Penn State vs. Pitt for our season opener every year?
- Thread starter Nitwit
- Start date
People need to understand this if they are going to comment on this topic. PSU needs 7 home games for the budget, I don't see that changing and even if they are willing, there is no way playing Pitt is work giving up an average of $4-$8 million per year to do so. With a 9 game conference season PSU will alternate between 4 and 5 conference home games each year. In the years where PSU only gets 4 conference home games, all 3 OOC games will need to be at home. Ultimately, that means that PSU can only schedule ONE home-and-home series each year. If you want to argue that PSU should play Pitt every year, please understand that you are arguing for pretty much never playing any other P5 conference in a home and home. No Bama, no ND, not even a BC, Syracuse, UVA. Just Pitt.
The only way this works is if Pitt is willing to do a 3 for 1 deal (a 3 for 2 will not work). That way PSU can work in a home-and-home series while playing Pitt at home 3 years out of 4. This is the fundamental reality playing Pitt every year presents that the vast majority of fans fail to understand. They argue for it because of a rivalry or against because Pitt is not actually a rival anymore and terrible. Frankly, none of that matters... PSU is either going to have to give up scheduling other P5 match ups or give up about $4-$8 million per year to do it unless Pitt goes for a 3-1 deal, which they won't.
Yes, we should do this. Anyone who understands and appreciates the history of college football would want this to happen. And given how things are changing in college football these days, with strength of schedule becoming more important, playing a Pitt is going to serve our interests a great deal more than playing the likes of Buffalo or Kent State.
Beyond that, given that attendances are falling across the nation, smart programs are going to start giving their fans more reason to show up on Saturdays. Pitt may not be a marquee program, but they are certainly of more interest to Penn State fans than other teams we play.
Please NO. I'm already disturbed that we have four games with them. They are bottom feeders in many,many ways. We can and should do so much better,
If people want to play Pitt every year, maybe it should replace the Blue / White game. Otherwise, this is so 80's
uhmmm.... no. Pitt is not worthy of a long-term deal. We don't need to react to local pressure to resurrect that series. That would totally benefit Pitt and not PSU.
You've obviously never been to these games. The 1975 game was an absolute street fight ending with PSU prevailing 7-6. The 1980 game was one for the ages for Penn State lore... 48-14... There were 7 Pitt Pro-Bowlers & 3 HoFers on that team...
1976, 1987 & 2000 (the last time played) were Pitt triumphs...
You can continue to look down on Pitt... It's your right... But, I can assure you that both fanbases would love these games... And, Pitt will not be the favorite (unless they played this yr) in 2016-2019... ...based on the talent influx...
Respectfully if you are going to post at least be factually correct.....go look up when the 48-14 game was played.
Pitt had some great teams and some great players in the late 70s / early 80s - but hasn't been a top tier program in over 30 years.
No you can't assure us of that; haven't you been reading this thread. We don't want to play Pitt every year!
[EDIT: See Spud's post above......I had not read them all, and didn't realize Spud had already hit the nail right on the head.]
With the 9 game conference schedule, their is only room for ONE Home-and-Home each two year cycle.
So - if your thought is to play Pitt every year home-and-home, the trade off is that we NEVER play ANY other marquee OOC opponents.
That is - IMHO - beyond unacceptable.
I'd rather (in order of preference):
1 - Just not play them at all
2 - Play them on occasion but just as a "one and done" home game (which they would likely never agree to - so it goes back to option 1)
3 - Play them on an occasional 4 game set with three at home (that would leave you still able to have a marquee OOC game home-and-home for 2 of those 4 years, and Pitt would get the one home game). They probably wouldn't agree to this either - which would be fine - and get us, again, back to option 1
A
anon_is9z1n0h3zblb
Guest
Could you please explain to me how a game every year is beneficial to the state of Pennsylvania? I simply don't see how it's more beneficial than PSU playing a nationally recognized program that would sell out Beaver Stadium every other year while Pitt plays a nationally recognized program also that they could force people to buy tickets for Syracuse, Wake Forest and Akron every other year. Could you please provide some revenue projections for the state or something concrete. I see the tourist dollars for visiting teams fans (air fare, hotel, restaurants, souvenirs) from Texas and Southern California, outweighing people just driving to and from their homes to stadiums. Please enlighten me.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not about playing pitt instead of Buffalo. It's about playing fsu instead of pitt.
