Pitt-Penn State: Mental Math
by Adam Bittner on Aug 21, 2010 4:54 PM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintAs the long, actually rather newsy off season gives way to the dawn of a new college football campaign, the topics of the cold winter and hot summer fade and trail off.
Conference expansion, despite all the fireworks out west, no longer dominates the national headlines. "Agentgate" has quieted down. Even the big season previews are petering out as we pull to withing two weeks of actual games.
However, the eternal issue of Pitt-Penn State continues to hang around almost no matter what because of people like Bob Smizik.
You had to know spin from the Pittsburgh camp was coming after this article by Jerry Dipaola on Thursday. Notice neither "Joe" nor "Paterno" are mentioned anywhere in the article.
Once Bloggin' Bob got a hold of the comments from Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, though, he couldn't flagrantly disregard them fast enough on his way to blaming Joe for ending the series for the 234,574th time.
Curley told DiPaola discussions are underway in the Big Ten, which recently expanded to 12 teams, for members to play nine conference games when Nebraska officially joins next year. The Big Ten currently plays eight league games.
``That is one of the challenges I am struggling with as we contemplate going to nine conference games," Curley told the Tribune-Review. ``That reduces your ability to move around the country to make these games happen."
Of course, this does not fall to Curley or to Penn State or to Pitt. It falls to Paterno, 83, who is widely believed to be the man responsible for the end of the series. He does not want to play Pitt for what ever reason and no one at Penn State is going to push Paterno into doing what he doesn't want to do.
Sorry, Bob. This has nothing to do with Joe Paterno. It's an issue of exactly what Curley is talking about.
Nine Big Ten games means five road games right off the bat every other year. In order to get to the requisite seven home games, Penn State would need to host all three out-of-conference games in those years. In the other years, you need two of the three out-of-conference games to go with the five Big Ten games.
This makes concurrent home-and-homes with Pitt and another national opponent impossible.
Sure, Penn State could schedule both Pitt and let's say Alabama along with a guarantee game in the off years, but the following year would mean trips to Pittsburgh and Tuscaloosa. That leaves Penn State with six home games and lots of red ink in the athletic budget.
Though concurrent series may have been feasible with four out-of-conference games, they're plainly not with three. Joe Paterno has no power over that. Penn State would need to cede playing other national opponents to make Pitt-Penn State happen annually, something Curley basically said later in Dipaola's article is never going to happen, Paterno or no Paterno. If Pitt would accept a 2-1, as has been on the table for a while now, then it's a different story, but Penn State simply cannot accommodate two home and homes in the new Big Ten. It's a matter of simple math.
Any attempt to make more of this by the Pittsburgh media or fans is ill-informed and flat out wrong.
I'll qualify this by saying that if the Big Ten stays at eight conference games, the Pitt folks will have a point. If these two teams can't play every year, they should at least have a home and home once a decade. As I said, though, in the context of Curley's comments yesterday about nine games, Joe Paterno's vendetta or lack thereof is irrelevant.
127 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm old enough to miss the Pitt game.
I remember well when it was a big deal — often nationally. But, times have changed. Now with the impending nine game schedule, a straight home/away, as you correctly note, would be financially burdensome. The only path I can see at this juncture would be to designate the Lions as the “home” team (at least in terms of revenue) for every other game at Heinz Field. This would effectually be a 2/1 split, although the revenue gleaned from the home game in Pittsburgh would fall short of that brought in by an actual home game. In other words, it would still represent somewhat of a sacrifice for Penn State. I can’t think of another feasible compromise — and I’m sure Pederson and Pitt alumni like Smizik would reject the idea in a fit of indignation..
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
As you said, it was a big deal nationally.
Pitt is no longer a national power. We’re hanging onto that title by a thread. So…
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
I know I'm way late on this, but
is there anything that would actually prevent Penn State from renting out Heinz Field for a “neutal site” game against Pitt? That way the “you’re scared to come play here” comments wouldn’t mean squat, and PSU could still somewhat make up its budget costs (though they’d have to charge more per ticket, likely). Could be interesting…
by The JuggerNitt on Aug 25, 2010 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions
We don't owe any other team anything, including putting them on our schedule.
Why does any team feel entitled to playing Penn State? That’s absurd, we don’t need to put any team on the country on our schedule. We make our schedule to optimize things like cash flow, recruiting/alumni exposure etc. There is no added alumni/recruiting exposure to playing a game 115 miles away. So there needs to be more money on the table. If you feel the need to play Penn State so bad, then you inquire and accept the terms available (Temple). If you don’t feel the need to play Penn State badly enough to accept those terms, then this is a non-story. You know how many scheduling inquires are probably turned down every year? Where is all the discussion of those?
Hell yeah.....
and to all the PGH pressors that have nothing else to talk about, especially concerning Joe and all things PSU…..blow it up your collective arses….I thank you.
by DerryPharmer on Aug 21, 2010 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
no, it's not.
Sure, playing Alabama is a higher profile game and more interesting on a national perspective. But not every OOC series is Alabama. You can’t convince me Pitt vs Penn State is less interesting or financially productive than Penn State vs Oregon State as a 1-and-1
As has been said before, ending the series was about schedule variety. The decision to improve schedule flexibility and variety was made a while ago, and thus far it has been successful enough. PSU is going to sell out regardless.
