PSU-Pitt: Let The Game resume

Unfortunately this is now about more than old grudges.  This is about money.  And yes in that respect PItt does need the game more than Penn State.

Penn State can reel in multimillion dollar paydays playing just about anyone at Beaver Stadium.  Trouble is that the athetic budget has now gotten so big that you need to play seven anybodies at Beaver Stadium to make the math work.  Penn State is one of only 19 BCS athletic departments in the country that pay their own way.  They don't need Pitt.

Pitt on the other hand is in despirate need of a yearly sellout to help plug its multi-million dollar athletic budget shortfall.  Pride prevents them from playing 2-1 or 3-1 in Happy Valley to get a contract from Tim Curley but they DESPIRATELY need a sellout in the years when Notre Dame is on the road.  

Money makes college football run.  If it was about nothing more than the competition then we wouldn't be worried about another year of the bogus BCS.  Money has now become the fulcrum that turns the tide against this series.

Pitt used to play CMU.  Penn State used to play Penn, Fordham and Lehigh.  In the land of the haves vs. the have nots Penn State-Pitt is just another one of those things that used to be.  

It certainly is about MONEY.

Although, I won't lay this all at JoePa's feet, I believe his COACHING sincerity.  I see this more as administrative manipulation coupled with Paterno capitulation.  He JUSTS WANTS TO COACH'EM UP.  The man doesn't even do email....he's completely 21st centuray averse.  

So, even as a disgruntled Pitt alum, I'm willing to believe Joe's innocent of this Big Game crime by reason of inanity.

I applaud this blog, it is about time the main intrastate rivalry continues.  Both teams have openings in 2011 and 2012 so what is the hold up?  Its a travesty that PSU schedules Temple every year now instead of Pitt, especially when PSU is 34-0-1 against Temple since 1943!  What fun is that, really?

Compare Penn State's schedule from 1999 to 2009.  They played a #4 Arizona, #8 Miami FL, Pitt, and Akron just 10 years ago. While this year they played Akron, Syracuse, Temple, and Eastern Illinois...only 1 of which is a BCS school.  Also worth noting is that Penn State was a 34 point favorite against Pitt in 1999 and only won 20-17 (Proving how much of a rivalry game it actually was!)

Every single state's top 2 schools play each other (whether its a mandatory conference game or not) except Pennsylvania. I'll go through them in my next post just to show how ridiculous it is that Penn State and Pitt do not play each other.

A briefing on college football's intrastate games, this is long so bear with me.

-Virgina plays Virginia Tech every year, while Virginia LOST to William & Mary this year.  Virginia scheduled Richmond for the next 3 years.

- WVU plays non-conference Marshall

-Maryland plays Navy the next 2 years, but took a break this year.  Maryland also scheduled Towson for 2010.

-All 4 major North Carolina teams play each other in the ACC with East Carolina playing UNC and even Appalachian State this year and have NC State scheduled the next two years.  Duke even played North Carolina Central this year!

-Tennessee played Vanderbilt and also plays non-conference Memphis this year.  The Vols also scheduled UT-Martin for 2010

-South Carolina plays Clemson and even South Carolina State got a shot at Steve Spurrier's team this year.  Meanwhile, Clemson played Coastal Carolina this year.

- Georgia plays Georgia Tech in an annual non-conference game.

- Florida State plays Miami in the ACC and both of these teams also play USF this year.  Florida plays Florida State yearly and Miami about 4 times each decade. Miami played UCF this year.  Also, Florida plays USF for the first time in 2010.

-Alabama plays Auburn every year with Troy playing UAB annually

-Ole  Miss plays Mississippi State while Ole Miss plays nearby Memphis yearly.

- LSU plays Louisiana, Louisiana Tech, AND Tulane this year!

- All the major Texas teams play each other in the Big 12 with Texas scheduling UTEP this year while Texas Tech played non-BCS Houston and LOST.  (Houston, Rice, SMU, and UTEP are all in the same conference as well)  TCU is the only one who seems left out as they only played Texas State and SMU this year but get to play Baylor and Texas Tech the next 2 years.

-Louisville plays non-conference Kentucky yearly while Kentucky played Eastern Kentucky this year.

-Ohio State played Toledo while Cincinnati played Miami OH this year.  Cincy plays Ohio State again beginning in 2012.

-Michigan plays Michigan State in the Big Ten.  Michigan also played Western Mich and Eastern Mich this year while Michigan State played Western Mich and Central Michigan (who they LOST to)

-Notre Dame plays Purdue every year while Purdue plays Indiana in the Big Ten.

-Illinois played Northwestern and Illinois State this year.

-Iowa plays non-conference Iowa State every year and nearly LOST to Northern Iowa this year

-Kansas plays Kansas State

-Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State AND Tulsa.  Meanwhile, Oklahoma State plays Tulsa NEXT year.

-New Mexico plays New Mexico State

-Arizona plays Arizona State in the Pac-10 while Arizona played Northern Arizona this year.

-Colorado plays Colorado State every year and also played nearby Wyoming.   Colorado State, Air Force, and Wyoming play each other every year in the Mountain West.

-Washington plays Washington State

-Oregon plays Oregon State every year and scheduled Portland State for next year.

-Nevada plays UNLV

-Boise State plays Idaho

-BYU, Utah, and Utah State play a round robin every year (Utah State is a non-conference game)

-All the major California teams play each other in the Pac-10 with Fresno State and San Jose State occasionally getting to play the Big Boys.  USC also played Troy State this year.

-UCONN played nearby Rhode Island

-Minnesota played South Dakota State (close enough)

So there you have it, every state gets it right except Pennsylvania! You could complain that Syracuse doesn't play Army, but other than that I think I made myself clear how ridiculous it is that Pitt doesn't play Penn State when given the facts regarding other states with Division I programs.

My only error was dealing with USC.  I meant to say the played San Jose State this year and not Troy State.

It's almost always about the money

- 3 teams left the Big East earlier this decade because of it

- the bowl system is in place instead of a playoff system because of it, and the BCS system which reqards the name programs will stay because of it

- ND will remain an independent in the foreseeable future because of it

- PSU joined the B10 because of it

- and Pitt joined the BE because of it

-

Here here, Bob!!    Superbly well stated.    Ending a CENTURY-old rivalry -- one of the oldest in all of college football -- over a petty grudge is sickening, immature, juvenilish, and foolhardy.   Folks can rationalize and quibble all they want, but that remains the fact.    

You are correct, Bob.....the time is now to simply DO THE RIGHT THING.  

Ironically enough, Pitt basketball has, and continues to, do just that with city rival Duquesne.   Pitt has graciously played "home and away" with Duquesne, even though it could force the Dukes to travel 4 miles to Oakland to play at Pitt's "The Pete".    Pitt hasn't done that, and to top that off, Pitt eagerly agreed to play this year's "City game" at the Mellon Arena in a farewell of sorts to the arena, as this would be the last opportunity to play The City Game there before it gets razed.    That's called CLASS, and DOING THE RIGHT THING, rather than stubbornly biting off one's nose to spite one's face.  

It'll never happen with the stubborn old codger running PSU, but when he retires in a few years, let's hope his replacement can see the forest from the trees and do the right thing.  

Wow, Bob. You've been busy the last couple of days! I can't keep up.

Yes, it is about money. Yes, it probably has something to do with a grudge too. Yes, Pitt "needs" this game more than PSU.

The bottom line, though, should be, should the game be played? Is it an important game? Is there interest? YES!!!!!!!!!

Despite the "we don't need you" PSU crowd's response to the Pitt fan's "you are too scared to play us", I think that in their heart of hearts the large majority of Pitt and PSU fans would welcome this rivalry back. The rivalry was fun. It can be again.

As far as I am concerned, this is the only major blemish on JoPas resume and it is a huge blemish.  I don't believe it is all about the money - that's the Paterno line but I believe it is an ego thing just as Bob suggests.  

I am hopeful that when this bitter old man retires, the first thing is to restore this college rivalry that was one of the greatest in college football.

Bob,

Paterno has always carried a grudge and looked down upon The University of Pittsburgh.

I'd like to know what you think of his cowardly choice of kicking that field go for a tie at Pitt stadium some years back?

Regardless of what coach Paterno said about kicking for the tie I still feel it was a slap at Pitt fans and didn't do much to bolster PSU in the overall polls or add to his legendary status.

You know what they say about ties.

@chilco99 - "You know what they say about ties."

---------------------------------------------------------------

They make terrible Christmas gifts?

With the esception of the dissolution of the rivalry, I'm not so sure everything hasn't worked out for the better.

- It is doubtful that an all sports eastern conference would generate near the money that the Big 10 provides for PSU, and

- it is doubtful that the league would generate the money that BE provides to Pitt in basketball.  Note that the BE gained and retained its popularity primarily due to the non-football programs ... Georgetown, St John's, Villanova, Providence and UConn ...and even Seton Hall made it to the NCAA title game prior to the formation of BE football.

Sure, a resumption of the rivalry would be great for us Western PA fans ... however, maybe it all worked out for the better.  PSU, the  largest university within the state, fits well in the B10, whereas, Pitt, a smaller urban college, fits well in the BE.

Bob -

Your beating a dead horse, much like your BCS playoff column the other day.  Neither will happen.... lets move on.

munson,

You're right, PSU's non-conf schedule this year is a joke, but it's not entirely their fault.

Those "marquee home and home series" games are scheduled 6-8 years in advance. Syracuse, the recent home and home that wrapped up, was scheduled years ago when Syracuse was good. It's not PSU's fault that they flat out stink now. Likewise with Virginia. PSU scheduled a home and home with them about 4 years ago to begin 3 years from now, back of course when UVA was good. Odds are that they'll stink when PSU plays them down the road. Is that PSU's fault?

Vice versa though to that is Bama. PSU scheduled a home and home with them a few years back when they were an average team under Shula, now PSU plays them the next two years when they're a perennial top 3 team. Further down the road, PSU has a home and home with Rutgers and Nebraska, now they look like attractive games, but who knows what they'll be in 2014/2015.

Munson -

You are correct about the NC tems playing each other granted having four in the same conference helps.  But both UNC and State (NC) are not always thrilled about playing ECU.  The same 2-for-1 bickering between Penn State and Pitt is going on right now between NC State and East Carolina.  In fact, NCSU has been trying to reschedule upcoming games with ECU.

UNC doesn't want to play AppSt even though the Mountaineers really would like to.  And though Gardner-Webb is an NC school (in Boiling Springs, NC about 40-50 miles west of Charlotte) - NC State was ridiculed for playing them as they are basically a D3 school.