As for the history of college football, pitt is history. Ancient history.
A
anon_is9z1n0h3zblb
Guest
I'm PSU, class of 82, I've been to the games. I also use to like George Thorogood and the Destroyers and wear Hammer pants. And all three of these things are in my past. Although I have fond memories of them I don't want to repeat any of the three. And, If I had to pick, I would put wearing Hammer pants ahead of another Pitt game.
It would be great to start every season with Pitt. It would be even better to finish the season with Pitt. Just like Fl. State vs Fl. Clemson /South Carolina, Ga Tech /Ga. . People say Pitt isn't our rival anymore. That's true only because they aren't on the schedule. Its a great rivalry, it wouldn't take a back seat to many, it would help PSU get its identity back. With 9 conference games in this horrible conference on the horizon it would at least end or start the season with excitement.
Apparently we are unrivaled right? Rivalries are not manufactured, we'll find out if Pitt is a true rival next year, and over the course of the 4 game series. They certainly used to be albeit 20+ years ago.
The jack wagon Pitt fans I know are as delusional as ever about their sad sack sorry program, they long for the glory years of the Harris era.
The jack wagon Pitt fans I know are as delusional as ever about their sad sack sorry program, they long for the glory years of the Harris era.
You aren't asking the right question though. The question is if that worth not scheduling other P5 teams (Bama, ND, VT, TX, Oregon, Oklahoma, etc) anymore or costing PSU $4-8million a year to play them? That's the only question that matters.
IMO, there is no freaking chance that is worth it unless they agree to a 3-1 deal.
There
There's some mighty selective years your pulling out there trying to polish trash (and ignore reality). However, the point remains about never playing another P5 team again in OOC in order to play Pitt every year. That just won't fly.
There's some mighty selective years your pulling out there trying to polish trash (and ignore reality). However, the point remains about never playing another P5 team again in OOC in order to play Pitt every year. That just won't fly.
In recent times, since 1967, the series has been played 15 times in Pittsburgh, and 15 times in State College. That was almost 50 years ago. You can check on this, but I do believe that for a stretch of time, 1903-1965, Penn State wanted to play the games in Pittsburgh, supposedly it being in their best interest. I heard that on a sports talk show awhile ago, and it makes sense as why else would PSU agree to do that? Basically, during the Paterno era, in which PSU was a power most of the time, and the glory days of Pitt that followed shortly after, the games were scheduled to be home and home, either 1 and 1, or 3 and 3. Most likely, the series (after the 4 coming up) will not continue unless it is a 1 and 1 format.
Last edited:
NEVER AGAIN....unless in a Bowl Game. They bring negative value on several levels.
Sorry. This would be beyond stupid. We are already stuck with Rutgers every year. Why further weaken the schedule? Pitt, Rutgers and Maryland want us for rivals to help their in State recruiting. Just say no. Delany is already going to promote Rutgers by scheduling our game for late November, on what he will call "Rivalry Week". I hate that guy and his B1G Turd conference.
I wouldn't worry about Rutgers as long as we get past them this year. They are peaking right now based on recruiting rankings (i.e. their best classes are upperclassmen and the classes have been declining since then) while PSU is clearly on a massive upswing as we crawl out of the sanctions and sign top 10-15 classes consistently. If they can't get a win against the 2014 or 15 PSU teams while we are at our lowest and they are at their highest, they will never beat us. No actual rivalry is built on one-sided dominance.
That said, you are spot on about the conference heavily pushing this rivalry so I would keep an eye on the refs on 9/19.... PSU needs to lay down a beating because if this game is close enough for the refs to influence it, they will.
If you think you are above playing Pitt, then fine, request a 2-1. But to justify asking for a 2-1 to make up for games that were played 80 years ago is pretty unreasonable.
Guys the BIG East is the new SEC West with Harbaugh at Michigan and Franklin at State. Play national powers from the power 5 conferences home and home for the HUGE alumni base we have across the country centered around the great recruiting talent areas like Texas, Florida and Georgia along with 2 home games vs. Weaker D1 teams for the 3 nonconference games! That schedule will get us to the F4 if we win the BIG Title which must be JF's goal.