Huh?
Who plays Oregon St as a 1 and 1? OrSU came out and played us as a 1 and done. If Pitt wanted to make that offer, I bet we’d take it.
by PSUinBOSSton on Aug 21, 2010 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
We're not even talking about that.
OrSU played a one and none. If Pitt wanted to come to Beaver stadium with no reciprocal game, I’m sure we’d do it. And frankly, I think we would get more out of a home and home with OrSU.
by PSUinBOSSton on Aug 21, 2010 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
You know what Pitt would and wouldn't take so well, eh?
Sure, it got out when the series was being re-negotiated in 1999, but I doubt the two schools have even approached each other on that level since.
I think Pitt would be interested in a clean 1-and-1, so long as there wasn’t any unequal ticket sharing or similar nonsense proposed.
What's the seating deficit between Heinz Field and Beaver Stadium?
About 42,000 seats.
There’s no way you can get equal ticket sharing with that sort of deficit. Pitt would have to screw it’s season ticket holders if it wanted to compete revenue-wise with Penn State.
Unless you meant a different sort of ticket sharing, that is…
My kingdom for a spellchecker. Or Devin Harris. Hopefully both.
"Right, a ball of hot flaming gas that collapses upon itself." -Doctor Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Aug 22, 2010 6:31 AM EDT up reply actions
By "unequal ticket sharing"
I mean the aggressive notion that PSU would be entitled to a third or so of Pitt’s (aka Heinz Field’s) ticket revenue. This idea was popular when a) Pitt was a bad team in need of direction as well as when b) Pitt wanted to bundle the PSU game with other less-attractive home dates.
And B, you think they wouldn't.
Just give PSU 6 of 10, better than 2 for 1 and PSU would do the deal. PSU has to have a financial advantage to pull a long term deal. Pitt would still make tons on a 6 for 10 split, more than a one for one with almost anyone they play. Very few teams would fill the stadium like PSU and Pitt could still package tickets and PSU would not care.
Are you sure?
I thought you were supposed to head out to Corvalis in 2013 or something like that?
If I’m wrong, just substitute the Virginia or Syracuse series.
Source?
I don’t mean to be rude; that very well maybe the case.
Both fanbases seem to be myopic about the issue, but I never heard anyone mention that while I was at Pitt.
It was a long time ago
and i dont have the inclination to find it again, but it was an article by a Pitt beat writer doing an interview with Curley. Curley said a one for one was offered and declined, and Pitt was holding out for a long term deal. Pitts AD refused to comment.
Black shoes, basic blues, no names, all game.
I'm really really tired of hearing about this
We get it, some people can’t get over the fact that this series hasn’t been played since 2000, and others will go way out of their way to blame Joe for this whether it has merit or not…
If Joe holds a grudge, its because
what Pitt did was despicable, stupid, and not even in their own best interest.
Black shoes, basic blues, no names, all game.
yes, despicable to eastern football fans. Had Pitt joined in, Syracuse would have come along with Miami. Pitt’s refusal to go with PSU ruined Joe’s vision of proving eastern football was a strong as any in country. At the time, eastern football had a bad rap with the Big Ten, Big 8, SEC writers and fans, said to be inferior. Joe tried to group the eastern teams together and prove all those wrong but nooooooooo, everyone was afraid PSU would all of a sudden get strong at basketball, little did they know.
I agree with Sling. Despicable is probably a little over the top.
Pitt and the rest of the Big East were just looking for what was best for their own. They had a basketball conference that was becoming by far the best (not true now, but in the late 80’s was really good). They didn’t need Penn State at that time. So, they turned JoePa’s proposal down. In hindsight, I am sure they would prefer a good all sports conference with Penn State, BC, Miami, Va Tech and maybe a few others. But at that time, their situation looked better to them than giving Penn State all the bulk of FB revenues.
It’s 2010, we need to let that go. Just as the Pitt people do with the Pitt/Penn State game. To a great extent, we all got what we wanted…Penn State to a great, traditional all sports conference. Pitt, Cuse, et all got great basketball conference and a screwed up mess in other sports.
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Vince Lombardi
I agree and the Pitt folks should just let the PSU stuff go.
There is no need to start anything new. I don’t dwell on the sadly missed opportunity by all, and the vision that Joe had to boost eastern sports but Pitt needs to realize they have what the school chose in the Big East and PSU has their own conference. Different paths that do not have to meet anymore.
not to split hairs
They had a basketball conference that was becoming by far the best (not true now, but in the late 80’s was really good).
who is better now, out of curiosity?
Well my point was more...
In the late 80’s, early 90’s St.John’s was a top ten program (before the NCAA made them change their scholarship policy), Providence was a big timer, Seton Hall was a National contender, BC was always strong. Now Cuse, UConn, Pitt, Georgetown, Nova have stood the test of time but BC is gone and the other three have fallen on tough times.
Good as they are….WVU, ND, Louisville, and Marquette (and certainly DePaul) just don’t give me the Big East feeling like the aforementioned. Certainly arguable, but something seems wrong when you have a 16-17 or whatever it is league! And 1/3 are more Big Midwest. So, the bottom feeders of the Big East are certainly weak now. In the Original makeup, there were no weak links.
