Penn State ... where was the tradition?

[Knight_Light]

Okay. I know this is a USF board... but I'm surprised that no one commented about how Penn State students didn't live up to the best-known tradition in college football: storming the field??

I mean, didn't they know that they had the RIGHT to storm the field after beating a top 10 team at home??  Generations of college football fans have been doing so...

In fact, when the railing broke in front of the students, they not only failed to push past the security... the few that fell kept getting back into the stands!!

Can you imagine??  After winning a highly emotional game that was undecided until very late - the students actually held their composure and celebrated in the stands.

Those PSU fans must not know anything about college football traditions.

I guess because Penn State is a school that has won 2 National Championships over the past 23 years or so...don't get TOO excited about just winning 1 regular season game...

Just a thought.

KL

[Guest]

No, KL... It's a "tradition" in college football that goes back years and years... all the way to the 1880s...

I mean, big time programs with on-campus stadiums like Penn State are supposed to welcome their students onto the field with open arms.  That is the true mark of whether a program has made it to big time -- letting the students run on the field after a big win... using police tactics spoiles this tradition and violatest the rights of the students...

Moreover, fans of progams like this are supposed to want to storm the field.  Everyone knows they have the God-given RIGHT!! It's even in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble on a field of athletics with their scholastic teams, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[beastiebull]

No, KL... It's a "tradition" in college football that goes back years and years... all the way to the 1880s...

I mean, big time programs with on-campus stadiums like Penn State are supposed to welcome their students onto the field with open arms.  That is the true mark of whether a program has made it to big time -- letting the students run on the field after a big win... using police tactics spoiles this tradition and violatest the rights of the students...

Moreover, fans of progams like this are supposed to want to storm the field.  Everyone knows they have the God-given RIGHT!! It's even in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble on a field of athletics with their scholastic teams, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Just curious, but do you also believe students shouldn't rush the court after a big win in bball?

[Guest]

Just curious, but do you also believe students shouldn't rush the court after a big win in bball?

It depends on the definition of the word "big".  My standard is probably higher than most:

- defeating a Top 5, undefeated team on television (if its not on TV, it's not worth it otherwise) in a close game...

- winning the regular season Big East conference title...

- winning the national championship...

Beating Charlotte last season just wasn't up to that standard.

Moreover ... I don't disagree that students "shouldn't" rush the field in football... Hell, I might join them under the right circumstaces...

But the idiots on this board who used arguments that its a "tradition" or students have the "right" were patently absurd and moronic... and I am trying to point that out.

[BULLheaded]

Jim,

Are you honestly trying to say that storming the field is not something that has and does happen frequently in college football after great victories? Geesh, I can see why people would agree or disagree with continuing to allow it but c'mon pretending that it hardly happens over the years? And with the frequency that it has happened and the fact that it is triggered by a particular event I would say it qualifies as a tradition. Like it or dislike it fine but to pretend it's not there just silly.

Even your post about it not happening at penn state seems to be wrong and that they in fact DID try to storm the field.

Also, I can't believe anyone in their right mind would be saying we need a new stadium simply to storm the field. However, that is an INCIDENT that can be used as one example of why it would be a benefit for USF to have our own stadium. ie...not to storm the field but to have control of how the field is used and how to enforce the rules. You said yourself in another post that the kids were tazered since the permission given was from the wrong authority (USF officials instead of TSA officials) well if the stadium was under USF control then they would have been the proper officials in that case wouldn't they?

[BULLheaded]

It depends on the definition of the word "big".  My standard is probably higher than most:

- defeating a Top 5, undefeated team on television (if its not on TV, it's not worth it otherwise) in a close game...

- winning the regular season Big East conference title...

- winning the national championship...

Beating Charlotte last season just wasn't up to that standard.

Moreover ... I don't disagree that students "shouldn't" rush the field in football... Hell, I might join them under the right circumstaces...

But the idiots on this board who used arguments that its a "tradition" or students have the "right" were patently absurd and moronic... and I am trying to point that out.

your right, the interpretation of big is important. However you can't just say....well big = such and such.

For instance, UCF wins first game in nearly 2 years. Is the game itself really that important? No, but the win for them was one of the biggest things for that program. IMO big is relative to the team you are talking about. If USF wins a game that locks a bowl game then that game is huge, on the other hand if it happens to USC it could actually be a disappointment if it isn't for the bowl determining the national championship. The funny thing is so many of you guys that argue till your blue in the face that we can't expect the coaches or the program to be on par with USC end up arguing like crazy that we shouldn't think wins are that important unless they are wins like USC. So which is it? Should we expect to be at their level and look at lesser wins as not "storming worthy" (and of course hold coaches as accountable if we aren't better then everybody) OR should we not have those high expectations and be happy at what we have achieved thus far and therefore those so called "lesser" wins are worthy of being considered big due to their relative importance to our program? Which is it? Can't really have both.

[Guest]

Jim,

Are you honestly trying to say that storming the field is not something that has and does happen frequently in college football after great victories? Geesh, I can see why people would agree or disagree with continuing to allow it but c'mon pretending that it hardly happens over the years? And with the frequency that it has happened and the fact that it is triggered by a particular event I would say it qualifies as a tradition. Like it or dislike it fine but to pretend it's not there just silly.

Just because something happens with frequency does not make it a tradition.  I will say beyond any shadow of a doubt that storming the field is not, never has been, and never will be a tradition at any school anywhere in the United States.

Yes it has happened.  Yes it happens several times per season.  But it is NOT a tradition.