Remember Pitt sold out their commonwealth rival Temple when the old Big East kicked them out years. All schools act in their own self interest anyways; it's not in State's best interest to play yearly!
Remember Pitt sold out their commonwealth rival Temple when the old Big East kicked them out years. All schools act in their own self interest anyways; it's not in State's best interest to play yearly!
This is amusing.
1.) when we joined the B1G, everyone was bemoaning the loss of "traditional rivals" like Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse -- now they're not "good enough" and hurt our schedule.
2.) all the excuses (except, perhaps, the rude fans) equally apply to Temple. Yet no one is upset by the prospect of continuing that series. Aren't you worried about giving the Temple program legitimacy, giving them a home sellout, weakening the schedule, and all the other excuses made for not playing Pitt?
3.) you whine all day about playing Buffalo and its ilk, yet when given the chance to replace them with Pitt, scream hell no.
4.) if Pitt is as bad as you make them out to be, then why does scheduling them preclude scheduling a marquee program? There's no rule that says you can only have 1 P5 team in the OOC.
-------------------------------------
The fact that Pitt brings up such a reaction on this board is exactly why we should play them. Or has everyone here forgot what a real rivalry game is like. I love the big games like OSU and Michigan because they're traditionally good teams, and they are football brands. But they are not true rivals of ours. They don't engender the same feelings between fan bases.
Get rid of Temple, and replace with Pitt on a 2 for 1 home schedule if they want to play us every year. We'll see how much they want to play us. I understand the financial realities.
If Pitt sucks so bad, what better way to keep them down than to beat them every year? Prove to recruits that we're the better program ON THE FIELD. Otherwise, Pitt can claim we're dodging them.
The whole "if we beat them we're supposed to, if we lose it hurts us" -- you could say that about Temple. Or Syracuse. Or Virginia. Or any other team people are throwing out to play. Of course, these are the same people saying Pitt is irrelevant and suck. If they're that bad, then we won't lose to them once we're back to full strength, will we? Problem solved.
1.) when we joined the B1G, everyone was bemoaning the loss of "traditional rivals" like Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse -- now they're not "good enough" and hurt our schedule.
2.) all the excuses (except, perhaps, the rude fans) equally apply to Temple. Yet no one is upset by the prospect of continuing that series. Aren't you worried about giving the Temple program legitimacy, giving them a home sellout, weakening the schedule, and all the other excuses made for not playing Pitt?
3.) you whine all day about playing Buffalo and its ilk, yet when given the chance to replace them with Pitt, scream hell no.
4.) if Pitt is as bad as you make them out to be, then why does scheduling them preclude scheduling a marquee program? There's no rule that says you can only have 1 P5 team in the OOC.
-------------------------------------
The fact that Pitt brings up such a reaction on this board is exactly why we should play them. Or has everyone here forgot what a real rivalry game is like. I love the big games like OSU and Michigan because they're traditionally good teams, and they are football brands. But they are not true rivals of ours. They don't engender the same feelings between fan bases.
Get rid of Temple, and replace with Pitt on a 2 for 1 home schedule if they want to play us every year. We'll see how much they want to play us. I understand the financial realities.
If Pitt sucks so bad, what better way to keep them down than to beat them every year? Prove to recruits that we're the better program ON THE FIELD. Otherwise, Pitt can claim we're dodging them.
The whole "if we beat them we're supposed to, if we lose it hurts us" -- you could say that about Temple. Or Syracuse. Or Virginia. Or any other team people are throwing out to play. Of course, these are the same people saying Pitt is irrelevant and suck. If they're that bad, then we won't lose to them once we're back to full strength, will we? Problem solved.
Yes. I think some research would confirm this (or debunk it). The Penn State fan base just knows we played most games at Pitt (prior to Joe) but not why. Obviously it was agreed to by Penn State--no one forced us to do it.