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Vince Lombardi
Maybe not despicable
the ticket bundling was despicable
Black shoes, basic blues, no names, all game.
Everybody does...
steals from you, steals from me, bundles tickets, whatever…
Seriously, two seasons ago Syracuse bundled the Penn State tickets with Pitt tickets of all things. Nobody cared then.
What would Joe Paterno do?
Temple did that as well a couple years ago
by PennStateBasketball on Aug 23, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
And Syracuse wasn't a long term deal while Temple lets PSU make its money.
that is the difference. When given a long term deal, which last time was a 4 year thing, PSU doesn’t want to be taken advantage of. Temple gives PSU a 6 and 4 after a 2 and 1. PSU makes money so they could care less if Temple packages tickets. A one and one, PSU doesn’t care. But don’t try for a long term deal and then take advantage of the fact PSU travels so well. That was the problem last time.
by BMAN13 on Aug 23, 2010 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Actually the atheletic budget....
requires an average of 7-1/2 home games.
Right now PSU plays four home conference opponents and three home guarantee opponents plus one markee intersectional opponent in a home & home deal.
That averages to seven and a half home games.
Having a nine game conference schedule is going to play havoc with the scheduling and budget. The only way to maintain the flow of dollars will be to drop the markee out of conference oppenent and hope your nineth Big10 opponent is one of the big boys.
Sorry Pitt.
9 games
I’m not sold on the fact that there will be 9 game conference schedules yet. The big programs like Michigan, OSU, and PSU are going to push back on that because it limits their scheduling severely. Small schools like Indiana and Northwestern are going to love it.
If 9 games was such an obvious no brainer they would have announced it by now. But Delany says it will be 2015 at the earliest. I think they’re going to look at it, but ultimately they won’t do it.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
I think its likely a potential pawn in negotiating a new tv contract
Presumably a nine-game conference schedule would bring in bigger tv numbers, b/c overall the quality of games would be higher.
This is purely speculative, but it seems to me like the question is would the overall revenue boost for the big ten as a whole from a 9-game schedule be big enough to overwhelm the revenue loss from the big programs (OSU, PSU, Michigan, Nebraska).
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
Rittenberg thinks it's a done deal
I can’t find the exact link, but I remember him saying it’s a question of when, not if.
I'm not coming on here to blame anyone
but you guys have been saying that PSU needs 7-8 home games a year to meet the athletic department’s budget. Well, assuming you go to a 9 game conference schedule, that means some years you have 4 conference home games and some years you have 5. So on the year you have 4, you play all your non-conference games at home. Thus, if Pitt and PSU had a long term series (and this is a HUGE if) then the year you have 4 home B10 games, that’s when Pitt goes to Beaver Stadium and on the other years, you come to Heinz Field. Just saying that that’s how the deal would have to work in order for you guys to meet your budget requirements if the series was restarted.
You guys have also discussed whether it’s financially beneficial for the series to be restarted. I was at the game last year when PSU played Eastern Illinois I think it was and Beaver Stadium was pretty full. So I really don’t think it would be a problem in that regard.
The one question I have is when JoePa finally does end up leaving PSU, what if a deal is made after that and the series restarts?
The problem with that is
it would lock in Pitt as our marquee BCS opponent every year and eliminate the possibility of 1 and 1’s with other teams. A 1 and 1 with Pitt would be viable every once in a while but playing every year wouldn’t work.
by PSUisMyHeart on Aug 22, 2010 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Not necessarily
All it takes is some creative scheduling (which means it’s too complicated for Curley).
by PennStateBasketball on Aug 22, 2010 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Hmm
If they could come up with a way to have Pitt every year, not give up 1 and 1’s with other BCS schools, and have a 7 home game a year average with 9 Big Ten games I’d be all for it. I just can’t think of a way to do that without the regular season expanding to 13 games or an unbalanced series with Pitt, which they obviously won’t accept (not that I think they should).
by PSUisMyHeart on Aug 22, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
This also assumes Curley is okay with a 7 home game average instead
of the 7 and 1/2 we’ve been doing. But if we go to 9 conference games, the only way to average 8 would be to have 3 OOC home games every single year eliminating 1 and 1’s all together, so I think we’ll drop down to 7 regardless.
by PSUisMyHeart on Aug 22, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
But
Our “Marquee” BCS opponents the past 5 years (out of conference) have been:
2009: Syracuse
2008: Oregon State
2007:Notre Dame
2006: Notre Dame
2005: Cincinnati
I would say that, for the most part, PITT is just as viable a regular opponent as those teams are.
by Mr. Pennsylvania on Aug 22, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Pitt is absolutely just as viable as those opponents
I’d just like to have a lot more variety than Pitt every year.
by PSUisMyHeart on Aug 22, 2010 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions
zzzzzzzzz
"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here"
by ReadingRambler on Aug 22, 2010 10:20 AM EDT reply actions
You know what's weird?
