another without a bio interesting!
Tom your list is now moot and you have sunk to a new low but I feel you have more rope in your closet.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby...
You just don't know when to be a man and admit you were wrong. The comments of the ABC announcers have been repeatedly discredited. You can't even accept the word of your own coach and SID. *Nobody*--not even Penn State fans--have come to your defense.
"...and dismiss content when they disagree with a point that can not be disputed on its own merit so they try a persuade by attacking the author."
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Attacking your ethics? That's not possible when you have no ethics to attack. You have engaged in scurrilous, libelous comments--comments that could get a website put out of business. You have failed to observe even the slightest shreds of journalistic standards. I don't need to criticize your poor grammar to disprove your points. That just makes it more fun.
I see you didn't even try to dispute my statement that the PSU punter cheated. Of course, you can't because it's on videotape. But in your small mind, it must somehow be acceptable.
I've been grasping "the ideology of sportsmanship" since you were still sucking on a baby bottle. (Of course, in Bobby's case that was last week...)
Bobby, you really need to get some counseling. You need someone to help you get over this hostility of yours.
And you can't declare my list "moot". You don't have the authority, and you don't even know what the word means.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lucky Riff 7 months ago
Robert, your article was not intended to provoke thought at all. Your headline was a declarative statement condemning Iowa as "cheaters". You were the judge and the jury calling for a ruling from the crowd. If you wanted to create dialogue, instead of a reaction, you would have presented a case study in the balance of sportsmanship and winning. You would have balanced the supposition with BOTH sides of the story. That would have provoked thought, from your readers.
Instead we read about your opinion and some rules that the LOSING coach deflects as inconsequential. We just get bloated threads ranting about politics and farmers. Where is the research and the thought. You're in a spiral and just need to end this before Tom gets his way.
I will start looking for you in the humor section next time. Thanks for the laughs...
Edit Comment Cancel
Chuck Bell 7 months ago
Look. I am a Penn State fan and I know we are the better team, but did not play well and Iowa was well prepared and played a strong game. The Heaters were unsportsmanlike and I will not blame that for the loss, but it does leave a bitter taste about Iowa. Don't tell me that PSU didn't want any heaters. Did you see the Punter??? Also, if you want talk about the Refs, it was clear that the two holding calls, that were clearly no holds, were very costly and caused PSU to settle for a FG. and the other turned into an interception. Also, that bad call on Interference along with a no grounding call on that last drive. Rule states, when two players are going for the ball both have equal rights and that Iowa dued didn't even know the ball was coming. Again, on that last drive I saw two major holds by IOWA. Makes you wonder what was going on here. But, like I said, PSU gave the game away and Iowa was ready for the taken.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
No, Penn State wasn't the better team last Saturday. The better team came away with the win. Typical PSU whining--"the opponent didn't play better, we gave it away".
What part of this don't you understand? There was nothing unsportsmanlike about the host school not providing equipment that the visiting team DID NOT ASK FOR. But that's ok. The next time PSU comes, we'll serve them a catered wine-and-cheese reception in the locker room, just to be more sportsmanlike.
Are all PSU fans having trouble with their reading comprehension? Reread the comment from your own SID--Penn State *did not* ask for the heaters. JoePa didn't want them.
Quit complaining about the refs--there were plenty of no-calls on both sides of the ball. That's always the case, and that's how the game is played. It's the judgment of the official on the spot, not the losing team's whiny fans 4 days after the game was played.
PSU didn't give the game away. Iowa took it. And if you want to talk about which team was better, also keep in mind which team has won seven of the last nine meetings.
Edit Comment Cancel
chuck bell 7 months ago
Let me make it more clear for you, Tom. It was Iowa's day along with some help from their friends that made it more possible on this day. Penn State clearly did not play the way they are capable and Iowa did. Iowa is a good team and they played a good game. Penn State, regardless of the calls or whatever, would have won if they played their game and played to win ...they played not to lose..big difference....., but calls down the stretch when it really counted showed bias is all I am saying. JoePa is not going to complain about the heaters, but he did complain about the questionable calls on that last drive. My statement was...I was not going to blame the heaters for the loss either, but you tell me why all those bad calls in succession? I will not get caught up with winning or losing over heaters, but both sides should have equal amount of this type of equipment on the sidelines like oxygen, cooling, refreshments, heating, etc. It was wrong and it looked ridiculous for a University to do that. Is that the way you want your University?
