ADVERTISEMENT

Pitt's new AD's 1st phone call to Barbour?

And I'm not seeing why PSU needs pitt. Sandy should advise their new AD to develop a regional rivalry with Youngstown State.
PSU doesn't need to play Pitt. This is just the new AD at Pitt looking out for Pitt's best interest
 
Wouldn't the extra 10-15k fans at an OOC game help your bottom line every other year? You know it would sell out and overflow at Beaver Stadium. So you can get 92k (reported) with KSU, EMU, UCF, etc. or 110k for Pitt. Right? Not to mention that games at Pitt give fans and alumni closer to Pittsburgh a chance to see the team.

Other than the big schools, which don't like to play meaningful OOC games, Pitt is your only option for a sellout every two years. I don't know the financials. It might be more cost effective to leave 15-20k seats empty instead of signing a one and one with Pitt.
 
Wouldn't the extra 10-15k fans at an OOC game help your bottom line every other year? You know it would sell out and overflow at Beaver Stadium. So you can get 92k (reported) with KSU, EMU, UCF, etc. or 110k for Pitt. Right? Not to mention that games at Pitt give fans and alumni closer to Pittsburgh a chance to see the team.

Other than the big schools, which don't like to play meaningful OOC games, Pitt is your only option for a sellout every two years. I don't know the financials. It might be more cost effective to leave 15-20k seats empty instead of signing a one and one with Pitt.
In the year where PSU plays at Pitt, don't they then leave 90K+ empty seats?
 
Other than the big schools, which don't like to play meaningful OOC games, Pitt is your only option for a sellout every two years. I don't know the financials. It might be more cost effective to leave 15-20k seats empty instead of signing a one and one with Pitt.
Pitt is our only option for a sellout? Funny stuff. Pitt fans don't go to their own home games so I doubt they'd make the trip to Beaver Stadium. The attendance wouldn't be much different than a game against Temple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john4psu
Wouldn't the extra 10-15k fans at an OOC game help your bottom line every other year? You know it would sell out and overflow at Beaver Stadium. So you can get 92k (reported) with KSU, EMU, UCF, etc. or 110k for Pitt. Right? Not to mention that games at Pitt give fans and alumni closer to Pittsburgh a chance to see the team.

Other than the big schools, which don't like to play meaningful OOC games, Pitt is your only option for a sellout every two years. I don't know the financials. It might be more cost effective to leave 15-20k seats empty instead of signing a one and one with Pitt.


Not a true comparison. This 'slot' (the only 1-1 series available with 9 conference games) generally gets filled by Alabama, Notre Dame, etc. Those games always sell out. Pitt adds nothing there.

The real issue is does Penn State want to limit itself by tying into a permanent Pitt series or leave that spot open for Bama, ND, Miami, USC, LSU etc? It's pretty clear from a PSU point of view that giving that spot to Pitt isn't the way to go- especially with OOC strength of schedule a point of interest/ contention now in terms of playoff selections.
 
In the year where PSU plays at Pitt, don't they then leave 90K+ empty seats?
That would depend on what PSU's scheduling strategy is. If they want to play a P5 team every year, one year at home and one year away, then Pitt is more profitable than every P5 school and likely on par with the big name schools. Although the big name schools would mean more for State College because most Pitt fans wouldn't be making a weekend out of it and getting hotel rooms. But, I think we all know that it's not easy getting a big name school on the schedule every single year.

Now, if PSU wants to say do two years of all OOC games being at home against the likes of Temple, KSU, UCF, EMU, etc. then there's no way playing Pitt makes more money. I understand this decision, but it's sad that college football has come to this.

Pitt is our only option for a sellout? Funny stuff. Pitt fans don't go to their own home games so I doubt they'd make the trip to Beaver Stadium. The attendance wouldn't be much different than a game against Temple.
Not only would Pitt bring more fans than Temple, it would drive up ticket prices for PSU fans, be a guaranteed sellout, and have students in their seats for the whole game.

You can crack jokes all you want, but if you don't believe that, then I don't think you know many PSU fans outside of this message board.
 
Not a true comparison. This 'slot' (the only 1-1 series available with 9 conference games) generally gets filled by Alabama, Notre Dame, etc. Those games always sell out. Pitt adds nothing there.