A lot of the kids I know here are kind of indifferent to Pitt. Not indifferent in that condescending way that some other fanbases are kind of known for, but indifferent in that they honestly don’t care. And while a fair share of those kids are casual football fans, I have other friends who are avidly interested in our football program that feel the same way. I didn’t even know we were supposed to hate each other until about a year ago (I saw the “Friends Don’t Let Friends Go To Pittsburgh” shirts, but I thought it was because Pitt smelled like New Jersey or something.) If they did restart the series, I don’t know if they would jump on the rivalry bandwagon or simply see it as another non-conference game. It’s interesting how rivalries flicker out like that.
I am a current student and this is how I and most of my friends feel
That’s why I’d never want to sacrifice playing different BCS teams for Pitt all the time. I’ve never even seen a PSU – Pitt game in person or live on TV. I don’t think Pitt is beneath us but they are no different to me than any other school. My excitement would be completely based on how good they are that year.
If the series restarted on a yearly basis I (and I’d assume my friends and possibly yours) would be disappointed at first. The older alumni would probably like it right away, but for us, I think it would have to grow again in the same way rivalries have to grow in the first place, through years of competitive games, ruining each other’s seasons (which would be harder to do as a beginning of the year OOC game), HATE!, and whatever else makes a rivalry (see WeArePennState’s fanpost from a week ago).
Eventually it might turn out great, but I think there is a decent chance it wouldn’t blossom into anything at all and I personally wouldn’t want to give up other OOC opponents to find out.
If we’re just talking about a couple of 1 and 1’s, I’m pretty sure most of the students and younger alumni would just see it as another OOC game.
by PSUisMyHeart on Aug 22, 2010 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I am an older alum...
and I would like to see us play Pitt more often.
But that said, not at the expense of having the opportunity to play some national schools like UCLA, Arizona, CAL, BYU or Texas (any Texas school) like we used to.
Unfortunately, out athletic administration seems to want to spread the BCS/OOC game around the crappy East by scheduling Rutgers, Syracuse and Virginia. In reality, Pitt would be every bit as good as any of these!
Let’s go South – Miami, NC State, or Far West for a one and one. The Oregon State Game was an anomolie. It was a one and done for TV.
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Vince Lombardi
I agree.
It very well could re-blossom, but it would probably have to be just as progressive as the first blossoming. Or some player would have to do something especially stupid, that people would hold a grudge for. I wonder how many students would show up.
I'm an older alum and I think the Pitt thing is a western Pa thing
Most people I know don’t talk about Pitt except during BB season and then they usually root for them, not against.
I am an older W. Pa alum also.
I also think it is a Western PA thing. Other PSU alums and fans just don’t think Pitt is a big deal. I don’t anymore.
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Vince Lombardi
The Paternoville kids sing anti-Pitt fight songs.
The hate is still there.
by PennStateBasketball on Aug 22, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Do they really?
I’ve never been. I don’t think I’ve heard any of those songs, though… Or maybe I have, and wasn’t in the proper state to remember.
Fugi
The one sentence paragraphs have got to be hurting your GPA. The content is great but it reads like it was being telegraphed to me. Otherwise, I love your work.
The idea is that it hammers a point home.
Apparently making a concise sentence it’s own paragraph is supposed to send the message “PAY ATTENTION, IT’S IMPORTANT.” The longer the paragraph, the harder it is to read. The harder it is to read, the less likely people are to read it.
My take on it
“Thanks, buddy, for spoonfeeding me that little nugget, I never would have placed the appropriate emphasis on that idea without this cheap structural trick.”
The point is, this idea of the author assigning importance belittles the reader. I’ve made it this far in life thinking for myself. Used in repetition, it comes across as at best lazy and at worst subversive. Case in point: Beano Cook LOVES the one-sentence paragraph.
by gumbercules on Aug 22, 2010 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Allow us the indulgence.
We pretty much lose the right to assign meaning the second we publish, don’t we? Then the audience can and will interpret it however the hell they like. Case in point: This article is about the financial ramifications of a Pitt/Penn State series… and we’re talking about writing styles ;).
You've put the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABle
Until our defense proves otherwise, it should be presumed they will be excellent.
I'm with you
When I was in middle school english class they hammered home that one sentence does not make a paragraph. But it’s becoming the new style now.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
Its bullet writing for e-mail.
Like short sweet reports at work. No one wants to read a lengthy email so be concise. I don’t mind it, I work for the government and I hate wordy reports because its usually someone trying to BS me if its long.
Don't you guys know that the English language is fluid?!!
At least, that’s what my students try to argue!
For the glory
by Paige2PSU on Aug 22, 2010 7:57 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Lol! I didn't say it was a good thing!
My students write papers and I constantly slam them for one sentence paragraphs, paragraphs that don’t begin with a topic sentence, passive writing, beginning a sentence with an Arabic number, noun-pronoun agreement, etc, etc. I don’t think grammar is taught anymore!
For the glory
by Paige2PSU on Aug 22, 2010 8:48 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
grammer is taught
Its just that the schools seem to freakin dwell on spelling and have pushed grammer and sentence structure to the background. My kids spent more hours in elementary school studying spelling than anything. they should have learned how to write and express thoughts even if it was spelled wrong. I was a horrible speller in school yet read all the time. I didn’t learn to spell until I started doing crossword puzzles in the early 80s. I still love spell check at work and anything formal but don’t really worry about it anywhere else. Spelling never helped me fix or redesign a radar system, ever.