Just some background info for ya.

Before the glow from OldPa's halo gets too bright, remember when he was negotiating for his "All Sports Eastern League" his scheme was for PSU to keep all their football revenue for a period of time, but share the other teams basketball revenue.  This was totally unacceptable to the other schools, much like the derogatory 2-1, 3-1 deals arrogantly tossed out by PSU today.  Also recall that PSU had petitioned the BigEast for membership before Pitt joined, and was turned down!  When the league felt threatened by the proposed Eastern all sports league, they approached Pitt with a good offer, which ultimately killed the proposed league.

Would a solid all sports league be a good thing, absolutely, but not the tilted and tainted one proposed by the "visionary", Saint Joseph.  With those coke bottle lenses, I would question his vision on Anything!

Bob,

As a former sportswriter, a Pitt fan and a Bona Fide disciple of Bob Smizik's Blog, I have to say that I could care less about playing Penn State.

You're right in as much as Pitt does have more to gain. But that is limited to a small financial gain that would come by putting the final 14,000 butts into Heinz Field for one game (Pitt is averaging attendance of approximately 51,000 per game this season). It would not help Pitt in any other way. One game a year against "The University of Penn State" is not going to raise the national awareness of Pitt. Continuing to produce great players and winning teams that compete for BCS spots each season is the only thing that will accomplish as much.

If I'm not mistaken, Pitt grabbed a lot of attention nationwide after blowing out South Florida. Pitt was the buzz team in publications such as the NY Times, Sports Illustrated and the Sporting News. There was chatter about the Panthers' win during the broadcasts of several other games on Saturday, including the Oregon/USC game.

I was speaking with a state representative the other day about this series and why Pennsylvania - that means both Pitt and Penn State - lose out. The game would be an instant nationally televised contest that would produce a lucrative TV deal for both schools - yes, that means State Penn would benefit, as well.  When I explained that to the state representative, he understood the potential benefit for both school. He also understood the attention it would bring to the Keystone State, not to mention the additional tax revenues.

With all that said, I'm perfectly happy with Pitt's schedule. The Big East has developed into a very good conference - annually between the fourth or fifth best in the country (I would argue fourth this year because the ACC and Fat Ten are horrible this season) - and Pitt plays a great out-of-conference slate that includes top opponents such as Notre Dame, Iowa and Miami as well as a great regional rivalry with Navy. I get more than my money's worth for my season tickets. I don't think Penn State fans can say the same when they endure the worst out-of-conference schedule in college football and only have one or two conference games of interest per year.

Pitt really doesn't need Penn State at all. I'm not even sure most Panthers fans event want the nitters anymore.

Woodshed:  I had to delete several of your references to Penn State. Surely, as a former sportswriter, you must know such name-calling is not only inaccurate but most unfair. -- Bob Smizik

Canes Fan -

I would argue that East Carolina is on the same level as the 4 North Carolina teams that play football in the ACC.  They average more fans than Wake Forest & Duke and seem to hold their own when playing teams from the ACC (they even beat Virgina Tech and WVU last year).  So it would be a shame for UNC or NC State to drop them from the schedule since its probably a decent rivalry down there.

I just wanted to point out that even if Penn State "doesn't need Pitt", every other team in the country plays their in-state rival regardless if they need them or not.  Its called Tradition and it isn't something to be messed with.  For example, South Carolina is in the SEC and could replace Clemson with Wofford or Furman every year, but they'd never do that!  

Johnny Utah -

Nice Cobra Kai logo.  I get the fact that schedules are made in advance, but what would give anyone an inkling that Akron, Eastern Illinois, or Temple are EVER going to be any good?  It only gets better:

2010: Youngstown State, Kent State, Temple, Bama

2011: Indiana State, Temple, Bama, 1 still open

2012: Ohio Bobcats, Virginia, Temple, 1 still open

So the next 3 years they only have 3 BCS games scheduled so far out of 12 non-conference games.

There's probably a lot of folks out there who don't consider themselves to be college football fans who may become college football fans if this rivalry were to be renewed.  Having a Pitt-Penn State game each year could only help to draw more fans to games like Pitt-Louisville or Pitt-Rutgers.  While Pitt may not need an annual Penn State game I feel they would only stand to benefit more from having it.

Compromise, from Meriam Webster on-line : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.

How about a 10 year deal, to start,  with four games at Pitt and six at Penn State? We are asking JoPa to be a statesman but Pitt was not faultless way back when,  so a compromise on home and home seems reasonable.

And a round robin with Temple would be nice too with the winner awarded say a Commonwealth Cup. Both Pitt and Penn Sate play MAC schools now, so why not schedule a sister Commonwealth University?  Better yet, invite Temple back to the Big East this time as as a full member? You would get the ninth football team so conference teams would have both four home and away games. plus Temple has had a good basketball program.  That, however, would require that one Big East basketball only school be dropped and I suggest Depaul which could take Temple's spot in the A-10.  

And if a deal cannot be struck then the legislature and the governor should mandate one.

One llast item: Pitt and Penn Sate resume regular play in basketball too. That wolud only be fair.  

Just a question: do younger people even care if Pitt plays Penn State? I've sat at Pitt games with a group of alumni, all from their late-30s to late-40s. They hate Penn State. They cheer just as hard when PSU is losing as when Pitt is winning. When "Sweet Caroline" comes on, they don't yell "Let's go Pitt!" They yell "Penn State Sucks." Then I look around at the younger folks in the crowd and the student section. It seems that they don't care at all about Penn State. Those games of the 80s didn't happen in their lifetimes. Seems to me there is no rivalry to resume for them. Their rival is WVU.

And another question: Who is Penn State's real "rival?" Do they even have one anymore?

Munson,

To expect PSU, or any team for that matter, with the way the BCS rules are set up (where you have to essentially go undefeated to have a Natl Title shot) to play all good/very good non-conference games is a pipe dream and actually shouldn't be expected. It simply will never, and with the way the dumb BCS is, should never happen if a team wants to compete for the title.

Wetzel at Yahoo Sports had a very good article on that and made sense, check it out:

http://tiny.cc/Gbr3r

That being said, in a perfect "BCS-world" that we have to live in, I would expect all "major" teams to play these cupcake schools (also these games act as a de facto preseason since there is none in college football) and one good/very good team in their non-conference schedule.

Also, as an aside, there are various reasons why E. Illinois was on the schedule this year and it was all due to money. PSU, who usually has a bye, has none this year because the athletic dept (which gets the vast majority of its revenue from PSU football) wanted another home game for the revenue. That game against EIU was supposed to be their bye week, so they just went out, scheduled a team last minute, scheduled a team that by playing them would essentially amount to a bye, and still reaped the monetary gains of another home game. It didn't look pretty, but both the team (an easy week/"bye") and the athletic department (money) got what they wanted.

Mr. Smizik, I think you meant to write:

What’s in it for Penn State? Not a thing except giving Pitt a sell out every two years.

Fixed it for you.  No charge.

Thank you, Bob! This was a great blog.

First of all, I think its obvious that 100% of the fault of this game not being played lies at JoePa's feet. And I think its obvious that the ONLY reason he doesn't play it is because of a grudge. THE ONLY REASON.

I also agree with CSF - it really has worked out for both schools that the Eastern League or whatever it was supppsed to be called didn't form....in the end Pitt and PSU were better off when taking into account basketball.

- Anyone who says this really isn't a big game, would people care....wow, you all better get that razor for your first shave! Only someone that young would think this wasn't a big game....and the minute its scheduled the young folks would realize how enormous it would be.

- Does Pitt NEED PSU? A few years ago, I would have swallowed my pride and said 'yes". Now, I think its dropped a little into the "it would be very helpful" category. Put the PSU game on the schedule and every other year Pitt sells out season tickets....without an issue. To go even further, just the increased opportunity that Pitt season ticket-holders get to buy for away games would keep sales steady in years that Pitt would play at Happy Valley.

Having said that, there's no way in hell it shouldn't be a home-home series. Pitt should never acquiesce on this! Screw JoePa and his bs 2:1 crap. That is a slap in the face and a true barometer of how short-sighted he really is.

We all joke about the PSU schedule....but in reallity I get that they're doing what every college program does....including Pitt. So I'm not going to rant about that.

But the game just needs to be played. I guess I agree with Bob in that its that simple. Drop the grudges. Work it in the schedule (and both Pitt and PSU would have to admit that scheduling the game would be significantly toughening BOTH school's schedules).

It would involve telling a Youngstown State, Buffalo, or E. Illinois goodbye....and the solution is as simple as that!

(I'm not so sure Penn State, an Eastern school, would not be better off in an Eastern league. The Big Ten has been fine but an Eastern league might have been better.  There's no way of projecting how that Eastern league would have developed. But a football league in the most populous part of the country could have been enormous. Maybe Penn State wouldn't have to be so reliant on football money if its non-revenue sports weren't regularly traveling to Iowa and Minnesota.  -- Bob Smizik)

Yes, resuming the game would be great but ideally, Bob, as you state in another post, the only true solution was the proposed Eastern League.  The Big East in its current format is a mess and hurts Pitt in Football.  PSU is kidding themselves if they think they are on equal footing in the Big 10 (it is still all about "the Game" in that conference).  Plus, as you mention traveling for non-revenue sports is less than ideal.

I also believe there is more than you are posting about the proposed eastern conference.  If memory serves, didn't Dave Gavitt or Mike T claim that PSU had also applied to the Big East but were turned down?  Also, the TV revenue sharing you mention by Paterno was not an equal split, but favored heavily PSU.

Bob,

Can you or anyone else on this blog tell me what other teams would have rounded out the proposed Eastern League. Was Rutgers, Navy and Army considered. How about Maryland.

Also, is there any scenario that you can see this occuring in the future. I think eventually, the Big East basketball would have to be split up for basketball.

(I think it was PSU, Pitt, Syr., WVU, BC, Temple and Rutgers. Don't know about service academies.  I doubt Maryland was involved. -- Bob Smizik)

Mr. Smizik,

Can you confirm that the negotiated split of games have been 2-1 or 3-1?  I had always heard 6-4, which, though it might hurt Pitt's pride, seemed at least like a gap that could be bridged.

My thought:  if Pitt really wants the game, offer a 5-5 ten year split, but offer to set aside 15,000-20,000 tickets for the PSU athletic department for the games at Heinz Field without an obligation to buy any other Pitt tickets.  