The real issue is does Penn State want to limit itself by tying into a permanent Pitt series or leave that spot open for Bama, ND, Miami, USC, LSU etc? It's pretty clear from a PSU point of view that giving that spot to Pitt isn't the way to go- especially with OOC strength of schedule a point of interest/ contention now in terms of playoff selections.
I'll give you strength of schedule, but PSU needs to do a lot more before you can really have that discussion. But you have to schedule like you are going to be a competitor every year. I hear you.

However, you're not getting a game against those teams you mentioned every single year. At least you haven't since no longer being an independent. Once again, make all the jokes you want, but Pitt is better for your schedule and pocketbook than MAC and C-USA teams.
 
You can crack jokes all you want, but if you don't believe that, then I don't think you know many PSU fans outside of this message board.
Thanks but I know a lot of Penn State fans outside this message board. The fact remains Pitt fans can't sell out their own stadium of what, 60,000? But you expect us to believe Pitt fans will rush to Penn State and guarantee a sellout of 107,000? And not just a sellout but a sellout which will drive up ticket prices? I don't buy it. I'm not cracking jokes - just stating the obvious.
 
I'll give you strength of schedule, but PSU needs to do a lot more before you can really have that discussion. But you have to schedule like you are going to be a competitor every year. I hear you.

However, you're not getting a game against those teams you mentioned every single year. At least you haven't since no longer being an independent. Once again, make all the jokes you want, but Pitt is better for your schedule and pocketbook than MAC and C-USA teams.


Well, most scheding is for 5 years or so in the future so while it can be a risk that certain teams may be down- you schedule planning for the best.

As for your other point, the OOC scheduling has been a point of contention and lessened recently with sanctions, but there was ND in 2006 and 2007, Oregon St in 2008, Alabama in 2010 and 2011, Virginia in 2012 (not as big - but important traditional recruiting area for PSU). The point still stands as to limiting that spot to Pitt only verses other schools (like the recent talks with VA Tech and LSU). I'm not trying to be rude but that's not really a choice IMO.
 
Thanks but I know a lot of Penn State fans outside this message board. The fact remains that Pitt fans can't sell out their own stadium of what, 60,000? But you expect us to believe Pitt fans will rush to Penn State and guarantee a sellout of 107,000? In not cracking jokes - just stating the obvious.
PSU has 92k people at a MAC game. You don't think Pitt brings more fans than a MAC school and also drums up interest within PSU fans? I know plenty of PSU fans that don't go to PSU games because it's too expensive to drive up there, park, and pay for tickets to watch PSU dismantle a bad team. It's not that they can't afford it. They just don't think it's a worthwhile use of their money. They would much rather spend more money to go to the OSU, Michigan, or Alabama game. These are the kind of people that care more about the other team than their own team. Sure, they want PSU to win, but they're more interested in going to an event. PSU vs. EMU at noon in September isn't the event that PSU vs. OSU at night in October is. Believe it or not, PSU vs. Pitt would be closer to OSU and EMU.
 
Well, most scheding is for 5 years or so in the future so while it can be a risk that certain teams may be down- you schedule planning for the best.

As for your other point, the OOC scheduling has been a point of contention and lessened recently with sanctions, but there was ND in 2006 and 2007, Oregon St in 2008, Alabama in 2010 and 2011, Virginia in 2012 (not as big - but important traditional recruiting area for PSU). The point still stands as to limiting that spot to Pitt only verses other schools (like the recent talks with LSU). I'm not trying to be rude but that's not really a choice IMO.
I understand with scheduling. You need to schedule for the bowl game/playoffs you want to be in, not the ones you're currently playing in. Oregon State and Virginia are similar to Pitt in competitiveness and strength of schedule impact. It's hard to argue the non financial decisions. Who can say which has more of an impact between an away game at UVA or Pitt? Both have recruiting implications. Both allow fans who don't see PSU every year a chance to go to a game.

If you really want to talk strength of schedule as your deciding factor, there's no reason you can't play two P5 schools yearly. Stagger them so you always have 2 OOC games at home.

I just find it hard to believe that PSU "can't" play Pitt every year, but Georgia can play GT.
 
