Tom Bradley doesn't tend to mince words.

"This group has not been in a situation where they've won a close game," Bradley said after the Penn State football team's 52-7 victory against Indiana on Nov. 15.

Just 14 words from the defensive coordinator seem to summarize so perfectly what months of conjecture can't seem to capture.

In the 10 seasons preceding the Lions' 5-7 finish in 2000, Penn State was 27-14 in games decided by 10 points or less, including a 12-1 stretch in such games before losing 24-23 to Minnesota in 1999. Since the beginning of the 2000 season, however, Penn State is 8-14 in those games, including an 0-6 mark this year.

What others seem to focus on is Penn State's inability to blow out non-conference opponents, thus preventing younger players from getting experience early in their careers. Though the Lions' average victory came by 21.35 points from 1990-99, it was 20.77 from 2000-03. In 2002, the team won five of its nine games by 32 points or more.

The point of inexperience sinking the team may be valid, however, for the 2003 squad. In the 2000 and 2001 seasons, Penn State won just one game by more than four touchdowns, beating Louisiana Tech 67-7. From 1990-99, each team had at least two victories by 28 points.

"I can remember in the old days we felt like we were never going to lose, something good was going to happen," Bradley said. "This group has to understand that just to put on a Penn State uniform, that doesn't do anything. You've got to go out and earn that, you've got to earn that reputation of being tough. That's one thing that we've really got to work getting across to them. It's an every-play situation out there."

Perhaps no one on the inexperienced defense quite understood that point. In its Sept. 6 game against Boston College, Penn State started three sophomores and a freshman and had to replace five starters from 2002. Not ready from the first snap, the Lions allowed 21 points in the first 7:10 and never rebounded in a 27-14 loss.

The offense similarly struggled in key moments as Penn State was out-scored 83-41 in the first quarter and 65-37 in the fourth quarter. The Lions scored on their first drive of the game twice this season and had just one touchdown in their first possession. Penn State didn't even have a first down on its first drive of the game until Wisconsin -- six games into the season.

The struggles continued on the road, where the Lions went 0-5 this year. From 1990-99, Penn State was 45-15 in road games, but are just 5-16 in such contests since 2000. In overtime, Penn State is 0-3.

All the dismal differences in Penn State's performance before and after the 2000 season seem to center around a single problem -- not enough experience for players early in their careers.

With their biggest losses coming in the biggest games, the Lions evidently didn't have enough experience this year to play well when it mattered most. Whereas players once got used to the speed of the college game playing in the second half of big wins, the departing class never really had that opportunity.

It therefore had to acclimate itself to NCAA competition as juniors and seniors and never really had the time to gel as a team. But, with 25 players with freshman or sophomore eligibility on the two-deep depth chart for the game against Michigan State, youth may have been well-served this season.

Whether the team finds it direction or not, it most likely will not be lost next season because of a lack of experience. That's when the true meddle of the coaches will be tested.

"When I was around good teams, there was that feeling we're going to get them this is our day, this is our play," Bradley said. "The one thing, anytime you have a good football team, you have to understand there are only six or seven plays in a game that make a difference when you're really going at it. When it's nip and tuck and you're going at it, there are only seven plays that make a difference. You just don't know when they're going to happen and you have to be ready to play and be smart and all those good things."

A little less concise, but just as apt.