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Chuck, what is it that you don't understand here? The equipment was available, and would have been provided if PSU had asked for it--those were the specific words of the PSU SID. PSU voluntariliy chose not to use the heaters. There was no question of sportsmanship involved. As to your complaints on the other equipment and "refreshments"--let's see the specific Big Ten or NCAA regulations at question. It also stands to reason that if there was any legitimate cause for complaint from PSU, we would have heard it by now. There isn't, so we haven't.
Yes, it was Iowa's day. As to the "help from their friends"--yes, there were about 65,000 "friends" helping. They were the ones wearing black and gold (ok, some of them wore green last Saturday). It's called, "home field advantage". Maybe we should have played the game in Phoenix? No, you still would have cried foul, since we have direct airline service from Iowa to Phoenix.
And as to the officials: Yes, I'm sure JoePa complained about some of the calls to the league office. JoePa has complained about officials since the beginning of the Nixon administration, or close. Heck, Paterno has even assaulted an official or two when he's not happy.
Bottom line: Iowa provides its visitors with the facilities and equipment that the rules require, as do PSU and the other Big Ten schools. In Iowa's case, the visitors facilities are state-of-the-art, only being used for their third season. But the fact is, PSU chose not to request the use of *optional* equipment. Ask your coach why he made that decision. There was no lapse of sportsmanship. Complaining about sportsmanship is bush-league.
Edit Comment Cancel
B10Fan B10Fan 7 months ago
Chuck - I am an Iowa fan and grad. I happen to agree with you that PSU could have won this game had they played to their potential. Sadly, we had 3 games previously this year that we felt the same way about. Luck and fortune visit as much as bad luck and misfortune. That is what makes the game so fun for us
As for the penalties, etc. I cannot agree, however, that there was favoritism by the zebras. It is simply too visible for that to be suggested in this day and age. Hell, we all watched a referee appear to tackle an endzone-bound running back in a different game a few weeks back and not get punished. Calls go your way and against you many times throughout a season. I don't see them as determining the outcome here, but that is again part of the game. In slo-mo, I happen to fully agree with the interference call as it stood. The punter call was also correct, IMHO.
As for the heaters, I would like to think that point is moot as well. The head coach said 'No' - plain and simple. Whether they were offered or not (or asked for or not) is not known - or relevant. Teams travel with their refreshments, cooling, heating, oxygen typically. Again, I would think that this is a SPECULATION POINT - not fact. Looking at the replays, there were oxygen tanks and Gatorade jugs on both sides. At some point, the teams who travel either have to bring what they need or ask for what they want. Speculation on this is a slippery slope. I would be hard pressed to think ANY team would outright refuse a request such as that by a visiting team. Paint the locker rooms pink? Yes! Refuse items requested? Likely not.
Anyway, Congrats on a great year, PSU. On any given Saturday, any team in the B10 can beat another. On this Saturday, Iowa happened to be the victors. Thank you for the well wishes of a hard-fought game.
Edit Comment Cancel
B10Fan B10Fan 7 months ago
If you want a bio, I have no problem with that. I am a 46 year old man in a non-sports related industry. I have a Bachelors and Masters degree from Iowa and I competed there for 4 years as a wrestler. I like long walks in the rain and dinners by candlelight. My turn-offs are people who don't know how to let things go and foolish pride.
And I am a Libra.
Are you really saying that Iowa is guilty until proven innocent b/c someone in the announcers booth made an idle comment with no factual content? Really? Seriously?!?!
Please......your opinion is valued and has been made. It is apparent that many are not in agreement with you. Move on......
Edit Comment Cancel
Alan King 7 months ago
I love the "it is the refs' fault" excuse almost as much as the "we would have won if we had heaters" excuse. Almost. Since I have never heard the heater excuse before, I would have to give it the nod in creativity.
Iowa's victory is not tarnished by any way. There were questionable calls on both sides of the ball, so I don't know how one fan can point out only the questionable calls that they saw against their team but not the other side. The PI on the final Iowa drive may have been questionable for Chuck, but when I saw the replay, the defender clearly prevented the Iowa receiver from extending to make a catch. The contact before the ball arrived is PI, whether or not the defender was going for the ball. Was it a tough call for the officials to make? Probably. Was it the correct call? Yes. Maybe that is different in the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, but it is the correct call in the Big Ten. It was probably more of a PI than what was called against Iowa in the first half, but I understand if you didn't see it due to your bias. The "roughing the kicker" may have been a flag, but it probably shouldn't have been roughing if the punter moves his leg sideways into the defender. I would call that questionable and the 5 yard running into penalty would have made PSU punt again on 4th down.