I've found that the more I rely on spell check and auto correct,
The worse my spelling has become compared with the past. It seems to get worse every year! I wish BSD had spell check and auto correct, though. I sometimes shudder at the mistakes I’ve found in re-reading my posts!
For the glory
by Paige2PSU on Aug 22, 2010 9:48 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
if you use firefox
it has an auto-spell checker (something I learned when I switched to reading BSD on firefox due to the annoying bug of embedded videos destroying the Z button function)
by The JuggerNitt on Aug 25, 2010 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Revised, YDR edition:
Gumbercules has a great point. I’m with him.
When I was in middle school English class they hammered home that one sentence does not make a paragraph. My teacher once scolded me for using one sentence paragraphs.
But it’s becoming the new style now.
They say some things never change, but sometimes they do.
Turn your crank to Frank!
by ReadingRambler on Aug 25, 2010 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
It's my journalism background
The stress is on shorter paragraphs in news stuff…so that’s why it looks like that.
My more formal writing has actual paragraphs.
Adam
Black Shoe Diaries, SB Nation Pittsburgh
God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...
by Adam Bittner on Aug 22, 2010 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
more formal than what? Doesn’t your formal writing have paragraphs? I like your blog writing, by the way. I don’t come to BSD for classical prose, just some good all PSU country lingo.
by BMAN13 on Aug 22, 2010 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I mean school stuff...
Adam
Black Shoe Diaries, SB Nation Pittsburgh
God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...
by Adam Bittner on Aug 22, 2010 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I think BMAN was commenting on your hollow comparison,
When you use more, you’re supposed to say what it is more than. It was implied in your response. Enough of us being grammar police, though. I try to let that go because I’ve made my own mistakes on here!
For the glory
by Paige2PSU on Aug 22, 2010 9:55 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
This is BSD, not the York Daily Record, and I don't think you're Frank Bodani.
"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here"
by ReadingRambler on Aug 22, 2010 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And what from this year...
has resulted in more wins for Pitt and less wins for Penn State? Exactly.
If the difference was noticeable on the field, that’s one thing. All Pitt now has is bragging rights to some solid recruits who have yet to prove anything.
And something tells me our class will be fine. We won’t have every big name, or every PA big name, but there are still many out there who are deciding.
Computers rank me number 1, blame the BCS...it's their fault.-Joe Budden
But...
As the major state university, wouldn’t you want to get the best that this state has to offer? I think that as Pitt does better, Penn State slowly loses it’s hold on PA’s and NJ’s top recruits, two areas that PSU had a strangle hold on. Just saying…
In a few years, we’ll know how good this year’s recruiting class will be. I’m a little worried about you guys this year. You’re not solidified on your QB situation, you’ve got a tough schedule, next year you lose Royster, could spell some bad times for you guys.
by oaklandzoo12 on Aug 23, 2010 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Your concern is greatly appreciated but unnecessary
Have you seen the PSU recruiting classes of the previous 2-3 years? One light recruiting class doesn’t necessarily portend doom and gloom. We had a class in 2003, 11 guys total, Paul Posluszny, Tony Hunt and a couple of ham sandwiches. They won a Big Ten Championship and went 3-0 in bowl games.
Additionally for the next “few years” we’ve got three 4-5 star QB’s to choose from to go along with the deepest group of running backs in the Big Ten. We may be ok in these areas.
by Frank O'Brien on Aug 23, 2010 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Well,
Since Penn State had a much stronger recruiting class than Pittsburgh last year, which included the top linebacker in the state from Cannon Mac., and two, two, Pitt legacy recruits, can you consider the possibility that this season might be an abberation, rather than a trend?
What would Joe Paterno do?
Don't forget - a 4-star QB in PJ.
And we still have the luxury of redshirting him – damn, we are hurting. (Sarcasm implied)
Good point.
Penn State’s recruiting class was better than Pitt’s if you totally forgot about Paul Jones. Who is from Pittsburgh, and would totally be Pitt’s starter this season.
I mean should be doing better this season, but 1] it ain’t over yet and 2] even if it were over, we’d still have to wait and see.
What would Joe Paterno do?
so???
would you? Why do you think Maryland won’t do the one and one PSU offered? they don’t want it any worse. Why give Pitt any kind of edge or extra funds. It is a total lose lose situation for PSU. If Pitt could win occasionally, they benefit. They benefit financially. WHat is in it for PSU. Nothing. Make it financially feasable for PSU and it will be played, recruiting or not.
How is it not?
You guys are still making money. So every other year, you play in Pittsburgh. You fill it with a I-AA team like you normally do. You still make enough money. It is definitely financially feasible. Explain to me how it’s a lose-lose because if Pitt keeps playing well, you bring a marquee team into Beaver Stadium for out of conference. That’s sure to bring money.
by oaklandzoo12 on Aug 23, 2010 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Check back in with us when Pitt becomes a "marquee team"
1982 was oh so long ago.
by Frank O'Brien on Aug 23, 2010 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions
more of a marquee team then some of your other non-conference opponents
by oaklandzoo12 on Aug 23, 2010 6:32 AM EDT up reply actions
you have a very inflated perception of the Pitt program.
