The Pitt-Penn State Rivalry

by BSD on Mar 27, 2007 9:40 AM EDT in Football Comment 19 comments

You know it must be the off season in college football when some moron suggests we should renew the Pitt-Penn State rivalry. This year it's state senator John N. Wozniak.

John N. Wozniak, a Democrat, said he had conversations Tuesday with Pitt chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg and Scott Paterno, son of Penn State coach Joe Paterno, who both expressed interest in renewing the rivalry.

Wozniak claimed "dual allegiances" as a Pitt graduate and father of a Penn State student in a letter to Penn State president Graham Spanier. Wozniak called resuming the Pitt-Penn State rivalry a "popular proposal among fans."
"I believe the time is right to bring back the healthy and historical rivalry of these fine Pennsylvania institutions," Wozniak said in a statement. "The economic gains, not only for State College and Pittsburgh, but for the entire Commonwealth, would be tremendous."

Dave Wannstedt agrees.

"I am on record saying I am in favor of us getting back to playing each other," Pitt coach Dave Wannstedt said yesterday. "I have no clue how much influence the political world has on us playing football games. Will it happen someday? I'm very confident. When and how, who knows?"

I don't want to get into why the series was broken off. All that will do is bring the Pitt trolls out of the woodwork. Let's just say Penn State fans believe Paterno broke off the series because Pitt made PSU fans buy a package of tickets to see the games in Pittsburgh and Pitt fans believe the series was broken off because Joe Paterno holds a grudge for Pitt not going along with his failed Eastern Conference and leave it at that.

What's important now is that the two teams have not played since 2000 and there is a large portion of the fan base that supports renewing the series. Personally, I include myself in that. As a fan I would like to see the rivalry renewed for the entertainment value. The problem is Penn State has very little to gain by playing Pitt at this point. Penn State sells out a 105,000 seat stadium every weekend. Pitt struggles to fill their 64,000 seat Heinz Field. In fact, their average attendance usually comes in around 40,000 fans per game. Splitting revenue under a one-for-one series would be a loss for Penn State. If the state tries to force the series again you might as well just write Pitt a check and be done with it. Schedule another game and pay the opponent the usual $200,000. You would probably come out ahead that way.

The fact is that Pitt is not on the same level as Penn State anymore. When Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College left the Big East they took the conference credibility with them. Even with a depleted Big East they only managed to go 6-6 this year and didn't go to a bowl game. Penn State is on a level where they look for opponents that have large fan bases that travel and support their team. Those are the games that get attention in the BCS race. They get the 8 PM start on ABC. Pitt-Penn State is not such a game. If Pitt came to Penn State it would most likely be a noon start on ESPNU. This is not the type of game Penn State needs when you are competing for the BCS.

The only circumstance I can see the rivalry being renewed is if Pitt humbled themselves to play a 2-for-1 series. Pitt fans will cry and scream that they should never lower themselves to that, but the fact is that's how the series was played for decades in Pitt's favor. Pitt and Penn State have played 96 times in their storied history. Over two thirds of the time the game has been played in Pittsburgh. From 1903 to 1938 the two teams played 33 consecutive games in Pittsburgh. Between 1940 and 1970 the two teams played in State College only five times while playing at Pitt 25 times. It doesn't seem that Pitt was very interested in sharing the wealth back then. Now the shoe is on the other foot. So while Pitt fans can claim that Paterno and Penn State and ducking them, the fact of the matter is it's all about money.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Absolutely Correct

Pitt wants a paycheck game, and they're trying to use history as some sort of artificial leverage to play half the games in Pittsburgh.

That's not how paycheck games work: you come to our place, take your check and your 45-10 beating just like all of the other Akrons and Kent States of the world. People from Western PA (in general) just don't understand that the level of Akron and Kent State is the level at which most of the U.S. sees Pitt.

by ckmneon on Mar 27, 2007 9:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Relevance

You're dead on when you talk about the fact that a matchup against Pitt wouldn't mean too much for us on the national scale. Conversely though, they know that a game with PSU makes them much more relevant than they currently are playing the dregs of the Big Least.