The way I heard it, we agreed to all the games in Pitt back then because we got better media coverage. Getting to State College was not easy (the team used to take a train to the Pitt game), and big media didn't want to make the trip. Again, remember, Penn State was much more isolated then, and we were more of a regional power, not a national power. Also, I was told we split the gate with Pitt to even out the financials.
Some of what has been stated here as reasons for not playing Pitt every year could be called "excuses". Most are very well stated "reasons".
Most of what you have stated are convoluted rationalizations born out of emotion. I want PSU to do what's in PSU's best interest and the scheduling of seven home games are what's going support our 31 sports and our first class facilities. That is logical scheduling as opposed to emotional scheduling.
I think you will find that the majority (and you can see that reflected here) do not want to see a steady diet of Pitt. They want to see a variety top notch programs. Pitt is not a top notch program.
There has been no indication of that. The Pitt AD has said he wants to do so. Barbour, when asked, said she'd talk to Pitt sometime but was completely non-committal about even having a desire to play more games in football. Saying she'll talk to the Pitt AD sometime is meaningless -- the school schools play each other in other sports so there's always going to be communication between them and they'll want to be on friendly terms, but extending the series is probably not a priority for PSU at this time.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't expect Franklin to support scheduling more games with Pitt. He's generally seemed to ignore the school and probably would recognize that scheduling Pitt only gives them legitimacy as "comparable" to PSU and he wants to sell to recruits that PSU is a much better/stronger school without peer in the state (or region) as a football program.
I actually agree with this. PSU doesn't "deserve" extra home games because of what was scheduled in the past -- what's done is done and PSU was a willing participant in that setup. The rationale for doing so was reasonable at the time and PSU felt it was fair to cede home field advantage for the benefit of playing games in a larger market (which did have a number of PSU alumni/fans there).
That said, today, PSU has every reason to request that any series with Pitt be unbalanced to include more games at PSU. It's very clear that Pitt gains more benefit from playing a series with PSU than the reverse so why shouldn't PSU get a financial and competitive advantage with an uneven scheduling setup? Pitt wouldn't have to agree to such a deal, but there's little reason IMHO for PSU to willingly enter into any long term scheduling agreement with Pitt that is balanced home/away. I'm okay with a 2 game home and home series every decade or so, but any series of longer games needs to be unbalanced or else the non-conference slate for PSU gets needlessly boring.
Furthermore, if you want to make a lame "best for the Commonwealth" argument as to why the game should be played -- it should be in Happy Valley every year seen more tickets (and concessions, etc.) are sold thus generating more revenue which filters into the local economy and produces tax revenue. And a good bit of that money would come from outside the state.
Agree about the refs. Was not lost by me that they made us score the go ahead touch down twice last year, after pushing us back 10 yards, with a questionable holding call. Before that it was reasonable, considering they assigned our nemesis crew to the game.
It's unreal the Pitt fan lunacy on this issue. This is about having only 1 OOC game for a home/away series (with 9 conference games). No one is going to agree to just play Pitt forever and forget playing Texas, USC, Miami, Bama, etc ever again. That means if Pitt fans want this game so bad they will have to agree to a 2-1 or 3-1 series if they want PSU to take a financial hit to keep the series going. That's just the bottom line.
Last edited:
I stated that we should offer Pitt a 2 for 1 home game offer. As I said, I understand the financial ramifications.
Sure, everyone wants to see a variety of top notch programs. Guess what? Franklin wants winnable games--not intersectional games we can lose. Guess what? To get 7 home games, you have to have teams willing to come here without a return game, or do 2 for 1 deals. Guess what? Top notch programs don't do those kinds of deals on a regular basis. You think Bama and LSU and Texas are coming to play in PA without a return game? That kind of scheduling talk is EMOTIONAL. So, do you really expect the scheduling to change that much in the future?
Not many P5 teams would do a 2 for 1 deal. Pitt might, to get the rivalry going again. And I'd rather play Pitt than any P5 team also willing to do that deal. Who else would do it? Wake Forest? So we're back to MAC teams and the like.
If Pitt will do 2 for 1, we help ourselves financially, and we get a winnable game. Plus we get a rivalry game that has 100 years of history and animosity behind it. We get bragging rights on the field. We show in state recruits who's best. Explain to me how that is not in Penn State's best interest.