Two decent years does not a good team make, Also, No one here want to play Pitt every year at the expense of the occasional great OOC game. they would be nice in our eastern school rotation of Syracuse and Rutgers but nothing more than those. Rutgers has been consistantly better than Pitt for the last 6 years so they are definitely a better school to be playing.
I'm not talking about teams like Bama
I’m talking about:
Akron, Syracuse, Temple, FIU, Buffalo, Coastal Carolina, Eastern Illinois, Youngstown State, and Kent State. Some of the teams you’ve played out of conference recently. Pitt is definitely a more marquee opponent than any of these teams.
I disagree with you about Rutgers. Yes they’ve been better than us recently but I think that that is starting to change now, starting with the Stache FINALLY being able to beat Rutgers. Only took him about 5 years…
by oaklandzoo12 on Aug 24, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you think that if PSU and Pitt played every year...
that you’d never see the Citidel again? Or Furman? Wrong, but you could probably kiss that home and home with Utah good bye. One and done suicide games are always going to be on the schedule.
This debate gets framed so poorly by the Pittsburgh Sports writers and media who literally have no idea what they are talking about.
From a dollars and cents prospective, history and tradition are pretty much irrelevant. Keep in mind all Penn State is looking for here is a September non-confrence game.
What would Joe Paterno do?
I’m talking about:
Akron, Syracuse, Temple, FIU, Buffalo, Coastal Carolina, Eastern Illinois, Youngstown State, and Kent State. Some of the teams you’ve played out of conference recently. Pitt is definitely a more marquee opponent than any of these teams.
If Pitt were willing to take a 1 and done deal like most of those schools (or a 5 home/2 away deal like Temple), a deal would already be signed. So, you’re point is irrelevent. Pitt couldn’t replace one of those teams on the schedule, they’d replace the likes of Notre Dame or Alabama.
And FWIW Pitt = Syracuse in terms of “being marquee”. Yeah, Pitt’s in a up period and Cuse is in a down one, but these things have a way of changing quickly. Like during the 90’s when Cuse was a vastly superior program to Pitt (and Syracuse still has more Big East championships than Pitt).
That makes a lot of sense.
"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here"
by ReadingRambler on Aug 22, 2010 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions
nice auto sig
"It was fun. It really was, ... People say to me, 'Why don't you give it up?' I don't want to miss out on this stuff, because I'm having a good team. I've never had a bad season when I didn't have a good time." JVP
by psu in the w-b on Aug 22, 2010 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Another reason a Pitt 1-1 won't work
As I recall Pitt and PSU eventually agreed to a two game home and away and that’s it at one time, but Pitt was going to force single game ticket buyers who purchased tickets to the PSU game at Heinz Field to purchase tickets to one or two of their crappy early season opponents as well. Since you know PSU fans are the ones who are going to be purchasing those tickets, PSU balked at the deal.
PSU will let them do that for a one and one
They don’t want that to happen in a long term deal. PSU refuses to fill the coffers of Pitt’s athletic dept without some sort of financial gain for themselves. Again, a 6 and 4 series would work and Pitt could screw fans on the PSU game all they want because PSU would get more out of the series than they do with any other series one and one they schedule. 6 and 4 and they replace Temple, maybe or just make Temple and Pitt the yearly games with another BCS one and one.
Syracuse did that to us, and so did Temple
Why don’t people have a problem with that?
by PennStateBasketball on Aug 23, 2010 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
PSU doesn't have a problem with it on a one and one
Temple gives PSU 6 for 4, If Pitt did that, the series would be on. The last time Pitt did it to PSU it was a 4 game series. you don’t do that on a long term deal unless you have something to offer for the other side to make money. One and one, do what you want but don’t expect to finance your athletic budget on a long term deal and not give any concessions to the other team.
PSU doesn’t care how the other teams sell their tickets. It’s a total canard that PSU fans have come up with as an “issue”. Other teams have packaged PSU tickets with other games, as noted. Heck, Syracuse did it in the most recent series and we just signed another deal to play them.
What PSU cares about is that they don’t want to be locked into playing a single opponent every season. They’ve reinforced that time and again. They are only willing to play Pitt long term if PSU gets a majority of home games, which would allow for schedule flexibility to play other teams. Pitt isn’t willing to do that, nor are they willing to play a short (2 game) series. So, we have two schools that just don’t agree to scheduling terms. Period. It happens.
The two schools will play again when Pitt decides they’d rather play a short series than not play PSU at all. And they’ll agree to a simple 2 game home and home just like PSU has done with similar schools like Syracuse, Rutgers and BC.
Right
Now just say it a thousand more times, and still, nobody will believe you.
What would Joe Paterno do?
I believe it, you believe it, and he believes it.
So we’ve got at least three. I’m content with that.
Turn your crank to Frank!
by ReadingRambler on Aug 25, 2010 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I've been fighting this fight for awhile.
I’ve won over more than two people.
What would Joe Paterno do?
Yinz people must hate Indiana.
The game in Fedex field is nothing less that exploitation of the Penn State brand for the financial gain of Indiana.
I really dislike the idea of a 9th conference game in a 12 game schedule, it severely limits OOC scheduling whether or not you think it should be Pitt. The OMG Ess Eee Cee has eight games and a championship game, it works just fine.