If you can find something to the contrary -- where a Division I-A school actualy proclaims that as one of their traditions -- I will gladly say that I am wrong and drop this subject forever.

Even your post about it not happening at penn state seems to be wrong and that they in fact DID try to storm the field.

I was going based on what I SAW on television Saturday night.  ESPN talked about the police not allowing studens onto the field and they showed the student section -- no one was jumping onto the field!  In fact, as I said, the railing became dislodged and some students couldn't stay in the stands... so they were jumping BACK into the stands when they fell and others were helping them up.  It was amazing to see.

Also, I can't believe anyone in their right mind would be saying we need a new stadium simply to storm the field. However, that is an INCIDENT that can be used as one example of why it would be a benefit for USF to have our own stadium. ie...not to storm the field but to have control of how the field is used and how to enforce the rules. You said yourself in another post that the kids were tazered since the permission given was from the wrong authority (USF officials instead of TSA officials) well if the stadium was under USF control then they would have been the proper officials in that case wouldn't they?

The incident is used incorrectly.  People were point out that they USF would somehow magically allow them onto the field when TSA wouldn't -- and people were talking about how other schools with on-campus stadiums allow it, so USF would.  That is simply not the case.  USF would NEVER allow students to rush the field after a game in an on campus stadium.

There are many other reasons to support the constuction of stadium -- building it in the hope sthat students can rush the field just isn't one of them.

[Guest]

your right, the interpretation of big is important. However you can't just say....well big = such and such. For instance, UCF wins first game in nearly 2 years. Is the game itself really that important? No, but the win for them was one of the biggest things for that program. IMO big is relative to the team you are talking about.

To a certain extent this is true -- but it also depends on the emotion of the game.  The Louisville game was over SO early, there wasn't the mass celebration that is required to have hundreds of people storm the field.

If USF wins a game that locks a bowl game then that game is huge, on the other hand if it happens to USC it could actually be a disappointment if it isn't for the bowl determining the national championship. The funny thing is so many of you guys that argue till your blue in the face that we can't expect the coaches or the program to be on par with USC end up arguing like crazy that we shouldn't think wins are that important unless they are wins like USC. So which is it? Should we expect to be at their level and look at lesser wins as not "storming worthy" (and of course hold coaches as accountable if we aren't better then everybody) OR should we not have those high expectations and be happy at what we have achieved thus far and therefore those so called "lesser" wins are worthy of being considered big due to their relative importance to our program? Which is it? Can't really have both.

I believe storming the field should be saved for those rare occasions when it really means something important -- and getting to our first bowl game by beating a terrible Cincinnati team just doesn't meet that standard to me.

What game is? I'll know it when I see it.

[Don Toro]

Tradition:   A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.

From that definition "storming the field" might seem like a tradition.  And since some colleges allow it we can't say is overall illegal and therefore not a tradition.

[BULLheaded]

To a certain extent this is true -- but it also depends on the emotion of the game.  The Louisville game was over SO early, there wasn't the mass celebration that is required to have hundreds of people storm the field.

I agree but that only makes my point. Emotion is just another immeasurable in the equation as to what would be consindered "big". However, even with this you are trying to put a requirement on what makes it good enough.

Just because something happens with frequency does not make it a tradition.  I will say beyond any shadow of a doubt that storming the field is not, never has been, and never will be a tradition at any school anywhere in the United States.

Yes it has happened.  Yes it happens several times per season.  But it is NOT a tradition.

If you can find something to the contrary -- where a Division I-A school actualy proclaims that as one of their traditions -- I will gladly say that I am wrong and drop this subject forever.

I believe storming the field should be saved for those rare occasions when it really means something important -- and getting to our first bowl game by beating a terrible Cincinnati team just doesn't meet that standard to me.

What game is? I'll know it when I see it.

I'm not even sure where to begin here. So a tradition has to be "proclaimed" to make it a tradition? A couple definitions for tradition:

tra·di·tion  (tr-dshn) n.

1)A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.

2)A time-honored practice or set of such practices.

I don't see anything there requiring a tradition to be proclaimed by anyone. Not to mention storming the field is a FAN'S tradition not the school's tradition so you would be looking in the wrong place for the proclamation even if one was required.

So I still say that since this is not only commonplace throughout several generations but ALSO triggered by a particular event ie...winning a game percieved to be big that it is in fact a tradition in college football.

I look at your own comment (above) about what game will be big enough to warrant storming and you are yourself adding to the tradition....just arguing about what type of game is big enough to trigger the tradition.

The incident is used incorrectly.  People were point out that they USF would somehow magically allow them onto the field when TSA wouldn't -- and people were talking about how other schools with on-campus stadiums allow it, so USF would.  That is simply not the case.  USF would NEVER allow students to rush the field after a game in an on campus stadium.

There are many other reasons to support the constuction of stadium -- building it in the hope sthat students can rush the field just isn't one of them.

I agree with this which is why I said it would be rediculous to think we'd build a stadium for this reason. The only relevance to a new stadium and this incident would be to point out that USF has zero control in how we manage our own event and our own stadium would change that. However, I was pointing out from another debate we had that you said when USF admin gave the go ahead to go onto the field that the students were still breaking the law since it wasn't the proper authority. In the case of our own stadium that would not be the case since USF would be the proper authority. Also, USF would have options on enforcement....maybe, just maybe you would be wrong and the school would look into the collapsable goal posts and not care so much about the field storming, who knows but the point is that right now USF has no choice in the matter.