I saw no advantage from either team based on the officials.
The officials didn't allow the Iowa RB to run for over 100 yards.
The officials didn't drop many, many passes or cause the PSU QB to have a terrible passing game.
The officials didn't bite on the play action fake and allow the Iowa WR to get behind them for the TD.
This was a good win for the Hawkeyes and PSU has no one to blame but themselves and the fact that on this particular day, Iowa seemed to want it more.
Maybe next time, Joe Pa should get a heater on that field!
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Elias 7 months ago
Wow.
I'm a PSU fan.
And this is ridiculous.
Put this garbage to rest. We blew a game we should have won.
End of story. Sorry to all of you college football fans exposed to this garbage from PSU fans.
We Promise...Not To Whine!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Tom cat please stop saying that Paterno said he or his staff never requested heaters that is a farce and needs to be retracted, this statement never indicated if PSU did or not. Paterno said and I am basing it off of what was written, in an earlier post, he did not need the heaters but did not say that he did not want them nor request them. He did suggest that folks on his staff would have opted for heaters if given a choice. The fact that Paterno is not on the field tells me that he has a coach on his staff that was given the authority to make decisions like heaters. Joe Paterno has never been considered a micro manager and encourages his staff to make decisions so based on this knowledge I would like to see an investigation.
If Iowa fans are so sure that there was NEVER A REQUEST FOR HEATERS than why cry foul about an investigation. Fact finding missions are always good to prevent other programs from pulling stunts like were stated by TV journalists about Iowa not providing heaters. It is important to have a checks and balance system in place so that teams, and fans have a recourse to ensure a solid product on the field. Why should teams be subjected to poor sportsmanship without there being a punitive response for such acts?
The fact that so much money was bet on this game in casino's and on line bookies that any hint of impropriety should require an investigation. I am not saying that anyone associated with gambling colluded to tip the scales in Iowa's favor but it is worth investigating just to ensure integrity. Investigations are done to protect peoples interest not to convict the innocent as you have intimated the opposite throughout your temper tantrums.
Is it safe to assume that if the heater decision turns out to be accurate in your mind then it still would not matter since it was Iowa's right not to share the equipment. This statement is based on a an earlier post that suggested PSU should have sent heaters but were poorly prepared and therefore should be accountable for poor planning. SPORTSMANSHIP look it up!!!!!
Iowa needs to come clean and state whether there is any truth to the statements made by the TV journalists and should take this issue seriously. Iowa should want to clear up any discussion that sheds their institution in a poor light. Does Iowa assign a media person to ensure that their interests and reputation are being protected from being tarnished? Iowa's silence in regards to the allegations by ABC announcers suggests consent, perception is reality.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Bobby, you're a moron. THE PSU SID STATED TO THE PSU NEWSPAPER THAT THERE WAS NO REQUEST.
You really need a psychiatrist. Penn State lost. That's all there is to it. You can sit in denial all you want. You can come up with all of the laughable conspiracy theories that you want. You can believe a couple of uninformed broadcasters if you want to. It doesn't change a thing. PENN STATE LOST. The National Championship is gone. Get over it.
You don't even have the support of other PSU fans. You've defamed people who did nothing wrong. You've insulted your own coaching staff as well as the Big Ten and its officials. You probably still live with your mother. Does she know you're using the computer?
This is an incredible joke. Iowa's silence means nothing. No school vets every statement made by every announcer during every game. Nobody. If ABC thought there was anything to the story, wouldn't THEY have done something about it? Please. "Perception is reality"? Reality is that THERE WAS NO CHEATING.
Penn State has said nothing about their punter cheating by faking the roughing in the 4th quarter. When will Penn State take that issue seriously and clear it up? After all, perception is reality, and by its silence, PSU is admitting that the kicker cheated. SPORTSMANSHIP, Bobby, look it up--you obviously know nothing about it.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Tommy,
You are a pompous ass, how dare you self proclaim who is credible or not!!! What title do you hold that allows you to arbitrarily decide what is a credible source and which one is not, you are a bore of a human being (debatable) and need to learn how to argue without looking like a rube.
It is clear that you are from a lesser ilk and therefore should refrain from commenting further as you make yourself look like an ass. You know without a shadow of a doubt that the punter pulled up lame to draw a penalty? So, now you are a mind reader too, you are quite a talented bullshitter who rants about ethical standards and you go around saying that the punter cheated? Did someone say that the punter cheated or did they say it appeared to be blatant to draw a flag?