The rivalry in terms of balance is greatly overrated compared to others nationally.
 
The rivalry in terms of balance is greatly overrated compared to others nationally.
You won't find many P5 schools in the same state that don't play annually. And, I can't think of any that aren't played with the history of PSU-Pitt.
 
I understand with scheduling. You need to schedule for the bowl game/playoffs you want to be in, not the ones you're currently playing in. Oregon State and Virginia are similar to Pitt in competitiveness and strength of schedule impact. It's hard to argue the non financial decisions. Who can say which has more of an impact between an away game at UVA or Pitt? Both have recruiting implications. Both allow fans who don't see PSU every year a chance to go to a game.

If you really want to talk strength of schedule as your deciding factor, there's no reason you can't play two P5 schools yearly. Stagger them so you always have 2 OOC games at home.

I just find it hard to believe that PSU "can't" play Pitt every year, but Georgia can play GT.

You can't play 2 P5 conference games yearly with a 9 game conference schedule (one of the reasons I dislike the 9 game schedule change). 7 home games are needed each year to fund the 32 (around there) total sports at PSU. In years with 4 home conference games you need all 3 OOC games at home. In the other years you need 2 OOC games home. That means you only have 1 spot for a home/away series. Other than an occasional ESPN set up- you're not going to get a P5 team to play without expecting a return game. Neutral site doesn't help. The math is limiting here- especially with 9 conference games.

As for Georgia- first they play in a conference where (outside of the Mississippi schools and Vandy) everyone is considered good and strength of schedule issue isn't much of an issue. On top of that they weren't exactly known for having a killer OOC schedule most years. Also- they had an 8 conference schedule up until now (not sure if SEC is going to 9). Bottom line is Georgia may be fine limiting themselves like that (assuming 9 games) in the future but if there's anything PSU fans have been saying forever- it's to improve and vary the OOC schedule.
 
Texas/Texas A&M.
Good one. I forgot about that one. It's a shame though. Amazing how quickly you can forget about great rivalries.

You can't play 2 P5 conference games yearly with a 9 game conference schedule (one of the reasons I dislike the 9 game schedule change). 7 home games are needed each year to fund the 32 (around there) total sports at PSU. In years with 4 home conference games you need all 3 OOC games at home. In the other years you need 2 OOC games home. That means you only have 1 spot for a home/away series. Other than an occasional ESPN set up- you're not going to get a P5 team to play without expecting a return game. Neutral site doesn't help. The math is limiting here- especially with 9 conference games.

As for Georgia- first they play in a conference where (outside of the Mississippi schools and Vandy) everyone is considered good and strength of schedule issue isn't much of an issue. On top of that they weren't exactly known for having a killer OOC schedule most years. Also- they had an 8 conference schedule up until now (not sure if SEC is going to 9). Bottom line is Georgia may be fine limiting themselves like that (assuming 9 games) in the future but if there's anything PSU fans have been saying forever- it's to improve and vary the OOC schedule.
I don't fully buy the seven home games. That number was created as a must by PSU some years ago. With the BTN and television contracts, PSU is making way more money, but still needs seven home games annually?

I'd be for Pitt-PSU coming up with some kind of revolutionary idea in regards to splitting the revenue in the games. While this would mean both schools wouldn't earn as much money during their year as the home team, it would allow them to make more for an away game than any other school could offer. It would have to be figured out by people a lot smarter than me to be fair because you can't just split it 50/50 considering Beaver Stadium holds about 40k more than Heinz Field.

The playoffs will expand to eight teams soon. That will make sure that if PSU does what OSU did last year, it's in. If they don't do that well, they don't deserve to be in because they aren't one of the best eight teams in the country.
 
Texas/Texas A&M.

True. It's because most teams in the same state are in the same conference- that's why they play every year (see the entire west coast/ PAC 12). When not in the same conference it's like 50/50 if they play. Those that don't-

Texas- Texas A&M
BYU- Utah
Miami- Florida
West Virginia- Marshall
Notre Dame- Indiana

And while not same state- the big Nebraska vs Oklahoma game went by the wayside with conference alignment issues too.
 