Pitt doesn't get a full house ordinarily any way, so it's not like they're giving up seats that would regularly go to Pitt fans.  Pitt gets their revenue and PSU fans get a fair shake in Pittsburgh (for once).  Just an idea, but if Pitt really wants this game, they could get it done with some creative negotiations.  Sadly, I think they prefer to gripe about Paterno and how his actions/grudge (but NEVER Pitt's decision) cost the fans this "rivalry".

PittNH, you are absolutely correct.  See my comments above as I made that point.  Before we deify St. Joseph, let's objectively point out his true agenda.  That this game doesn't happen annually when each school schedules laughers in its place is a crime, regardless of what zealots on either side say.  It is an embarassment to the State of PA that this doesn't happen.

(It isn't a crime and I, for one, am not embarrassed.  Let's not get carried away. -- Bob Smizik)

Sorry to repeat your points Freeport....wasn't paying close enough attention!  Glad I'm not the only one who remembers how it actually went down!

freeportpanther......Hopefully you're not referring to the BigEast rejecting PSU's bid as a feather in their caps...could be one of the most PATHETIC business decisions in the history of the NCAA!!!

munson......excellent post, good job!

Bob...great blog!

thx,

PSU alum

Mr. Smizik,

Can you confirm that the negotiated split of games have been 2-1 or 3-1?  I had always heard 6-4, which, though it might hurt Pitt's pride, seemed at least like a gap that could be bridged.

My thought:  if Pitt really wants the game, offer a 5-5 ten year split, but offer to set aside 15,000-20,000 tickets for the PSU athletic department for the games at Heinz Field without an obligation to buy any other Pitt tickets.  

Pitt doesn't get a full house ordinarily any way, so it's not like they're giving up seats that would regularly go to Pitt fans.  Pitt gets their revenue and PSU fans get a fair shake in Pittsburgh (for once).  Just an idea, but if Pitt really wants this game, they could get it done with some creative negotiations.  Sadly, I think they prefer to gripe about Paterno and how his actions/grudge (but NEVER Pitt's decision) cost the fans this "rivalry".

As much as I want to see this game played, it should be a cold day in hell before Pitt should EVER agree to anything less than a home:home.

And guarantee 20,000 seats to the VISITING team. Yeah, that's gonna happen!!!

You PSU folks really corner the market on being pompous. Yeah, you're right...its not about Paterno's actions/grudge...its partially Pitt's fault for not kissing his behind!

My thoughts on an all-sports Eastern league not being as financially successful as B10 FB and BE BB ... is based on that the populous northeast is made up almost entirely of pro football cities, who by and large, cares about pro football much more than college football (like Pittsburgh) ... also note that its biggest city's favorite college fb team is located in the midwest.  

Obviously, you don't need as large a following to support college bb  .. and the BE was designed perfectly to take advantage of the large urban TV markets.  Thus, schools like PSU and WVU, probably the two best programs in terms of fan support for colllege fb, simply would not add much to the basketball side of an all-sports league.  Remember, not only was PSU denied interest in the BE, even WVU was accepted first as a fb program in the conference before the bb program was brought in.

The game should be played because it is a traditional rivalry.  These teams started playing each other in the 1800's and have played 96 games.  

Penn State fans immediately discount 'tradition' and instead focus on money.  Penn State home games make a ton of money for the athletic department - but I am sure the athletic department will survive if they weren't guaranteed 8 home games a year.  Maybe Penn State could try to make money from Men's Basketball to cover the shortfall of one game every 2 years from a Pitt rivalry.

There should be no 6:4 or 2:1 or any other split.  It should be an even number of games in Pittsburgh and State College.  Why? Because that is how these games work - unless of course there is a 'Red River Rivalry' type situation and all games are played halfway between the campuses, in like Ebensburg.

There are lots of traditional, intrastate, nonconference rivalries that are played home/home.  Does Georgia need GT? no. Does Clemson need S.Carolina? No. Does Iowa need Iowa State? No.  Then look at games like USC/Notre Dame where there is a home/home even though both teams sell tons of tickets regardless of opponent.

I really want to read a logical answer for why Penn State can't schedule a long-term home/home rivalry with Pitt if lots of other schools can have these kinds of games.

correction to last line of my above post ..  'interest' should be 'entrance'

Bob,

As a former cowboy from Montana, I have to say that I love your posts.  

Cowboy Jester

Random thoughts:

I really have a hard time believing the PSU athletic department when they cry poor.  The game can be played 50/50.

Fuzzy, don't you think you are taking a jaded, cynical view of the whole thing? There are tens of thousands of Pitt and PSU alumnus from Pennsyvania. There are thousands of little Panthers and Lions running around, who would love to have the opprtunity to have this rivalry renwed. They are just too young to know it.

Anyone who does not think there would be interest in this game is not being honest with themselves.

Pitt doesn't need PSU. Seems they do just fine (or not fine) regardless of PSU around.  The game would just add to the "quality nof life" for both schools.

Nice post, Bob.

money, grudes, etc aside....the rivalry was fun and it was something to look forward to each year.

Not everything in college sports has to be about money...go ask Notre Dame why they still play Navy every year. Its a good story and worthy of a blog post itself.

Bob,

As a former sportswriter, sports columnist and blogger, I understand that there are different standards for each format. For instance, when writing a column, or blogging for that matter, it's perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged, to interject your own opinion.

I'll give you an example, not too long ago you wrote a column blasting the PIAA for its decision to force a playoff basketball game to be played in Ebensburg despite heavy snow in the mountains. The WPIAL team involved refused to travel in such bad weather and was forced to forfeit. If I am not mistaken, you called the PIAA's decision irresponsible. That's not a factual statement on your part, but an opinion. It was an opinion with which I agreed and we shared a few emails discussing the merits of your argument.

Ultimately, it's your blog and you can set the rules. I'll abide by them. But to say that any journalistic principals had been broken is a bit of a stretch. It was a gratuitous shot at the "University of Penn State" program, but that's no different than the typical actions of PG sports columnists with Pitt, as I have demonstrated to you in the past. And I will readily admit it was a low blow. I'll try to leave more high-brow commentary in the future.

(I had no idea you were a former sports writer. -- Bob Smizik)

Bob,

As a former sportswriter and someone who has disdain for Milano Bread, I am embarrassed for a usage error in a previous post. I should have used "principles," but I used the incorrect form. My apologies.

There are several reasons why the northeast 'lags' behind the other regions of the country for college football fans but one is because the lack of a true 'northeast' conference.  There is no conference for the fans to get behind.  The region is now fractured between the Big East, Big 10, ACC, and ND (and ND should be included here).

Also, if Penn State is so adamant about an uneven long term series (6-4 or 2-1), why not goto a 4-4 every 10 years and PSU can use those two years to play home games against Eastern Michigan or someone else?  

Boy oh boy!! There is nothing like this very subject to get the bloggers a-blogging. Unfortunately all the blogging in the world is not going to resurrect the great Pitt-Penn State rivalry. We might as well try to blog Pitt Stadium back into existence or bring back the script Pitt...

That said, it would be nice to see them play, but at this point I think we could all live without it.

I have no personal dog in this fight - I actually attended a Big Ten school for undergrad and a Big East school for law school (neither of which was Penn State or Pitt).  From an outsider's view with a heavy realistic recognition that financial matters trump all, I don't see why Penn State would ever play Pitt again with the way the BCS system is set up.  The "optimal" non-conference schedule for a power program is one marquee/BCS home-and-home opponent and then 3 cupcakes at home.  We can argue all day that this might be a weak schedule compared to what was in place in the past, but as long as the voters think that's good enough for the Floridas, Ohio States and Texases of the world in order to get national championship and at-large BCS bowl slots, then a program like Penn State really doesn't have any on-the-field competitive incentive (and certainly no off-the-field financial incentive) to do more than that.  So, is Penn State going to commit that 1 non-conference BCS game per year to Pitt, or is it better off playing Syracuse/Rutgers/Virginia for East Coast recruiting purposes mixed in with an Alabama/Notre Dame-type team that's going to get maximum national TV exposure every few years?  Frankly, if I'm in the shoes of the Penn State athletic director, playing Pitt annually or even on a limited basis simply isn't that attractive compared to the alternative.  While there is obviously a great history with respect to the PSU-Pitt series, the regional ties of Western Pennsylvania simply don't matter as much as maximizing the national TV and recruiting platform in today's ESPN-driven college football landscape.

Also, as an earlier poster stated, things have a habit of working out in the end.  Even if an Eastern Football League had been formed in the 1980s, there certainly wouldn't have been any guarantee that Penn State wouldn't have left for the Big Ten anyway.  Being associated with the Big Ten is a big deal both in terms of athletics and academics, particularly for a school like Penn State that is culturally and academically much more like Ohio State and Michigan than any of the Big East schools (even if it's on the geographic fringe of the conference).  The money that Penn State (and every other Big Ten school) is making from its ABC/ESPN and Big Ten Network deals completely dwarfs what the Big East schools are making right now (whether you're talking about football OR basketball) - it's literally 4 to 5 times the amount that each Big East football school is making, which is a gap that wouldn't be made up even if the Big East somehow convinced Notre Dame to become a football conference member (which we all know won't ever happen).  From a financial standpoint, Pitt blocking the formation of the Eastern Football League might have been the best thing that ever happened to Penn State.

its funny how PSU ducks Pitt on the hardwood too...I guess the series is now 75-70 is a little too much for PSU to handle - after they've been embarassed so many times by Pitt.

So how to do solve for that?

Oh I got it! Don't schedule Pitt! Works perfectly. Keeps the lead in tact.

Funny thing is - the PSU argument works in reverse on the hardwood. Pitt doesn't PSU to fill its arena, etc. And yet, we're still willing to play home and home with PSU every year....but yet, PSU says no

Curtis,

Comparing college basketball, with it's end of season championship tourney and 30ish regular season games (where one loss won't cripple your Natl Championship chances) with the current BCS system and the 12 regular season games of college football (i.e. limited schedules) is the pure definition of comparing apples to oranges.

Actually, everything on here so far has been an unusually civil and sensible PSU-Pitt discussion until your post.

Actually, hockey_ player, the true conference in the Northeast is the National Football League.

I grew up in section EE of Beaver Stadium with my grandparents, starting at the age of 2 (and I am 35 now).