Now that we cleared up that you are unethical based on insinuating that you can read peoples minds, thus knowing with absolute certainty, that the punter was cheating, DUMB!!! Now your points are moot as you have been discredited to a point that is just not debatable, so finally you are dismissed!!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Bobby, I'll go away when I'm good and ready to go away. The evidence about the punter is on videotape. There's no reason to read anybody's mind.
And yes, I'll proclaim that I find Joe Paterno and the PSU SID to be credible sources. And it's equally clear that you are not credible.
This is highly amusing, watching you melt down like this. I'll enjoy it even more when the lawyers from Iowa get in touch with you.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
You are such an imp, how dare you make a threat like a toddler saying to another "my dad can sue you for everything you own" you are so pathetic. It is clear that your rationale seems to be that of a person with an IQ of 79, which means that you are most likely an imbecile. Good luck and again, I am impressed that the video tape allows you to know 100 percent what was going through the punters mind that you can surmise that he is a cheater. Bravo you need to go the road with the rest of the circus acts, you pick the act that is meant since you read minds.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Oh, Bobby, control yourself. Nobody made any threats, so quit foaming at the mouth. And nobody needs to read minds to see what's on the videotape. Actions speak louder than words. You keep crying for an investigation, Bobby. But who does investigations? LAWYERS! It's not the cheerleaders, Bobby! You want an investigation, and since you're the one making the accusation of cheating, where do you think the lawyers are going to start?
And once again, look who's calling the kettle black...
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
All investigations are done by lawyers are you for real, or are you just a complete fool! Why would someone pay $400 per hour, per lawyer when it is quite obvious that investigators are done by professionals in law enforcement or corporate compliance offices usually, first. Then when evidence is ascertained lawyers are pulled into the loop to decide the outcome of the investigation and sure up any legal points. The investigative process is handled by multiple layers and to act cowardly by retracting your threat by intimating my interpretation of your words was incorrect is par for the course. I will accept your interpretation based on the fact that it is quite clear you do not know of which you write.
What a RUBE!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Smith 7 months ago
Yes, you are a rube. I made no threat, so I have nothing to retract.
There are many situations where lawyers are in the loop from the beginning.
You're quite amazing, Robert. You accuse an institution of cheating, and when the supposed victims of the alleged cheating deny that there was any wrongdoing, you ignore them. You have such a fixation on some horrible wrong having been done that you refuse to acknowledge evidence to the contrary. You're obsessed.
You've turned yourself into an object of pity, Robert. Look around you--people aren't laughing *with* you, they're laughing *at* you. You've embarrassed other PSU fans and made them all look foolish. You really need help.
Edit Comment Cancel
Steve Lewis 7 months ago
This article sucks like the rest of Robert's work!
Edit Comment Cancel
Alan King 7 months ago
Robert, just answer one thing. You talk about credibility in your own sources. Then why did you post the rules for a DIII conference in Wisconsin to defend your argument about a Big Ten game? It either means you are lazy in your research or you just didn't know. Either way, I can't wait for you to spin that decision!
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Dismissed!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Alan,
You are not aware because you were too lazy to do your homework to verify my division III sportsmanship rules are the same and are applied the same. There are some discrepancies but none that matter for this argument. Bottom line is you are wrong again, interesting!
Tommy, I am not done with you either the committee on Sportsmanship does not mention attorney's playing a role, just an FYI.
Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct
Roster
Committee Member Duties
In 1997, the NCAA's member schools and conferences established a Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct, representing educational institutions from all three Divisions. The committee's mission is to improve the condition of sportsmanship and ethical conduct in all aspects of intercollegiate athletics by developing and implementing strategies that foster greater acceptance of the value of respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. To accomplish this mission, the Committee formulated a five-year plan. Elements of this plan include:
* Educational programs to reach coaches, administrators, fans and student-athletes;
* Establishing the NCAA Sportsmanship Award to recognize and reinforce positive behavior;
* Encouraging media and corporations with which the NCAA and related organizations have relationships to communicate sportsmanship messages and recognize commendable behavior; and
* Building constituent relationships with groups such as the Citizenship Through Sports Alliance (CTSA).
NCAA Bylaw 2.4 The Principles of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct.