You won't find many P5 schools in the same state that don't play annually. And, I can't think of any that aren't played with the history of PSU-Pitt.
Florida - Miami
Texas - Texas A&M
TCU - Texas A&M
Baylor - Texas A&M
Texas Tech - Texas A&M
Kentucky - Louisville
Duke - NC State (and probably another combo of ACC schools in NC)
Norte Dame - Indiana
 
You won't find many P5 schools in the same state that don't play annually. And, I can't think of any that aren't played with the history of PSU-Pitt.

aTm/Texas
Miami/Florida

To be fair, UGA/GT and FSU/Florida still make it work, but not within the confines of 9 conference games.

Let's also correct the great "history" of PSU/Pitt. This was a great series for about 5 years out of 100 when both teams were top 10 contenders and Pennsylvania was to football talent what Florida or Texas are now. Other than those glory days of the mid 70s/early 80s, this series has meant about as much on the national stage and poll implications as LSU/Tulane.
 
Good one. I forgot about that one. It's a shame though. Amazing how quickly you can forget about great rivalries.


I don't fully buy the seven home games. That number was created as a must by PSU some years ago. With the BTN and television contracts, PSU is making way more money, but still needs seven home games annually?

I'd be for Pitt-PSU coming up with some kind of revolutionary idea in regards to splitting the revenue in the games. While this would mean both schools wouldn't earn as much money during their year as the home team, it would allow them to make more for an away game than any other school could offer. It would have to be figured out by people a lot smarter than me to be fair because you can't just split it 50/50 considering Beaver Stadium holds about 40k more than Heinz Field.

The playoffs will expand to eight teams soon. That will make sure that if PSU does what OSU did last year, it's in. If they don't do that well, they don't deserve to be in because they aren't one of the best eight teams in the country.


Well, with all respect, I'll defer to the PSU AD in terms of financial need rather than the 'gut feeling' of a Pitt fan. ;)

While PSU makes more in the big ten- it's expenses have increased as well (sending swimming and track etc to Minneapolis and Lincoln). Not to mention the general yearly increases in expenses. The AThletic department is in the red for the first time in forever- so don't expect PSU to be giving away money to schedule Pitt.

If the finances get back to normal and it's possible to pay the bills with 6 home games- then great. But until then there's only 1 home-away OOC game and most would rather see VA Tech, LSU etc than Pitt. I'm not trying to be insulting but it's just the way it is.

I think there's 2 very different outlooks on this game. If you're from western pa (including Pitt fans) it's considered a big enough deal to want to play. If you're from central or eastern PA (where most in PA live)- it's not seen as anything special at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bytir
True. It's because most teams in the same state are in the same conference- that's why they play every year (see the entire west coast/ PAC 12). When not in the same conference it's like 50/50 if they play. Those that don't-

Texas- Texas A&M
BYU- Utah
Miami- Florida
West Virginia- Marshall
Notre Dame- Indiana

And while not same state- the big Nebraska vs Oklahoma game went by the wayside with conference alignment issues too.
UT-A&M and Miami-Florida are the only relevant games there. Marshall has never beat WVU, and it's been played 12 times. Pitt-ND is more relevant than ND-Indiana. BYU-Utah begin playing again next year after only two years off, and BYU isn't a P5 school.

Florida - Miami
Texas - Texas A&M
TCU - Texas A&M
Baylor - Texas A&M
Texas Tech - Texas A&M
Kentucky - Louisville
Duke - NC State (and probably another combo of ACC schools in NC)
Norte Dame - Indiana
UT-A&M is the only game that matters here. UK-UL has been played for 21-straight years. Duke-NC State or any of those odd NC combinations aren't near as relevant or historic as Pitt-PSU.
 
Well, with all respect, I'll defer to the PSU AD in terms of financial need rather than the 'gut feeling' of a Pitt fan. ;)

While PSU makes more in the big ten- it's expenses have increased as well (sending swimming and track etc to Minneapolis and Lincoln). Not to mention the general yearly increases in expenses. The AThletic department is in the red for the first time in forever- so don't expect PSU to be giving away money to schedule Pitt.

If the finances get back to normal and it's possible to pay the bills with 6 home games- then great. But until then there's only 1 home-away OOC game and most would rather see VA Tech, LSU etc than Pitt. I'm not trying to be insulting but it's just the way it is.