I missed the Pitt/PSU game terribly, like PSU had lost some of its identity, not just in joining the Big Ten, but in losing its rival - remember when the Browns were gone?  It was weird.  Who do I root AGAINST 11 weeks?  I don't know, there was comraderie in addition to the nasty in playing that game.  Short story is I would've loved to have it back when it was stopped.

I worked with Eric Seaman's (Pitt TE around '90) Dad.  We talked about those games and laughed.  I remembered him 10 years after he played - he spoke of respect for the PSU game.

Years later, I don't care.  

PSU joined the Adult Table (but at a purposely rotten seat) - Michigan at one head, OSU at the other.  It was the incorporation of the school, sure.  

Pitt left those classic uni's, moved to a new venue, even got called Pittsburgh for a couple years in trying to escape the teenie table into the adult world, but ultimately Pitt stayed in its own neighborhood when it grew up (Rutgers, WVU, Syr).

Both teams lost their place though.

Those games in September felt like a reunion with an old buddy - and you just didn't have anything to talk about anymore..."Remember when we..."  They were just hollow (and in Sept).

So PSU should look at this as a business decision to protect its own athletic dept.  

Pitt should look at it similarily (don't play PSU unless that makes the most $$, but don't cut off your nose to spite your face either).

I also don't care if the decision makers have grudges - both sides are at fault.  And it might make it even better if/when things get straightened out.  Smizik talks about doing the right thing - to me that is for both schools to make sure that programs don't get cut in an age of economic uncertainty AND keep graduating players.

Both have way too much to lose - PSU its recruiting edge, instate dominance of national media (I live in CA and have gotten every PSU game free, only 2 Pitt games).  Pitt keeps from becoming a weak sister whose coaches are measured by one game and whose season in the BE is validated or not by an early season game.  

Pitt does have trouble seeling out a significantly smaller stadium, so I am sure an uneven split could be worked out to make sure both teams financial needs be met.

That being said, I am really sorry, it ever got here.  It shouldn't have stopped, but now...instead of siblings at holidays, we are distant cousins in photographs...

There isn't enough to lament.  

Pantherpride,

I understand your points, but I think you understate the arrongance of Pitt fans as well.  Few outside of Western PA care if this game ever comes back.  I know many, many PSU alums (not just recent alums) who would like to see Maryland, Temple or Syracuse on the schedule before seeing Pitt.  This is because they live in DC, Philly or Buffalo and think they might see the game in person.  They also put no stock in the so-called rivalry.  It was a nice game, but it's over and nobody outside of this area really cares if it comes back.  It was not UNC-Duke (basketball), Army-Navy, USC-ND or Michigan-OSU.  It just wasn't, no matter how much you wish it was.  And, yes, I'm old enough to remember.

As for Paterno, yeah, his grudge is the primary reason that the game is no longer played.  However, his grudge is justified by Pitt's unbelievably shortsighted actions that hurt PSU for 10 years.  Pitt is simply paying the price for crossing PSU/Paterno.  I have no problem with that.

it goes beyond just scheduling Pitt in football for PSU.

They have and will continue to block any idea of Pitt joining the B10. Why? Cause it would even the playing field in football recruiting big-time.

Pitt is the perfect for the B10. Yet, the 3 schools who dont want it to happen: Wow, what a shocker: tOSU, Michigan and most importantly PSU.

Why? Cause they don't want to see Pitt on TV as much as them. They dont want to see Pitt get the same bowl access as them.

Face it: the B10 is a better football conference in terms of $$$ - and thats all the counts.  TV exposure and BCS bowls. Period. Bball is nothing compared to football in terms of $$$

The fact is Pitt could go 10-2 this year and end up in the Toronto Bowl. If we were 10-2 in the B10 - we'd be guaranteed at least a New Years Day Bowl - maybe the Capital One Bowl that PSU plays so often.

Pitt is every bit as good academically as PSU and in some areas - even better than PSU - has a bigger endowment with a smaller alumni base - but tOSU, Mich and PSU will do everything they can to block Pitt.

Its all about money and Pitt is forced to hang out with the likes of South Florida and Catholic bBall schools - we have nothing in common with....not to mention, in most cases, really suspect academics.

(Where are you getting your information about Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan blocking Pitt's access to the Big Ten?  I do not believe that to be true. You only discredit yourself by making statement that are not true. -- Bob Smizik

Curtis,

Whoa my friend? Where is any of this "They have and will continue to block any idea of Pitt joining the B10" coming from?

1. You would have to show me/us where this ever happened. Frankly, I'm doubting that it did and you're just making it up.

2. On this very blog back in May, Paterno said he would welcome Pitt to the B10 to give them 12 teams.

Oh my - you actually believe JoePa wants Pitt in the B10? I know he says that. He says that all the time. Cuse and perhaps Rutgers too.

He makes it sound like - its the rest of the B10 that doesnt want Pitt.

Yep, makes sense. I'm sure all the nice Iowa and Michigan State people we've encountered over the past few seasons have a real grudge with Pitt joining the B10 - particularly their chancellors.

How dumb of me to think that a perfectly qualified school like Pitt is right there for the picking and make the league 12 teams but its the Iowas of the world saying - no way!  We want ND or bust.

I forgot another thing - the B10 already somehow (although the stats state otherwise) has completely captured the Pittsburgh TV Market with PSU - so that trumps everything, right?

Yeah, sure. Makes all the sense in the world.

Ironically, if Pitt joined the B10 - we wouldnt be having this discussion. Pitt and PSU would play every year regardless - home and away.

Curtis: The Big Ten currently has no openings. No one is trying to block Pitt's entrance. -- Bob Smizik

Plus Pitt adds nothing to the Big10, at least when compared to Rutgers or Syracuse.  PSU got the Big10 into Philly and Pittsburgh.  What does adding Pitt do for television?  Nada.  And that is these moves are made (see, e.g., BC in the ACC).

Curtis,

Be careful what you wish for...

As a fan of the 11th team in the Big Ten, we are very aware of NOT being Michigan or OSU.

The 12th seat won't be better.  You don't want to be the interloper that makes PSU one of the old guard.

I would love to see Pitt in, it would be the only solution to renew the rivalry, and PSU would welcome it to balance out recruiting to the east.  The Iowas, Wisconsins, Illinois, and Michigan States don't want Pitt/PSU to be the other rivalry game.  

the B10 has no openings cause Jim Delaney (tOSU) says so. Hmmm..isnt that odd?

Unless of course, ND or someone like Texas is interested. Suddenly, there's an opening!!! Wow - like magic.

College sports is so hard to figure out I guess.

PS to Curtis - the Big10 wanted PSU because it fit their existing model of large state schools (NW and Purdue excepted) and got the league into the Pittsburgh and, more importantly, Philadelphia markets.  Pittsburgh is nice.  Philly was the prize.

Though PSU isn't keeping Pitt out, Pitt isn't the plum that you think it is (important qualifier coming) for the Big10.

I bet Pitt wouldn't make the Top 11 of prospective teams to join the Big Ten.

Curtis,

Pitt will never receive an invite to the Big Ten and it's not because of Penn State "blocking" them.  It's because Michigan, Ohio State et. al have zero reason to invite a school that won't add a single new cable household for the Big Ten Network (which is how it makes its money).  For that purpose, yes, Penn State delivers the Pittsburgh market and even more (i.e. Philadelphia).  This is unfortunate since Pitt has a great athletic tradition and the academics are in line with the rest of the Big Ten, yet it's a simple fact that Pitt won't add any new markets (or, in the special case of Notre Dame, add a truly national fan base).  There's a 99% chance that the Big Ten will wait forever for Notre Dame because the conference is already printing money without the Irish (meaning that ND is likely the only school out there that could ever make it worth it for the conference to split its revenues 12 ways as opposed to 11 ways).  The other 1% chance would be reserved for Syracuse or Rutgers in order to enter into the Holy Grail of basic cable TV for the Big Ten Network in the New York/New Jersey market.  As they say, it's not personal - it's just business.

Okay Curtis,

You were doin' okay until you compared Pitt to ND (or Texas).

The Big Ten is really spoked and intrigued by ND.  They are the Yankees of CFB.  Who else could get Wash St on tv.  I have relatives who think God watches over "Our Lady."  I have relatives in Indiana who didn't go to college who live for Irish football.  I also have relatives, who hate those relatives and watch ND to root against them.  They are THE lightening rod.

The Big Ten wants to let them in for the cash, but is petrified they will overrun the conference.  

Pitt is nothing like ND.  Nobody is.

Texas?  wha?  If you brought up Mizzou, that at least has been mentioned.  Texas?  That is much like suggesting USC or Georgia...some teams are the face of other conferences.

You are right about money and college sports.  

Pitt doesn't offer the Big Ten the NY market, but does offer some things PSU would love, at the expense of many of the rank and file members.  

Again, PSU partially just wants to NOT be the new kid anymore.  The league is fine with the current arrangement until bigger $$ come along.

So let me understand this:

"Pitt isn't the plum that you think it is (important qualifier coming) for the Big10"

But in 1949 - when Pitt was basically voted into the B10 - but because of some late game musical chairs (with Michigan's help - by the way) ...Michigan State got invited instead....

somehow then...and only then....when Pitt was a fraction of the university it is today....we WERE a great fit (academic-wise and sports-wise) for the B10...

but today, hmmm...lets see....were aren't the plum I think it is.

Yep, that pretty much makes sense to me. Any questions, Pitt fans?

All this conference affiliation is about sports. Thats it. The rest of it - is just B.S. Particularly land-grant status or otherwise.

Pitt is bigger and better (in terms of research $$) than more than half of the B10 schools now and we're not even a part of the B10 conference.

So if it was about academics - please...give me a break - Pitt would have been invited in a long time ago.

To all who say the rivalry is over and cannot be renewed, get real. Interest would be rekindled, sides taken and antagonism flaring the instant the matchup is announced. I've always defended JoePa's position (and I understand PSU's need for revenue to support its other programs), but the Smiz is right. It is time to get over the past and schedule this series. It would be of national interest immediately, and the true venom of the dueling fan groups will pour forth immediately (as if it doesn't already anytime the subject is mentioned).

"the B10 has no openings cause Jim Delaney (tOSU) says so. Hmmm..isnt that odd?

Unless of course, ND or someone like Texas is interested. Suddenly, there's an opening!!! Wow - like magic.

College sports is so hard to figure out I guess."

Curtis,

I'm not sure what the issue is here.  The Big Ten doesn't have an "open spot" advertised on Craigslist that's waiting to be filled.  The conference will only add a 12th team that it REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to add.  It's not going to settle for anything less than a unanimously perfect fit.  That's what any smart and stable conference ought to do (as opposed to adding another team just for the sake of getting to the number 12).