I also question the idea that 7.5 home games are necessary, I’d say just raise the price for seven games and put the team on the road more. Spread out over 110,000 tickets, I’d think the price increase wouldn’t be all that much, and you save the expense of putting on the occasional eigth game.
Does any other program ask another BCS conference school for 2 & 1 or 6 & 4 in a series? Or is it just us?
Gee whiz.
First, Penn State and Indiana are in the same confrence, so what’s good for them is generally good for us. Notwithstanding the fact that we have to give Indiana home and home series’. If they think they can make a little bit more money by moving the game closer to us, so much the better. This is just a flawed argument all the way around.
Second, I’ve argued before that one way we might work around the financial trouble with Pitt is have a neutal site game, although there is no “true” neutral site.
Third, question the financial motives all you want, but they are not going away. It’s silly to have this converation over and oover again with the “Play Pitt” people just saying the financial motivation is not important. A million dollars will always be missed, if the money isn’t that important, I’m sure Pitt won’t mind making it up out of their end. Oh wait, they care? Quite a bit actually? Then never mind, it must be important after all.
Fourth, who effing cares what everybody else does? Do you think Cincinnati is getting a home and home with Ohio State anytime soon [hint: no, they aren’t] and it’s the exact same interplay between the two schools. Don’t respond to me about history here either, tradition can suck it on this one.
What would Joe Paterno do?
by jesse. on Aug 23, 2010 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think a great neutral site for the game would be in the middle of PA
since they would be playing for PA cup. If only there was a stadium in Centre County that held over 100k that could host this yearly event…….
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face
True enough...
…We have to do everything possible to leverage the Penn State brand to maximize revenues for the best available shareholder return going forward.
Screw tradition!
FOR THE GLORY!
Which sport should we cut to play Pitt?
Seriously, it’s at least 500,000 a year. Where should we take the money from? We can’t pay our coaches any less. Should we recruit less? Play less sports? Bag the idea of having a division one hockey program?
This isn’t about leveraging a brand. It’s about funding an athletic department. No responsible minded athletic director should take a single dime out of their budget to fund a silly feud, let alone a half million dollars a year. It’s flat out irresponsible.
So yeah, for the glory.
What would Joe Paterno do?
IMO that's a false dichotomy
if it remains the case that we’ll have eight conference games in a 12 game schedule. Other schools do it somehow and I find it hard to beleive Penn State can struggle with money when, all things considered, it probably has more football revenue available to it than almost any other school.
What other schools?
What other schools maintain these traditional rivalries that aren’t already in a conference with each other? I can think of Florida/FSU (And we know florida plays no one out of conference ever) and Iowa/ISU (and ask the people at Iowa what they think of that rivalry). who else? its not an easy thing to accomplish out of conference. Lets see what happens with Nebraska and Oklahoma/Colorado. Think they’ll play them every year? Its a terribly difficult think to accomplish. Its not as easy as saying “we did this for 90 years as an independent when we had freedom to schedule, a little thing like being in a conference with 8 or 9 predetermined games shouldnt stop it.”
And Pitt’s position is BS anyway because they only have like 6 conference games a year, so they can schedule penn state OOC and still have 3 or 4 home OOC games. Its like a guy with two legs telling a guy with none how easy running is. Yea maybe its simple for you but its a litttttttle more complicated over here.
Georgia plays Georgia Tech.
but Georgia doesn’t really set the world on fire without OOC scheduling either.
But you make a good point, those exceptions prove what we’ve been saying for a while. Florida never plays anybody out of league. Iowa doesn’t do much out of the Big Ten either.
What would Joe Paterno do?
Georgia has one of the more respectable OOC schedules of big time programs that I can usually think of
so I definitely wouldn’t bash them for that. They also (I think, though I could be wrong) charge more for their season tickets “license fee”, as well as per game, so there’s always that option for Penn State (and even if Georgia doesn’t do that, it could still be an option, though I think OME would finally stroke out at that one)
by The JuggerNitt on Aug 25, 2010 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Recently, maybe....
They’ve had two series, one with Oklahoma State and one with Arizona State. If you look before 2005 it’s actually almost comical. My recollection was that the Arizona State game in Tempe was their first regular season game outside of the south in like 20 years or something like that.
What would Joe Paterno do?
maybe if the men's bb team had a pulse
…we’d be able to sacrifice a home football game every year. Unfortunately, the current situation in place rewards below average basketball with a sparsely filled BJC for home games. If Curley was serious about creating revenue for the program, he would have gotten rid of DeChellis a long time ago (he never should have been hired, IMHO). Field a winning men’s basketball program would increase the home ticket revenue and would alleviate a lot of the fabricated “need for 7.5 home games a season.”
the fabricated "need for 7.5 home games a season
See, here’s the thing. The Penn State football team is part of the athletic program of the Pennsylvania State University. It’s interests are subserviant to the program, not the other way around. Might it be nice if the football team could earn a little less money and play it’s little grudge match? It might. But it can’t, because the entire athletic program depends on the money it brings in to survive. Penn State has 28 varsity sports, and it’s athletic program runs in the black without any contributions from the state or even from the actual university.