I think there's 2 very different outlooks on this game. If you're from western pa (including Pitt fans) it's considered a big enough deal to want to play. If you're from central or eastern PA (where most in PA live)- it's not seen as anything special at all.
Minneapolis has always been in the equation, and now you have Piscataway and College Park to offset Lincoln. Sorry, I still don't buy the seven games considering how much the television money has blown up since that number was first used.

I agree on the Western PA point, but until I see PSU actually schedule top teams, I won't believe it.
 
UT-A&M is the only game that matters here. UK-UL has been played for 21-straight years. Duke-NC State or any of those odd NC combinations aren't near as relevant or historic as Pitt-PSU.
Oh, so now you're changing your criteria. It first you wrote about P5 schools which don't play each other when said schools are in the same state. That's objective enough. Now you want to disregard your original premise in favor of the subjective "games which matter". OK. In my opinion PSU/Pitt doesn't matter. My opinion is every bit as valid as yours.
 
UT-A&M and Miami-Florida are the only relevant games there. Marshall has never beat WVU, and it's been played 12 times. Pitt-ND is more relevant than ND-Indiana. BYU-Utah begin playing again next year after only two years off, and BYU isn't a P5 school.


UT-A&M is the only game that matters here. UK-UL has been played for 21-straight years. Duke-NC State or any of those odd NC combinations aren't near as relevant or historic as Pitt-PSU.


You're picking at straws now. Texas- A&M and Miami - Florida disprove your original point (if you want to nitpick at others). Frankly, the Marshall fans bitch about not being able to play West Virginia just like the pitt fans do about Penn State. They are the two major schools in that state.

BYU and Utah are playing for a few years but that series has been discontinuous as well given conference realignment as our Utah friend who posts here often will tell you.

I think the point pitt fans either miss, or just can't accept, is that the pitt vs Penn State game hasn't really been that relevant for a very long time. It was only really important in the late 70s to early 80s when both teams were generally top 10.

Since 1966 Penn State is 23-7-1 against Pitt IIRC. Not exactly competitive or compelling to keep the series going. Especially when my choice is to be locked into a permanent series with pitt, (eliminating all other OOC P5 teams), or schedule some games at LSU and Notre Dame. I know Pitt fans don't like to hear it, but it's not a choice that they're going to win.
 
Minneapolis has always been in the equation, and now you have Piscataway and College Park to offset Lincoln. Sorry, I still don't buy the seven games considering how much the television money has blown up since that number was first used.

I agree on the Western PA point, but until I see PSU actually schedule top teams, I won't believe it.


Well, now you're starting to go off the rails a little here. Minneapolis was never in the picture until Penn State join the Big Ten. Plus, having some closer games in New Jersey and Maryland does not offset the costs to go to Nebraska and Minnesota. The Big Ten money has not significantly increased recently. The Big Ten is due to renegotiate TV contracts in the next year or so. After that they can re evaluate the budget. The fact remains that the athletic department is currently in the red for the first time in forever and no Pitt wishful thinking or blow off analysis changes that.

As for scheduling top teams, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oregon St, Va Tech, and hopefully LSU (in negotiations) say hello. You have to take off the Pitt glasses here to see the full situation.
 
Barnes isn't proposing this for the good of the game. He needs to get PSU and WVU into Heinz because it's the only way he sells it out except for the once in a blue moon visits of ND.
 
Oh, so now you're changing your criteria. It first you wrote about P5 schools which don't play each other when said schools are in the same state. That's objective enough. Now you want to disregard your original premise in favor of the subjective "games which matter". OK. In my opinion PSU/Pitt doesn't matter. My opinion is every bit as valid as yours.
Sure, I'm changing my own criteria for my own statement. I guess I hadn't thought about it. Games like ND-Indiana have never meant anything, but hold it over my head. I don't really care.

You can have your opinion. No one is right or wrong. A lot of people share mine, and most college football fans want to see more rivalry games than cupcake games.

You're picking at straws now. Texas- A&M and Miami - Florida disprove your original point (if you want to nitpick at others). Frankly, the Marshall fans bitch about not being able to play West Virginia just like the pitt fans do about Penn State. They are the two major schools in that state.