Curtis,

You just brought up 1949...

Was that Bob Hope's first year of doing an All American Team?

I can't remember, my satallite dish wasn't working then...no, I still had digital cable...oh no, it wasn't digital...I had to look up the list on the internet.

Wow.  You are reaching.  I do not mean to disrespect Pitt, but I don't think the Roman's Agrarian should dictate our farm policy anymore.

Maybe it isn't fair, but the world has changed.  Get a world map for proof.

As long as the old man is part of PSU football, you can forget any thoughts of this series being renewed.  He's too pigheaded and grudge-holding to change now.  As soon as he retires or dies, I fully expect both schools to find a way to bring the rivalry game back.  There's no way that Pitt is going to agree to a 2 to 1 setup.  Home and home is the only way to go and JoePa knows that.  It was just another way for him to poke a stick into Pitt's side. When JoePa leaves, they can drop an Eastern Illinois and Pitt can drop a YSU and play each other instead. Don't expect for JoePa to see the light at this point.

curtis,

1949?  Please, you are embarrassing yourself and Pitt fans everywhere.  You don't the landscape of college sports has changed in the last 60 years?  That the considerations of the post-WWII era are slightly different now that we have television, cable television, the internet, etc.?  Must be nice (not to mention convenient)  to have PSU and the Big10 as the boogeyman for every real or perceived slight.

1949?

How many National Championships has Pitt won since 1949?

1949!

Anyone who dismisses Pitt and Penn State as a rivalry of the past the isn't worth renewing is foolish...as munson pointed out we're one of the few states that doesn't have 2 major programs play against each other...and spare me the Temple argument. The 6th largest state in the country and we can't have the large football school from the east v. the large football school from the west?

I understand the way the BCS system is set up and the athletic department of Penn State dictates who and where Penn State plays, but if Penn State can schedule Rutgers for a home/home series, they can schedule Pitt for one. It's just not to Penn State's advantage to play a home/home series with Pitt.

By the way anyone who talks about Pitt should be added to the Big 10 is being a bit naive. I think the Big 10's top 5 choices for adding a 12th team is the following in order: 1. Notre Dame 2. Rutgers 3. West Virginia 4/5 Syracuse/Pitt

Bob, I mean this as a high compliment:  you're one of my fave sportswriters.  So I'm glad you're retired, I get to read you more often!

Excellent blog!  Well written, plus jags at JoePa?  That's perfect prose.

To all those prepubescent fans who think no one unde rthe age of 40 cares about renewing the Pitt-Nit game: can't you see the passion dripping out here?  BOTH SIDES want the game back.  I live on the West Coast, and even out here I know plenty of younger fans (in their teens & 20s) who decry this lost treasure of a game.  Probably echoing sentiments from their parents and fams back east, but still.

Does anyone know how to start an on-line petition?  I'm not computer-savvy enough to do it myself, but I'd be glad to sign one.  Maybe if millions of others do, PSU cannot continue to ignore the will of the people much longer.  Can't hurt!

One final thought: sez here it doesn't matter that they aren't in the same league.  Recall that in the heyday, both schools were Eastern independents.  South Carolina and Clemson, Florida and Miami/FSU and USF, Colorado and CSU are in different leagues, they play early too, yet are passionate rivalies.  It might be better that way, at least to induce a restart: keeps the game for bragging rights and recruiting, not to be all-in to ruin a BCS berth.

Curtis,

Since you brought up ND (again), I guarantee you that more people want to ND play NW, than see Pitt play NW.  And you can substitute any Big10 team, except for perhaps PSU, into that sentence and the results would be the same.  

ND > Pitt for any number of reasons, but most importantly for the reasons (fan base, tv contract, bowl contracts, etc.) that would entice a conference to extend an invitation to join.

Static, you may be right, but ND isn't coming to the Big 10(11)(+1) any more than they'll be completing their partial membership in the Big East by adding football.

ND is lotsa things, but stupid isn't one of them.  Why split the pie equally among OSU Michigan and the Nine Dwarfs when you can keep the whole pie yourself?

So with ND a non-starter, you're saying that Rutgers is the next choice?  Rutgers?  Cincy or Louisville are much more attractive candidates.

Meathead,

As a former sportswriter and someone who knows 1949 was a year on the Gregorian calendar that took place approximately 60 years ago by standard measures, I can tell you that Pitt only has one fewer national championships than Penn State during that span of time.

What does that prove? Nothing. I think if you're going to dismiss a program's national titles based on the time lapse since they were achieved, you need to have a standard amount of time. 22 years would seem to be the most appropriate standard for said amount of time. I base this on all current and prospective college players generally being 22 years of age or younger, hence the event at least took place during their lifetime. By the line of reasoning that discredits all achievements of a program based on how much time has lapsed, the University of Penn State's two titles are equally as important as the NINE won by Pitt.

God bless you and have a nice day.

I personally can't stand ND (like many others), but the fact that people with no association with the school keep trying to argue that they're irrelevant (which has been going on for many years) is actually empirical evidence that they are still very relevant.

At the same time, the "10 people or so" that watch the Big Ten Network must have a ton of money because that network is projected to provide every single conference member close to $10 million per year.  This is on top of the $10 million per year that each school is receiving from ABC/ESPN.  So, every single Big Ten school (from Michigan down to Northwestern) is clearing close to $20 million in TV money each year.  Notre Dame's vaunted NBC contract actually only pays around $9 million per year.  The Big East's ENTIRE ABC/ESPN contract is $33 million per year to split among its 8 football members (which comes to $4.13 million per year per school, plus about another $2 million per year from the basketball contract).

What this means is that the Big Ten Network that you are very quick to knock is bringing every single school in the conference money that is in line with the Notre Dame NBC contract and twice as much money as each Big East school... and this is BEFORE even taking into account the ABC/ESPN contract that pays even more on top of that.  Think about that for a second - just add Northwestern and Indiana together and they are bringing in substantially more total TV money than the ENTIRE Big East.  So, instead of making fun of the Big Ten Network, what the Big East ought to be doing is figuring out how to start its own network before it gets completely left behind financially.

Thanks Sha--, er, Woodshed.

Army was probably as attractive to the Big Ten as Pitt was in 1949.

Imma_Man_40,

I agree that ND is very unlikely to join the Big Ten anytime soon, but as I pointed out in my post regarding the TV money that the conference is now receiving, the financial picture has completely changed from when ND originally signed its contract with NBC.  When that deal was first signed in the 1990s, ND by far had the highest TV revenues of any college football team in the country.  Now, every single Big Ten and SEC school is making substantially more TV money than ND.  I think ND could handle it if it were just Michigan and Florida making more TV money than them, but how long will they put up with Northwestern and Vanderbilt making substantially more money?  This doesn't mean that this will spur ND to suddenly join the Big Ten or any other conference, but it's not going to be dismissed quite as easily in the past because the independence that served as a financial asset for ND for so long may very well become a financial disadvantage in a new world where cable TV money rules the roost.  

Pitt won the National Championship in 1976 Meathead.  That made 9 total.  PSU has 2 total.  1982 and 1986.  But this isn't about national championships. It's about an old man's grudge.  That fact that PSU scheduled a Temple series over Pitt is a pathetic farce.  

1976.

I'm sure Pitt may have been more attractive to the Big Ten in 1979 than they are in 2009.

Did Pitt fight to keep Temple in the Big East?

Meathead,

As a former sportswriter and someone who prefers Reebok to Nike, there is no need to thank me.

Allow Jesus to be your co-pilot and you will live in peace.

To Fuzzy and Pantherpride,  

For what it's worth, I met AD Steve Pederson at an alumni happy hour in Denver during March Madness coupla years back.  We spoke one-on-one for half an hour, mostly about renewing this football game (despite it being a hoops event).

This is the fer-shizzle truth as of March 2007: SP told me the only serious hold-up was PSU's (JoePa's?) flat take-it-or-leave-it insistence for a 2-for-1.  SP told me he felt it was condescending, in fact insulting.  He's right, of course.  But someone must yield and/or counteroffer or this stalemate will continue.

SP also told me that he felt PSU (JoePa) didn't want the game, and the 2-for-1 gave him cover and deniability.  In fact, if Pitt would agree to accept the 2-for-1, PSU would then come up with another new hurdle.  Direct quote:  "it takes two willing parties to schedule a game, and in this case there is only one."  That's what the man said, to my face.

I'd love to get an updated status from either university's athletic department.

Once a new PSU coach comes in, the game might very well commence?  Would Smiz's excellent suggestion for a 3-for-2 compromise work in the mean time?  Dunno to both.

(That was not my suggestion. -- Bob Smizik)

Pitt has one unshared national title.  One since WWII.  Please stop pretending that Pitt has 9.  Only Pitt recognizes those titles.

Quick question for the commenters:  does anyone know if woodshed used to be a sportswriter?  It seems like he must have been, but he's so reluctant to share the source of his expertice.  Thanks.

Imma Man,

I'll take you at your word.  However, it does nothing to change my opinion that Pitt made a decision and now it has to live with the fallout.  Yes, JoePa holds a grudge, but I don't fault him for it.  Pitt intentionally tried to harm PSU and by squashing the Eastern League and not helping us with respect to the Big East.  PSU and JoePa owe Pitt nothing.

PS - love your handle

I don't want Pitt to join the Big 10(11)(+1).  Nor do I care if anyone else does, including ND.  I want to continue to foster meaniful discussions to renew the Pitt-Nit game.  Let's keep on topic.

Let's start an online petition.  I wish I knew how.  If no one else in here does, surely we must know someone who can help.  Where are all those uncaring prepubescent fans when we really need them??

Woodshed, in addtion to being a former sportswriter, are you by any chance a former Internet guru?  

Fuzzy,

As a former sportswriter and someone enjoys the subtle chocolatey undertones of a Sam Adams Old Fezziwig Ale, I can tell you two things:

1. I am a former sportswriter.

2. "Expertise," which I lay no claim to holding on any topic, is spelled with an "S" not a "C".

In my opinion, the fact that I once was a sportswriter is as relevant to this topic as the rehashed information that everyone here is flinging at one another. An argument continues rather than people becoming motivated to take action and initiate change. I can understand why Bob has ignored this topic for so long.

Jesus loves you.

Oops, typo:  that update from SP was the fer-shizzle truth as of March 2008 (not 2007).