Even if we could take less money from the football program and continue to do all of the things our program currently does. WHY? Why in the name of god would you go from making X, to X minus anything, simply to play one team on financial terms that benefit the them?
That .5 home game as you refer to represents 3,025,000 in gross revenue in ticket sales alone. That’s per year. Plus parking revenue, souvineer sales and concessions. Not to mention the economic impact for the business community in State College.
It’s not fabricated. It’s millions of dollars. It’s the money that supports every good thing that Penn State’s athletic department does, and to lose one nickel because Pitt’s fans and some ignorant sports writers think we should is stupid. Plain and simple.
What would Joe Paterno do?
by jesse. on Aug 24, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I follow what you're saying, but I don't agree
My argument has nothing to do with reinstating a series with Pitt. I don’t care about that. I’m only suggesting that the basketball program’s lack of being…well, relevant, is hurting the athletic department budget. I appreciate the fact that PSU fields 28 varsity sports. The only ones that bring in significant money to fund the program are football and men’s basketball. That is it. None of the others are enough of a draw to create a postitive cash flow.
Our men’s basketball team is unlike most programs – it is relatively unsuccessful and does not provide much of a postive financial impact to the atheltic department. I know that it is in the black, but it is not a lucrative money generator that supports the entire department. Football is and I fully understand that. My point: field a quality basketball team and this will HELP with the funding for the entire department. The BJC seats roughly 15K. If there are 15 home games (approx. numbers), with tix being $25 a pop, a conservative figure would be $5,625,000 for gross ticket receipts. Now, that is never going to happen, so I would be happy with 2/3 of that number. Let me preface by saying I have no idea what ticket prices are for the BJC, so this is pure speculation. If we are able to get that kind of money out of the basketball program, as well as merchandising, concessions, parking, etc., it would make a nice dent in the athletic budget.
In conclusion, I don’t care about whether or not we commence the Pitt grudge match. I think that if the PSU athletic department wanted to generate marquee OOC matchups, it could happen. The requirement for X number of home games is a copout, IMHO, and I don’t buy it. If we go to 9 conference games, or if we continue to even discuss it, the powers that be at PSU will provide the fans with yearly doses of Directional School U, MAC flavor of the week, and some other punching bag for three guaranteed victories.
Basketball can make money...
And it could make make more, but football is going to be at least 90% of the athletic budget anyway you cut it. Further of that remaining 10%, 70-80 percent is already guaranteed money that every school gets from the NCAA tournament contract and from the Big Ten’s television contracts. Whatever additional money that a competitve basketball team would bring in is a drop in the bucket.
I’ll believe there are going to be 9 confrence games when I see it.
What would Joe Paterno do?
It seems megaDelany is backing away from the 9 game schedule
I assume he got some feedback from the ADs after he initially said he expected it to happen. Nows he’s at five years away and those 5 year plans tend to be rewritten every year.
by Frank O'Brien on Aug 24, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Ditch the extra .5 game
by spreading the cost over the remaining seven games.
$3,025,000 / 770,000 = $3.93 per ticket per game cost increase.
Amirite? Add $5 to the ticket and get better games.
Plus save the cost of putting on the eighth game. I’m just guessing, but when you have eight home games in 11 weeks, as with last year, it seems like you might end up with more hours worked by personnel and maybe even more OT worked.
Ticket prices go up pretty much every year anyway.
Are you going to raise the price by $4 every year to make sure the money keeps coming in. So know we get to pay the “Pitt Tax” for singular pleasure of conceeding to Pitt’s demands and playing Pitt every year instead of a rotating schedule of teams.
No thanks, I’d rather pay the Troll Toll.
What would Joe Paterno do?
really,
so now my tickets are 55 each but to play Pitt the tickets are still 55 for 6 of my home games but they go up to 79 dollars for the Pitt game and I have to play them every year. I refuse to pay over 40% more for a Pitt ticket than anyone else. Don’t spread the cost out over a season, charge it to the game you are making the rest of us deal with. Twice a decade. PSU would play them twice a decade. Who needs more.
The way I look at it
when there’s an eigth game in the season it’s a throwaway game anyway that you’re paying full price for. And, fluctuating gas prices might change the cost of attending more than what I’m talking about from one season to the next for a lot of people.
you will never convince me
If Pitts gets in the Big Ten then Woo Hoo I’m all for a rivalry game with them. As it stands now, I don’t want to play Pitt every year at the risk of budgetary problems or losing other more attractive OOC games. As I stated before, Pitt chose which direction they wanted to go back in ‘82 and PSU should not have to make concessions such as loss of revenue or the .5 game per year to make up for Pitt’s bad choice. I don’t want any one of the OOC games taken by one foe.
by BMAN13 on Aug 25, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And it's yinz guys.
What would Joe Paterno do?
by jesse. on Aug 23, 2010 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
9 conference games
The only scenarios I can fit 9 conference games into seems to involve four divisions of four teams each. Each team would play the three teams in its own division and then two teams (on a rotating basis) in each of the other divisions. These are big changes (including perhaps a two-round conference playoff / and an additional regular season game per year) and 2015 seems about right if the Big Ten has 16 teams by 2014.
by Rick2L on Aug 23, 2010 10:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