BYU and Utah are playing for a few years but that series has been discontinuous as well given conference realignment as our Utah friend who posts here often will tell you.

I think the point pitt fans either miss, or just can't accept, is that the pitt vs Penn State game hasn't really been that relevant for a very long time. It was only really important in the late 70s to early 80s when both teams were generally top 10.

Since 1966 Penn State is 23-7-1 against Pitt IIRC. Not exactly competitive or compelling to keep the series going. Especially when my choice is to be locked into a permanent series with pitt, (eliminating all other OOC P5 teams), or schedule some games at LSU and Notre Dame. I know Pitt fans don't like to hear it, but it's not a choice that they're going to win.

To put 23-7-1 in perspective, it conveniently puts the start date at the beginning of a 10-game win streak for PSU.

If you think WVU-Marshall is similar, there's nothing I can say to you.

Good luck getting your big-time games on the schedule. Southern teams are hard to get to come north. ND has the ACC deal and killed a rivalry series with Michigan.

Well, now you're starting to go off the rails a little here. Minneapolis was never in the picture until Penn State join the Big Ten. Plus, having some closer games in New Jersey and Maryland does not offset the costs to go to Nebraska and Minnesota. The Big Ten money has not significantly increased recently. The Big Ten is due to renegotiate TV contracts in the next year or so. After that they can re evaluate the budget. The fact remains that the athletic department is currently in the red for the first time in forever and no Pitt wishful thinking or blow off analysis changes that.

As for scheduling top teams, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oregon St, Va Tech, and hopefully LSU (in negotiations) say hello. You have to take off the Pitt glasses here to see the full situation.
Well obviously not before PSU joined the Big Ten. I thought we were talking in the early 2000s when the seven-game home schedule became the reason for not playing Pitt. The BTN has significantly increased the money because it didn't exist when the seven-game home schedule came into the conversation.

Notre Dame was seven years ago for you guys. As I said above, the ACC deal and their commitments to other rivalries make them tough to schedule. Oregon State is a non-starter. Alabama-PSU was a cool series to see. If you can get those type of games, go for it, but it's not easy. That was also scheduled when Bama was down. VT is a good one too.

Have a great weekend guys. I thought I was pretty fair about what PSU needs financially and trying to present a different opinion, but I just end up getting attacked for it.
 
Sure, I'm changing my own criteria for my own statement. I guess I hadn't thought about it. Games like ND-Indiana have never meant anything, but hold it over my head. I don't really care.

You can have your opinion. No one is right or wrong. A lot of people share mine, and most college football fans want to see more rivalry games than cupcake games.



To put 23-7-1 in perspective, it conveniently puts the start date at the beginning of a 10-game win streak for PSU.

If you think WVU-Marshall is similar, there's nothing I can say to you.

Good luck getting your big-time games on the schedule. Southern teams are hard to get to come north. ND has the ACC deal and killed a rivalry series with Michigan.


Well obviously not before PSU joined the Big Ten. I thought we were talking in the early 2000s when the seven-game home schedule became the reason for not playing Pitt. The BTN has significantly increased the money because it didn't exist when the seven-game home schedule came into the conversation.

Notre Dame was seven years ago for you guys. As I said above, the ACC deal and their commitments to other rivalries make them tough to schedule. Oregon State is a non-starter. Alabama-PSU was a cool series to see. If you can get those type of games, go for it, but it's not easy. That was also scheduled when Bama was down. VT is a good one too.

Have a great weekend guys. I thought I was pretty fair about what PSU needs financially and trying to present a different opinion, but I just end up getting attacked for it.


So you were being "fair about what PSU needs financially" like you have a ****ing clue.........
 
Sure, I'm changing my own criteria for my own statement. I guess I hadn't thought about it. Games like ND-Indiana have never meant anything, but hold it over my head. I don't really care.

You can have your opinion. No one is right or wrong. A lot of people share mine, and most college football fans want to see more rivalry games than cupcake games.

To put 23-7-1 in perspective, it conveniently puts the start date at the beginning of a 10-game win streak for PSU."

Hmmmmmm...funny how we show that Joe owned Pitt 23-7-1 and this clown says that it shouldn't count because it was the start of a 10 game Pitt losing streak. How about if we point out that Pitt broke all gentlemen's agreements when Majors brought in 69(or more) recruits in his early time at Pitt while other schools kept to 35 or fewer. If Pitt had stayed on the same playing field as other schools they never would have had any of their so-called glory days.
 