Sidebar to the prepubescents:  see what happens when you become grizzled and ancient? haha

woodshed-

Pitt can boast NINE as the number of Nat'l. Champs. won but the FACT is, NONE but their last was unamimous, in at least 6 of the other 8 seasons they had either an inferior record to one or more of their co-champs, and/or one or more of their co-champs were named Nat'l Champs by more polls than Pitt.  Additionally, Pitt is nationally recognized as having won 6, not 9!

KUDOS TO YOU BOB SMIZIK!

This game is a TRADITION.  All other reasons for continuing of not continuing this game are arbitrary to this point.

Who is the BEAST OF THE EAST?  Unfortunately we will not know the answer for the 9th consecutive season.

Do the right thing Joe!

BlitzBurghDude,

As a former sportswriter and someone who can count, six is still more than two, correct?

My the Lord Jesus Christ bless you and keep you.

Yinz (both sides) need to get over the National Championship B.S.  Neither school has won one in the last 20 years.  This is about an intense rivalry.  A rivalry that should be played on the football field as is made clear by the passion exhibited by fans on both sides.  Instead, we're all cheated by an old man that continues to hold a grudge from almost 30 years ago.

(Agreed. The national championship stuff is not relevant to the discussion.  Number of national championship does not speak to the present. Neither school, as point out, has won one in more than 20 years. -- Bob Smizik)

Fuzzy,  almost all national titles in the 1st half of the century were shared since (1) there were so many polls and (2) there was nothing close to a BCS system in play.

Heck, even in 94 I thought PSU was every bit as worthy as Nebraska for the title .. and for what it's worth, in '80 I though Pitt was a much better team than the national champ, Georgia.  Pitt finished 2nd despite not even given a New Year's Bowl in lieu of a 3 loss ND team, who was beaten by Pitt that year.  I even thought 2-loss LSU was a fraud when they won it all 3 years -- they played one significant game outside the state of Louisiana all year,and lost at Kentucky.

National titles have always been distorted and always will.

woodshed,

Pitt boasts 9 as the number of National Championships won.  The fact is that not only have they merely won ONE uncontested title, that being their last, but they also count the following:

1915 - tri-champs: Okla (10-0), Cornell (9-0) & Pitt (8-0)

1916 - co-champs: Army (9-0) & Pitt (8-0)

1918 - co-champs: Mich (5-0) & Pitt (4-1)

1929 - co-champs: Notre Dame (9-0) & Pitt (9-1)

1931 - tri-champs: USC (10-1), Purdue (9-1) & Pitt (8-1)

1934 - Alabama (10-0) & Pitt (8-1)*

* Pitt is not listed as a National Champion by ANY of the '34 polls!

1936 - tri-champs: LSU (9-1-1), Pitt (8-1-1) & Minn (7-1)

1937 - co-champs: Cal (10-0-1) & Pitt (9-0-1)

That's 6-7 arguable titles, competed for during an era of powerhouses such as: Chicago, Detroit, LaFayette, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Army, Navy & yes...W&J

Penn State on the other hand, is prideful enough to recognize ONLY 1982 & 1986 as National Championship seasons, even considering the following:

1911 - co-champs: PSU (8-0-1) & Princeton (8-0-2)

1912 - co-champs: Harvard (9-0) & PSU (8-0)

1969 - PSU (11-0) & Tex (11-0)

1994 - Neb (13-0) & PSU (12-0)

A former sportswriter should know better!

@BlitzBurghDude

Who cares?  The mud-slinging between Pitt and Penn State fans is meaningless and solves nothing.  I think we've learned that after 10 years.  Until the teams decide to let it play out on the field, neither school can claim supremacy over the other since the last game.

90 comments = no interest!

This is nice, but I think the rivalry is better played on a football field than on the computer.

New flash, the Big Ten makes a lot of money.

Got a chuckle about the 1949 Big Ten.

And in the 1950's - Pitt was considered for the ACC.  When the ACC celebrated its 50th year, there were a number of books telling the history of the conference - and in the early 50's - Pitt was conisidered (or at least talked about) to be asked to join the ACC.

But that was then....

Speaking of yesteryear - my contention has been if JoePa would have created his Eastern Superconference - I really think that his league would have caused the end of the ACC.

Maryland - who in my mind is more of a traditional Eastern Football Team - I think would have been courted hard to join the league at some point.  It would have been a great fit - as they played Penn State and WVU regularly then.  They leave and depending on what other 'Eastern Independents' the league could have gotten at the time, who knows what the landscape would be like today.

Remember at that time, Florida State, Miami, and South Carolina were Independents.

Bob,

Were the FSU, Miami's, and South Carolina's ever considered in JoePa's Eastern Super Conferemce?

BlitzBurghDude,

As a former sportswriter and someone who has walked across the Clemente Bridge without being accosted by a homeless person, It's not my fault that the University of Penn State wishes not to take pride in its history.

Smiz is right, the national championship question is irrelevant to this discussion. And the fact that neither has won one that any current player or prospect can possibly remember makes them all pretty worthless in any current debate. I made that point earlier but Bob seems to be the only person who recognized it (probably because he's a former sportswriter and therefore very smart).

The fact of the matter is, neither program needs the other. Both will continue to do just fine without playing one another. The good news is, Pitt is open to resuming the series. When Joe is gone maybe it will.

Frankly, I'm quite happy playing two of our traditional rivals on an annual basis. Who needs a third? I can't imagine what it's like you nitters who don't get to play any of your rivals any more.

"I can't imagine what it's like you nitters who don't get to play any of your rivals any more."

It's great.

We've moved on and I suggest that some do the same.

Also, I would think it appropriate for a former sportswriter to not be so condescending with comments. It's not very becoming.

I would love to see this go one step further and end the insanity of these confrences and there bizzare geography....

Penn State does not belong in the Big 10....

Boston College does not belong in the ACC

Joe's league was visionary, I remember reading the stories about it then and found the possibilities to be endless. I believe talk of a tie in to the Fiesta Bowl was discussed then as well. I truly believe if Dave Gavitt had to do over, he would have taken Pitt AND Penn State then but I do not think even he envisioned the sums of money TV would create in football. Remember at the time, ESPN was less than 5 years old.

But the economics of college sports are simply so enormous now, you can't really fault PSU for what they do schedule wise. Though Title IX was in place in 1982, it certainly was not the legal sledge hammer it is today either.

History can be 20-20 vision but I say take it a step further and revisit the whole Eastern League concept and make it what it should have been then. That not only brings back Pitt-Penn State, but brings meaning to the game againAt that point then, the Big East can hold Notre Dame's feet to the fire and your either in the league for all sports or none, NBC be damned... or better yet, at that point the Big ten would have an opening...(God forbid they take Pitt's BCS bowl in a few months, but that's another blog for another day!)

Pie in the sky? probably, but if one wanted to truly do this right, that would be the preferable approach rather than a 2nd week of the season non league game. Making Pitt-Penn State that just doesn't do justice to the rivalry it was becoming between 1974 through 87

Woodshed is playing a character...

Bob,

Can you do some investigating or suggest it to someone else at the PG to contact both schools and get their official response on how they feel about renewing the game? And what it would take make it happen?

"Woodshed is playing a character"

Perhaps, but he is a former sportswriter

Ivan, I hear you. However, I believe Penn State likely is in the Big 10 for good. As for Pitt,  it will not be invited to join the Big 10 and that is perhaps a good thing. But as strong a league as the Big East is, at this time, in  basketball, it is an unwieldy assemblage of disparate institutions. That in istelf makes it vulnerable. And when you consider that its football playing membership is too few in number  I think that could spell problems down the road for both Pitt and the Big East. So, what could be done?

Well with respect to basketball it seems to me that Notre Dame needs the Big East more than the Big East needs Notre Dame. Therefore, Notre Dame shoud be asked, perhaps told, to substitute Purdue and Michiigan State on its football schedule with Pitt and Rutgers or Syracue. Pitt has played ND off and on for decades. And the Irish would benefit  from, if the second Big East team is Rutgers, exposure in New York and New Jersey or upstate New York if its Syracuse. After all, why should Notre Dame get to enjoy basketball membership in the Big East without some sort of quid pro quo?

Next, the Big East should cut loose a few of the Catholic universities that have different profiles than most of the other universities. Depaul is at the top of the list. Chicago is too far away and it seems unliikely that the Blue Demons will fileld good teams on a consistent basis. Seton Hall is another that needs to be let go. And as good as Marquette has been of late it would not hurt my feelings if they went away as well.

At the top of my wish list is getting Boston College to rejoin the Big East. I think it's a better match for them and that perhaps they bailed out of the Big East when they thought it was a goner. But I don't know if thay could be enticed back. They would replace Seton Hall.

Then add Temple and Memphis to replace Depaul and Marquette.

Last, if B.C. cannot be induced to return to the Big East, add East Carolina.

The Big East football league would then be comprised as follows:

Pitt

WVU

Syracuse

Rutgers

U Conn

Louisville

Cincinatti

USF

Temple

Memphis

and B.C. or East Carolina,

and N.D. plays Pitt and Rutgers or Syracuse on a permanent basis.

The basketball league would be all comprised of the above football playing members plus Georgetown, St. Johns, Providence, Villanova and Notre Dame.

That in my opinion would make a more viable Big East Conference.

Maybe, someday,  Penn State might even want to join such a league.

Well, there's a lot to adress here, isn't there?

First off, the Pitt National title legitimacy issue.  You can't diminish the achievement simply because the powerhouses of the day are now mostly Division 1-A schools.  If Florida's football program goes in the tank over the next 30 years, will that diminish their current team?  Besides while you're listing Harvard, Yale, and Army, you conviently avoid Michigan, Notre Dame, and Southern Cal, which were also powerhouses.  The split titles should be no surprise either, given the short seasons, more regional schedules and limited ability to broadcast games nationally.Not that it makes any differnece, since neither team has won anything recently.

As for Pitt getting a 5-5 split by giving Penn State 20,000 seats, that would be a horrible business decision.  You figure that roughly 5000 seats are reserved for the visiting team and 10,000 for students.  That leaves 50,000 that Pitt tries to sell off as season tickets.  Why would they cap their season ticket sales at 35,000 every other season for a decade?  Sure attendance is down now, but if Pitt starts to consistently finish 10-2 and top 2 in the conference, that should improve.  Furthermore, why would Pitt turn Heinz Field into essentially a neutral site?  If Pitt struggles to get enough of their own fans to go to the game, then Penn State fans should have no problem getting tickets without any guarantees.  If Pitt can fill the stands themselves, then Penn State fans can fight amongst themselves for the normal visitor's allotment.  Or they can go play Temple where there are no problems because they don't get 20,000 fans total.