For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program. It is the responsibility of each institution to: (Revised: 1/9/96)
(a) Establish policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in intercollegiate athletics consistent with the educational mission and goals of the institution; and (Adopted: 1/9/96)
(b) Educate, on a continuing basis, all constituencies about the policies in Constitution 2.4-(a). (Adopted: 1/9/96)
NCAA Bylaw 21.2.8 Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct
21.2.8.1 Composition. The Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct shall consist of 11 members. One student-athlete from each division (who shall have one combined vote) shall serve as a member of the committee. The Division I student-athlete may serve on the committee up to one year after completion of his or her intercollegiate athletics eligibility. The Division II and Division III student-athlete may serve on the committee up to two years after completion of his or her athletics eligibility. (Adopted: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, (Division I Revised: 11/01/01) (Division II Revised: 1/14/02) (Division III Revised: 1/13/03))
21.2.8.2 Duties. The committee shall be responsible for promoting sportsmanship and ethical conduct within the Association. (Adopted: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97)
Committee Business
2007
* June, 2007 Report (PDF*)
2006
* November, 2006 Report (PDF*)
* June, 2006 Report (PDF*)
2005
* November, 2005 Report (PDF*)
* June, 6-7, 2005 Report (PDF*)
* June, 6-7, 2005 Agenda (PDF*)
2004
* November, 8-9, 2004 Report (PDF*)
* November, 8-9, 2004 Agenda (PDF*)
* June, 7-8, 2004 Minutes (PDF*)
* June, 7-8, 2004 Report (PDF*)
* June, 7-8, 2004 Agenda (PDF*)
2003
* November 3-4, 2003 Report (PDF*)
* November 3-4, 2003 Minutes (PDF*)
* November 3-4, 2003 Agenda (PDF*)
* June 9-10, 2003 Minutes
* June 9-10, 2003 Report
* June 9-10, 2003 Agenda
2002
* December 5, 2002 Teleconference
* November 4-5, 2002 Minutes
* November 4-5, 2002 Report
* November 4-5, 2002 Agenda
* June 21, 2002 Minutes
* April 9, 2002 Teleconference
* January 25, 2002 Addendum to Supplement 37 (PDF*)
* January 8, 2002 Teleconference
Related Links
* NCAA Sportsmanship Award
* Strategic Plan for the 2002-03 and 2003-04 academic years
* Note: Portable Document Format (PDF) files require the Adobe Acrobat® reader. You can download the free reader by clicking on the button below.
Edit Comment Cancel
Alan King 7 months ago
I appreciate the roster of the sportsmanship committee, but where does it say anything about heaters? Wasn't that your entire argument or did you just want to let us know that such a committee existed? I guess I should be happy that you've at least found something/anything on an NCAA committee. It beats finding some random DIII conference.
Pure laziness on your part. If you really want to prove your point, please include better research. Otherwise, you just look like an idiot. I'm just trying to help you out. I feel sorry for how stupid you have made yourself look by such a terrible argument. I'm actually surprised you didn't give more info than the roster if you put the time into your research. I thought the actual rule would have helped your case.
Edit Comment Cancel
Chuck Bell 7 months ago
Common Tom...I am not saying you shouldn't have won on that day...Get a grip and try to read what I sent. Ur one sided and I think robert has heated your brain with heaters (smile)......I can accept B10FAN comment back and at least he shows he knows football and doesn't send wild statements. For some reason we were watching a different ballgame down the stretch, but like I said PSU should not have put theirselves in that position. B10FAN, your Iowa Team will do well the rest of the year if they play they way they have been playing lately and you should have beat Illini. You have a good Defense and balanced offense. Until the next matchup....we will be ready and waiting!!!! :)
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Alan your ignorance just has no limits, my entire editorial is based on interpretation of rules that pertain ti sportsmanship. The key element of my argument was not about a specific rule on providing heaters but heaters was the supporting detail that makes my argument that Iowa acted in a disparate fashion towards PSU and that clearly violates the code of conduct which clearly defines good sportsmanship. I am arguing that under the guise or context of unsportsmanlike conduct Iowa was guilty if they failed to provide heaters to PSU or not they used heaters and they should have been provided period. The heaters being on the field for the home team should have automatically been on the visitors bench in order to be perceived as fair and a good sport for providing equal access to game altering equipment.
Alan, please understand that your arguments have been rebuked and discredited and you are just too narrow minded to see this fact. Good Luck in all future endeavors I see a lot of question pertaining to paper or plastic in your future or perhaps a phrase like " would you like fries with that order."