Ok, I've managed to mess this up but was trying to post this......Hmmmmmm...funny how we show that Joe owned Pitt 23-7-1 and this clown says that it shouldn't count because it was the start of a 10 game Pitt losing streak. How about if we point out that Pitt broke all gentlemen's agreements when Majors brought in 69(or more) recruits in his early time at Pitt while other schools kept to 35 or fewer. If Pitt had stayed on the same playing field as other schools they never would have had any of their so-called glory days.
 
I understand with scheduling. You need to schedule for the bowl game/playoffs you want to be in, not the ones you're currently playing in. Oregon State and Virginia are similar to Pitt in competitiveness and strength of schedule impact. It's hard to argue the non financial decisions. Who can say which has more of an impact between an away game at UVA or Pitt? Both have recruiting implications. Both allow fans who don't see PSU every year a chance to go to a game.

If you really want to talk strength of schedule as your deciding factor, there's no reason you can't play two P5 schools yearly. Stagger them so you always have 2 OOC games at home.

I just find it hard to believe that PSU "can't" play Pitt every year, but Georgia can play GT.

The reason is the B1G is moving to 9 conference games. Playing 10 BCS schools yearly is way more than what any other conference does. Being stuck permanently playing Pitt as your 10th BCS game every year isnt ideal.
 
Ok, I've managed to mess this up but was trying to post this......Hmmmmmm...funny how we show that Joe owned Pitt 23-7-1 and this clown says that it shouldn't count because it was the start of a 10 game Pitt losing streak. How about if we point out that Pitt broke all gentlemen's agreements when Majors brought in 69(or more) recruits in his early time at Pitt while other schools kept to 35 or fewer. If Pitt had stayed on the same playing field as other schools they never would have had any of their so-called glory days.


Yeah. I picked 1966 because it was the start of the Paterno era until now (no other reason). I had no idea it was the start of a 10 year run against Pitt and frankly it doesn't matter other than to show how ineffective Pitt has been since then. I would bet most here (and on the Pitt board) were born in 1966 or after. The bottom line remains- 23-7-1 over the past 50 years or so.
 
Sandy should say, look, we have to play Rutgers every year. They took your spot. We wish it wasn't so but we can't even declare a stripe out with them and have our fans accept it. They chose a freak'n white out on Thanksgiving instead of Rutgers in Sept. No matter how vicious you guys can be, you just don't have the numbers to measure up. We can sell more tickets to tours of the Lasch showers to Rutgers fans than you can send to our stadium! The Rutgers fools are lining up to buy chances in a scavenger hunt to find Joe's statue in September and we don't even know if it hasn't been melted down and used for the plaque on the Rodney Erickson building! Blame Rutgers and Delany. It's the biggest game for BTN every season. They even have a poll on which AD is going to apologize first.[

LOL
 
I'd be ok playing Pitt 2 out of every 10 years after this upcoming series wraps up. With the B1G going to 9 conference games and only having 3 OOC slots to fill each year, handcuffing to playing Pitt every year is stupid.

In reality, not playing this game has had almost zero impact on both schools. PSU will like to say Pitt needs them, but Pitt stunk in the last 3 decades of the rivalry save for 4 year span in mid 70s/early 80s. One might actually argue the best years Pitt has enjoyed since Dan Marino were when PSU was not on the schedule..and it's not like Pitt was any major threat to PSU recruiting even over that time.

Has not playing Pitt in 15 years really had any real impact on PSU...at all? No.
Yeah we gotta save those spots for Akron and Temple. Also Pitt was very good for closer to a decade than 4 years. Yeah its not the same only because the game stopped being played. It is a shame that it ever was interrupted.
 
I am amenable to the following scenario to play Pittsburgh, Temple, and West Virginia on a rotating basis.

2016 - 17 Home and then at Pitt
2018 - 19 Home and then at Temple
2020 - 21 Home and then at West Virginia
Repeat cycle.

Able to see 3 local teams very three years; able to make some easy trips to foreign soil for games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GENAC
ADVERTISEMENT