And to the question of Pitt joining the Big 10, why?  For the Big 10, Pitt doesn't expand the conference into new markets.  Pitt's actually a smaller school than every Big 10 institution except Northwestern, which will only work against Pitt in terms of fundraising (could being 1/3 the size of the Penn State system have something to do with Pitt's attendance issues?).  With the exception of USF, the Big East is more convieneint geographically for PItt, as well as more comparable in terms of school size.

As the former lead singer and driver of the Winnebago I'm glad to see so many of you want to see the band get back together!

Send your emails to Tim Curley....

live.psu.edu/.../rss49

For the Glory!

Bob,

Being a former & current sports READER, naturally I read the supplemental article from the NY Times you inserted above  that offers background on how Penn State got snubbed from the Big East.  Very interesting.

However, these two excerpts in particular caught my attention, because they don’t fit PSU's party platform planks:

1.  "...Paterno has always tagged a lot of that on former Syracuse A.D. Jake Crouthamel...".  and

2.  "...Pitt was not a member of the Big East and therefore could not vote for or against Penn State."

But now I'm really confused:

* - For Syracuse, PSU has apparently forgiven Crouthamel's snub and renewed their series.  This despite, rightly or wrongly, 'Cuse being the perceived source of JoePa's snit?

* - Conversely, Pitt apparently becomes and remains PSU's scapegoat imperpetuity, gets no forgiveness.  This despite Pitt NOT voting (thus having NOTHING to do with the snub)?

What am I missing? Someone above said 'Cuse was mighty when the series was originally scheduled, but then (oops!!) on the wane when it resumed.  Hmmm, that doesn’t fit.

I'm guessing the reverse must be true: that PSU plays 'Cuse (but not Pitt) only because they perceive the Orange as a gimme W.  So then it cannot be coincidence that the Pitt-Nit series stopped in 2000 when Pitt rose up & bit them 12-0 and looks like a team on the rise?  Can't be.

Either way: back in the 80s my sons used to wet & soil themselves, thus making me change diapers.  Now they're in their 20s.  After all these years, they don't do that anymore.  But they've never apologized, never thanked me.  I forgive them anyway.  Try it, Joe!

I saw JoePa interviewed last week on Game Day, said he doesn't even have email.  If that's true, I doubt he reads Smiz's blog.  Too bad, his loss.

(My stance. as I wrote, has been that Paterno's gripe with Pitt was its failure to support his all-sports Eastern conference. It has nothing to do with any rejection by the Big East. As for Syracuse, they were off the Penn State schedule for a long, long time.  I don't know the reason why. -- Bob Smizik)

It would be nice to have Penn State back on the schedule but face it, it's not going to happen until JoePa either croaks or retires -- my money is going on croaking at this point.

Yes, it would be a boon for Pitt financially. Yes, Pitt has had some awful stretches of losing football, most notably the early and mid 90's (72-0 Ohio State anyone?). The Panthers, however, have a proud history in college football, are a team on the rise, play in a BCS conference that isn't the joke that a lot of people like to make it to be and should not have to swallow their pride to schedule a lopsided home and away series with Penn State.

To this notion that Pitt needs Penn State: Pitt has West Virginia, another nationally recognized school, who they have a long tradition with and play them every year on national TV, a lot of times on Turkey Day.

Howard,

You do know that Temple was kicked out of the Big East for their football program being awful years in and out. What would bringing them back accomplish for the credibility of the league?

I also disagree with with kicking out Marquette in basketball. They've been one of the better programs in the Big East since they have joing and and the distance argument doesn't work either because we have South Florida and Louisville as well.

I doubt B.C. would come back to the Big East but Memphis sure looks attractive as well as East Carolina.

woodshed - Upon reviewing your many patronizing comments on this blog, it is plainly clear as to why you are a "former" sportswriter.

emoneypitt,

As a former patron of Bublbes and Sherman (would you pass the brown mustard please?) I agree with you that the Big East can do without Temple and I  agree it's unlikely B.C. will return. But the football league needs to be strengthened. So again, I say goodby Depaul and Seton Hall and hello Memphis and East Carolina.

As for Notre Dame, I still argue that if they won't schedule two or three Big East football  games annually their basketball team can take a hike. Maybe a rotation of Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers would work with N.D. playing two of those three schools each year. Except for some lost tradition, I think that woud beneift N.D. more than playing in state Purdue and Michigan State. They do play Michihgan too.  So N.D. would gain Eastern exposure and lose little if any in the Midwest.  Where will N.D.  take their basketball? The Horizon League?  I don' think so.

But enough on N.D. Piit is not in a bad place. It is a shame that the football series with Penn State is suspended.  They both recieve a lot of money from the Commonwealth and it is time for the state to intervene and get the series resumed.  

(Howard:  Notre Dame is playing Pitt and UConn this year.  I could be wrong but I don't think that's an accident. I think ND is attempting to schedule more of its Big East ``brothers.'' How else would UConn end up on its sked?  Also ND contracted with Rutgers but when Rutgers would not play at Giants Stadium -- and understandably so -- the deal fell through. --  Bob Smizik)

How would Memphis and East Carolina strengthen Conference USA--I mean the Big East?

Memphis looks attractive? Holy cow! They had about 4000 people at their last home game -clearly visible on TV and you think this is a school the BE should invite?

Gateway HS probably attracts more fans on average.

Anyway, I agree that the BE is riddled with issues. The Catholic bBall schools add nothing to the conference. Particularly schools like St. John's, Providence, Seton Hall, and DePaul. In an age where football schools bring in so much more money than bBall schools - its hard for them to compete. Pitt has very little in common with these schools.

All I know is if the whole issue for B10 expansion is around AAU schools (i.e. research institutions - which Pitt, Cuse and Rutgers but not WVU are members of) that bring new TV markets, then maybe Rutgers is the best choice.

Frankly, the upside of adding Rutgers pales in comparison to adding Pitt...which already has a very good bBall program and a traditional football program with a natural rivalry with PSU.

I live in NJ and if the B10 thinks adding Rutgers is going to bring the NYC market, thats a huge myth. This is a pro sports area. Nobody could care less about college sports around here - except for a few RU diehards.

curtismartinfan,

As a former Frick Park bocci ball enthusiast, and student of the Classics, I believe there is not a long list of schools available to join the Big East in football and that is why I suggested Memphis which has a good basketball program as well.  

Bob,

Thanks for the feedback about U Conn and Rutgers.

I agee. Rutgers made a huge mistake by refusing to play the Irish at Giants Stadium.

I don't know if Rutgers or U Conn wold like it, but how about N.D. and Syracuse at Yankee Stadium?

Howard

(You misunderstood me. I agree with Rutgers decision to insist on playing the game on campus or not at all. -- Bob Smizik)

These emotive responses joined with a number of well-argued claims about the long-standing financial penalty Pitt has played for its decision to veto Joe's proposal many seasons back illustrate several things:

1. When you hold virtually all the cards, you determine the game to be played and who sits at the table. The odds lean heavily in your favor. PSU has no need nor desire to let Pitt back at the table.

2. Like it, bemoan it, or otherwise, revenge can be both sweet and costly, especially when it imposes a stiff financial penalty in conjunction with the pain of not being picked to play. Pitt picked the wrong battle at the wrong time.

3. Power politics ain't for sissies.  

4. There is no logic in Penn  State entertaining Pitt at this point.  Maybe one day, but not now. Not for awhile, other than maybe a serendipitous Fiesta time. That would be fun and lucrative for Phoenix. Still, Muhammad Ali always determined who and when he'd fight. And who and when he'd not fight.

5. This does allow for cheap therapy though. Pittsburgh therapists must hate seeing this topic come up ...again and again and again and ...Talk of beating a dead horse.

6.  Pitt and Penn State are both prospering programs, at least for now. Playing each other would do only one thing.  Affirm a loser.  Makes no sense and no cents.

7. Furthermore, why would  WalMart become an enabler to helping K Mart return to prosperity?  

(I'm not so sure about how severe the financial blow Paterno has dealt Pitt.  Who knows where Pitt's basketball program would be if it had joined the Paterno league?  The current basketball program is a big money maker.  It is impossible to project how this has hurt Pitt.  Plus, we don't know what kind of revenue sharing the Paterno league would have had. Some reports had it heavily slanted toward Penn State. -- Bob Smizik)

You know, there really is one inescapable reality in chronically pondering the what-ifs of this ...

It makes a great university look small and whiney.

PSU has shown the right course.  Forget it.  Each side made its decision.  Move on.

And it reveals a painful truth ...some girls remain more attractive as they age than do others, and that may be the ultimate value of mothers-in-law.  A sign of things to come.

And while some think they have to have that  trophy bride, some stay with the classy dames they anticipated their mate might be one day.  Love him or resent him, Joe is one classy dame who has worn well.  

woodshed wrote:  "Smiz is right, the national championship question is irrelevant to this discussion. And the fact that neither has won one that any current player or prospect can possibly remember makes them all pretty worthless in any current debate."

Irrelevant...what happened to 6 > 2 ?  I care & I'm sure you would care more, if it were Pitt that enjoyed the national superiority over Penn State in the past 3 decades or so.  Since it is Penn State that has been Pitt's superior, the debate is worthless???  btw, as a former sportswriter (LMAO), you should know that it's The Pennsylvania State University, not University of Penn State!

GTurner wrote:  "First off, the Pitt National title legitimacy issue.  You can't diminish the achievement simply because the powerhouses of the day are now mostly Division 1-A schools...Not that it makes any differnece, since neither team has won anything recently."

My main point of contention is that Pitt can boast 9 titles or 99 titles, but it won't change the FACT that ONLY one (1976) was achieved with a record that was the equal or better of any other team also recognized as Champs.

Wow, I take a break from the blog for a week or two, and I nearly miss all the good stuff!

I personally don't miss the year in and year out of Pitt/PSU football, and I'm 42.  A one and one series would be GREAT, but I personally am not craving anything else anymore, and I don't mind the final numbers being 12 and 0, if you know what I mean.

Again, as mentioned above, Pitt's main reasoning for not jumping into an all eastern sports conference is, I believe, JoePa's insistence of a 2 and 1 for Pitt and EVERYBODY else in the conference, FOR CONFERENCE GAMES.  How delusional.  If this is untrue, please enlighten me.