Edit Comment Cancel
Alan King 7 months ago
Robert,
Through your incoherent ramblings, I cannot determine what point you are trying to make. According to the article you posted, Iowa "cheated" and should forfeit the game by not providing heaters even though PSU made statements that they didn't think they would need them.
Now, you are saying that Iowa acted unsportsmanlike by not being hospitable. So, are you retracting your "cheating" comment and are now saying that Iowa should have been better hosts? Because that seems to go against your initial argument that Iowa should forfeit a game. Cheating and not being gracious hosts are two different things. I just want to make sure you know what you are arguing. It seems like your argument has adapted the more you try to defend yourself.
Also, you have quoted some random DIII conference rule on hospitality and let the world know that there is an NCAA committee on sportsmanship to prove the point that Iowa was not a gracious host. What if the towels were scratchy or the food was lukewarm? Would that be cheating, too, or just being bad hosts? Allegations of cheating are pretty serious until people actually read your article and realize you have no clue what you are talking about.
You know you probably should just take your ball and go home when Iowa fans are entertained by your article for the humor you provide and PSU fans think you are an idiot.
Alan
Edit Comment Cancel
steve b 7 months ago
Wow, I can't believe the conspiracy going on at Iowa. HaHaHa
Edit Comment Cancel
Ty Hegland 7 months ago
You're 38? Really? If so, that absolutely blows my mind. After I started reading his article, I thought it was a joke. You have got to be kidding! Heaters won the game for the Hawkeyes? You have obviously never been a part of anything athletic in your life. I was at that game last Saturday, were you? It wasn't THAT cold, and even if it was, boo woo!
PSU lost the game on the field, bottom line. After the late Iowa interception, why didn't PSU stop the Iowa offense before they got in field goal range? You remind me of a 12 year-girl who throws a fit at K-Mart when she doesn't get her favorite Barbie doll. It's time to grow up.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
Is Ty short for Tyke if it is than that explains your moronic rant because formal things were not stressed to you like proper first names or proper sportsmanship. I wonder what is taught on the farms beside animal husbandry which would explain a lot of the Iowa posts. Good luck Junior hopefully you can figure out what a formal education is and be able to communicate accordingly. DISMISSED!!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Ty Hegland 7 months ago
Is Ty short for Tyke? Um, not that I know of? Your attempt to be funny completely failed. Now you're making fun of my name? It's actually short for Tyler, I know that's really hard to figure out so I'm just letting you know.
I actually live in a city of around 120,000 people; I don't live on a farm, so once again, you're not funny. Explain to me how I'm not getting a formal education...Honestly, I really don't know what you're even talking about. I will never understand people like you. Don't you have anything better to do than to get on here and type BS articles crying about how your team lost?
Edit Comment Cancel
steve b 7 months ago
Robert, you haven't made a valid point. Your a fool and I can't believe you wrote this article. If there was cheating the Big Ten would have looked into it. You make Penn State fans look like the biggest cry babies. I hope Iowa beats PSU next year too.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
stevey baby,
you now have entered the world of make believe where people still think W. is honorable and that weapons of mass destruction were being assembled in Iraq. It is fools and morons like you that have allowed our leaders to do things in spite of a checks and balance system. This blind faith is so impish it reminds me of Radar O'Reilly on Mash the Naive farm boy from Iowa and some might find it quaint but it is just irresponsible and is un-American. What if our leaders in the late 18th century had your world vision of if you question authority than that is complaining and whining behavior that needs to be assaulted and squelched like a bad apple. It is reasoning like yours Stevie that has allowed our soldiers to be placed in harms way without real debate ever being discussed. I bet you destroyed all your Dixie Chick albums and then went and told your chums how American you are as if this was some act of patriotism. Its American like you that allowed this type of government to exist for 8 years and that simply put makes you pathetic. Good luck stevie and again thanks for the insights into your simplistic views.
Edit Comment Cancel
steve b 7 months ago
You article is football not politics, and I'm not stevey baby. If there is cheating than PSU better address it otherwise so sad to bad. Like many others who have commented and brought to light that PSU did not ask for heaters. Besides that, I live 30 minutes from Kinnick I was outside that day it was not that cold. Heaters would not have won that game, only better play by PSU. So get over it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Carson Schneider 7 months ago
Get over it Iowa has had penn states number for the last 10 years paterno is a joke and Iowa knows it good game Iowa there will always be some cry baby fan out there that thinks they've been cheated and in this case I guess I can see how peen state was cheated it was there incompatint coach
Edit Comment Cancel
robert carola 7 months ago
another hero without a BIO
what wienners
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.