I believe Pitt goes by Sports Illustrated's assertion that Pitt has 9 national championships, btw.  I don't think anybody's mentioned that yet.

Great posts.  As mentioned above, this has been unusually civil...., and unusually IMFORMATIVE!!!!!!  Hahahahaa  

(If you are saying Paterno wanted two home games for every road game from conference members, that is something I've never heard and I strong doubt its truth. -- Bob Smizik)

The OOC conference schedules and the MNC implications if you should lose one OOC game is moot point if YOU WIN THE GAME.

I think some of us are missing the boat in this. We could (and do) debate who has the upper hand, conference, money, better attendance, "classier dame"? etc.,etc.,etc. The whole point should be that on a basic football fan level, this would be a good thing for fans of both schools. As in..."My team won and your didn't. Ha Ha." or "We'll get you next year!"  

That would be a much more satisfying rivalry than what it has become. And anyone here that denies the existence of a rivalry here is simply a fool. It just manifests differently. Instead we have a bunch of computer geeks (including myself) pounding their chests with the same BS week after week and year after year. I personally believe that football is a much more entertaining game.

Mr. Pitt,

As both a former resident of Tower A and a  Pitt English major, I could not agree with you more.

Bob:  Yes, you understand my point correctly.  In almost any conversation that I've had with friends and family and coworkers about this subject, that point always comes up.  I don't believe that it's being confused with PSU's CURRENT demand for a 2 and 1, btw.

It may be an incorrect urban legend.  But a whole heck of a lot of people seem to understand it that way.  Anybody else under that impression???

How would adding Memphis and/or East Carolina benefit the Big East?  Easy: the cherished 9th – or better yet, 10th – football team(s).

No doubt, being too small contributes to BE’s perception problem in football.  More teams would add league exposure in more large media markets, and more teams to win non-conf games to rebuild national reputation.

So then, who to add?  What conference to raid?  This presumes ND isn’t joining for football anytime soon, BC isn’t coming back, and Villanova isn’t jumping back to D1-A.  Those would be easy solutions.

You’d want to add teams having all these aspects: in a major media market; large recruiting & fan bases; and good academics.  And preferably close to the Eastern seaboard.  Unfortunately, there are no perfect choices.

Conf-USA:  In order, UCF, East Carolina, and Memphis are the most logical choices.  Houston would be THE perfect choice, except the geography doesn’t fit as well.

MAC:  Temple is the logical choice (Toledo & Akron the bridesmaids).  Temple sits in BE’s biggest untapped football market (Philly), they are getting better, and happy playing in A10 for BB (presumably wouldn’t insist on being BE’s 17th hoops team).

MWC:  Utah, maybe TCU.  Utah is more likely to join the Pac-10(12).  TCU is a small school but in a huge media market and recruiting base: Dallas-Fort Worth.

WAC:  Boise State.  BSU in BE gives instant street cred they need, but again the geography doesn’t fit.  We’ll eventually see them in the MWC, maybe even Pac-10(12).

Navy: Up & down years, wouldn't win enough to boost the league.  Army even less so.

Am I missing any other candidate teams/leagues?

Let’s not forget, pumping shared BSC money into a middling program like ECU or Memphis would soon boost them, just like it did Cincy and UConn.  UConn football was more of a joke back when it joined BE than Memphis is now.

Bob, a question.  I didn't go back and count them, but figure I must have made half-a-dozen entries in the above stringer.

If I stop, am I now a former sports writer too? (smile)

Imma_Man_Im_40 the Big 10's first CHOICE would definitely be Notre Dame if it were up to them. That's why I said BIG 10'S choice in my post, not Notre Dame's. Notre Dame would not want to join the Big 10 as long as they've got the exposure/contract  on NBC.

Cincinatti/Louisville are not more attractive candidates for the Big 10 than Rutgers. What do they offer? The Big 10 would go after Rutgers because of the strong recruiting areas in New Jersey and more importantly because they would get the New York/New Jersey televeision market.

Also, I would like to point out that in 1982 Bill Stull, proposed 4-1 split in the games between PSU-Pitt  with the four games at Beaver Stadium and one in Cleveland stadium.

Oh, yeah, a big NO to Memphis and ECU.  The BEast already can be seen as suffering from an identity crisis with the addition of Cincy and Louisville.  Hey, we're damned lucky to have them, don't get me wrong.  But enough of the small midwestern schools already, imho!!!!  If we can't get traditional northeastern schools such as Navy (close enough), Army or even Buffalo or BC back, then we're fine as we are.  Oh, and I consider Temple to be in another country, btw.

As I just noted in another blog, I think that all teams should play against each other in their respective conferences.  Pac10 and the BEast are the only BCS schools that manage this.  The rest have uneven scheduling.  I feel that if you can't play all of your conference mates, then you should shed schools.  

Of course you don't really want to go below 7 or 8 teams for obvious reasons (having to schedule a TON of OOC games for example), but you wouldn't want a conference with 15 teams either.  If bigger is better, then I guess the CUSA and WAC is better than the Pac 10, right?

I know this is off topic, and I am sure there are many reasons that it is unrealistic (which I am sure you will inform me of), but I would love it if Villanova stepped up to FBS/Div 1. If they were committed to the idea (and that is a big IF, I know) there are a lot of HS players in that area to build from. Hey,  am sure UConn had many uphill battles in their process to Div 1, and they did it. This could potentially really strengthen the stability of the conference.

Bob,

As somoene who formerly struggled through statistics at Pitt, I think this particular column may have set the record for most posts to your blog.

Are we there? And I believe it also demonstates great interest in the restoration of this important rivalry.

Howard

Mr. Pitt,

Nova playing D-1 sounds great "on paper", but I currently like how PItt can recruit in New Jersey and Eastern NY without much competition (just Rutgers and PSU), and having more competition out there might hamper that.  Now the University of New Hampshire, that's MY candidate!!!!  

But seriously, it's a shame that Army and Navy (supposedly) turned down offers to come into the BEast last year.  They would have been a good traditional fit into the conference, and Navy has been very respectable lately.

EJAB,

I beg to differ. Mr. Pitt's suggestion of 'Nova as the BIg East's ninth football playing member is near genius. The Wildcats play, very well, in The FCS's (Div. 1-AA) toughest football conference, the Colonial Athletic Association and they are currently ranked fourth in the FCS. And'Nova knocked of Temple to open its season.

I would not be too concerned about the New Jersey / E PA recruiting consequences. If Pitt does well recruiting will take care of itself.

And under the banner of one-for-all-and-all-for one, while Villanova transitions to Div. 1, I recommend that its Big East brethren schedule the Wildcats and pay them the going rate guaranties instead of scheduling the likes of Youngstown State. That cowd require some courage because the Wildcats are pretty good and capable of pulling off some upsets. But it would be good for the Big East; a rising tide raises all boats.

Howard:

I just don't want to happen to the BEast what also happened to the ACC.  They thought more was better, adding Miami to the conference.  But another BCS program was created in Florida as a result (USF).  And, as a result, FSU and Miami have to compete with USF for recruits, and can't seem to become a major player in the ACC now.  The Tampa kids are sticking around Tampa in higher numbers now, and I'll bet that the NY/NJ kids would stick to the Philly area more if they could.  I don't think it would be good for the BEast to water down PItt's recruiting area with a new BCS program (at least not one that would create a major new shift in recruiting).  CUSA and WAC have more teams than the B12 does, but nobody is saying that those two conferences are better than the B12, for example.  Bigger is not necessarily better.

Those are my humble thoughts......!

There are reasons that I have heard, but none that convince me that it is not possible. (school is too small, doesn't want to, no interest in college football in philly, stadium too small).  I am sure there are more reasons that I have not listed. The most compelling argument to me that I did list is that villanova does not want to play big time football.

EJAB, I agree, that it may (or not) make for more competition for recruits, but that challenge is a challenge we should be up to.It would be offset by having 8 conference games which would allow for an even conference schedule. Furthermore, it would eliminate the need for ADs to schedule 5 OOC games. Plus it would be a Big East team on the East(how about that), and we wouldn't have to worry about how it affects the basketball conference.

Saturday, 1:00 a.m. Q: Thank you for your blog on the Pitt-Penn St. series – a matter of continued

Yes, I don't agree with the "school is too small, etc" reasoning either.  Heck, Villanova MAY be bigger than BC!

Also, yes, I don't like having so many OOC games, although it is only one more than B10 schools schedule, believe it or not.  I believe that if you don't play every school in your conference, then you have too many teams, but that's another subject for another day.

And yes, novel concept to have a BEast team from the east, isn't it???  Hahaha.  That's why it's a shame that we couldn't convince Army and Navy to come in.  Traditional eastern programs that likely wouldn't have shifted the recruiting areas.  And a decent program in Navy to boot.  Best of both worlds.  Oh well.

Much earlier someone suggested writing Tim Curley.  I did so back in 2005 as follows.  Response?  Nada.  The AD couldn't even be bothered to acknowledge a long-time ticket holder and alum.  Sadly, they are totally deaf to this.  

"Dear Mr. Curley,

I read with interest a story of March 12 in the Tribune Review which stated that this football rivalry could indeed be brought back to life.  While I’m sure the opinion of season ticket holders and alum alike don’t make a whit of difference, shame on me if I don’t speak up.

I don’t believe that there is anything more positive that Penn State could do for itself, it’s football team, and all the Penn State fraternity than reinstitute this most wonderful in-state rivalry.  I’ve probably heard every rumor and rationale as to why this came to an end.  Most are probably false, or only based on a kernel of truth.  But it really doesn’t matter.  Something very important for Penn State and Pennsylvania was tossed to the wind, and short of a criminal act being the cause, never should have happened.

I do hope that the individuals whom decide these things can put both the past and hocus-pocus-we-can-make-the-numbers-say-whatever-we-want financial considerations aside to bring an event back that vastly enhances the pride of all Penn Staters and most of the people in this State.   This rivalry is about far more than money, and should be about far far more than ego.

For all of Joe Paterno’s contributions, past-present-and future, the ditching of Pitt will always be a black mark on his career. One that even my children know, one that is ‘taught’ to all the ‘new’ generation of Penn State fans.  While it may never go away, restarting Pitt-Penn State football would at least lighten the stain.

Thank you very much for your time,"

(Good letter, and shame on Curley for not answering. Probably, though, because he had no answer. -- Bob Smizik)

Saturday, 1 a.m. Q: I may be in the minority, but I thought the intense booing of Brett Farve's return