As far as politics, I think there's something mandated by the state where Iowa, Iowa State and Northern Iowa all must play each other year in and year out, in both FB and BB. Does that mean that Iowa and N. Iowa are on the same level? Hardly. A Pitt/PSU rivalry really wouldn't be much different, as Pitt hasn't done anything relevant since getting blown out by Alex Smith and the Utes a couple years back. I'd rather we continue to search for games against teams like ND/Nebraska. That'll get some nationwide attention. I'm not even sure a game against Pitt would get the entire STATE'S attention.

by Cpiritual27 on Mar 27, 2007 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You are Mostly Correct

"Penn State is on a level where they look for opponents that have large fan bases that travel and support their team. Those are the games that get attention in the BCS race."

I'm sorry, but I would rather see PSU play Pitt than FIU, Buffalo, or Temple. Those three teams (iirc) didn't even have as many wins combined as Pitt last year, and yet we play all three. However, your argument is still good, and the reason why this rivalry does not exist anymore.

by hasuprotoss on Mar 27, 2007 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Difference

The difference between FIU, Buffalo, Temple and Pitt is that none of the first three have a history of cheating PSU fans, none of them are demanding a 1-for-1 series (Temple's getting it, however), and none are making outrageous claims of actually being rivals.

The greatest insult you can give someone is to completely ignore them, and that's exactly what PSU is doing. For once the AD is getting something right.

by ckmneon on Mar 27, 2007 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about the Irish?

You leave out the fact we play Notre Dame this year. Sure it's a down year for the Irish, but it's still an attention getter.

The fact is this is what the elite teams do now. Schedule one big game to boost your strength of schedule and the perception of the voters, and then schedule a bunch of cupcakes to ensure you get bowl eligible. Penn State is no different than anyone else in their scheduling. But I still hate it. I would rather see them play some mediocre SEC or Big East teams than the teams you mention.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Mar 27, 2007 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well.....

We need the Pitt series. How well has Pitt done in recruiting Pennsylvania the last few years? Pretty damn well. I think nothing would reverse that trend so much as us blowing them out every season. With a minimum of 12 games we can face the indignity of going to Pittsburgh every other year. And seriously, playing at Temple? A lot lower already.

by Ben on Mar 27, 2007 8:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We don't need Pitt

This is a series that older alumni kind of care about, but no one in the last 15 years really give a shit. If we should pick up a team out of the Big East that actually could do more for recruiting, its Rutgers.

by PSU Nick on Mar 27, 2007 11:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

PSU Fan for life, but they are wrong in this case.

"Penn State is on a level where they look for opponents that have large fan bases that travel and support their team. Those are the games that
get attention in the BCS race."

Sorry, but that is pure bull. How do you explain Akron; Youngstown St; C. Michigan; South Florida; Cincinnati; Florida International; Buffalo; UCF and Syracuse then for '05, '06 and '07???

I am anything other than a Pitt fan, but I think is unforgivable that Penn St. and Pitt do not play an annual game; (home and away). Shame on whomever is holding up such a renewal.

I'd rather PSU simply came out and said publicly that we won't schedule Pitt because we want to make as much money as we possibly can, and to Hell with the fans desires of seeing a rivalry renewed.

Why won't Paterno go on record one way or another as to whether he supports renewing the rivalry?

Wannstedt went on record, so why can't Joe?

by Jerry on Mar 28, 2007 8:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Again

We are playing the Irish this year. Before that we played Nebraska in a series. We've been trying to line up Alabama. It's not like we aren't playing anyone good. We can't play Texas, Florida, and USC all in the same year, but I agree we can do better than YSU, Temple, Buffalo and the others.

Why won't Paterno go on record one way or another as to whether he supports renewing the rivalry?

I believe Paterno has. Last year in a press conference I believe he pretty much said Penn State will not play Pitt as long as he is head coach.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Mar 28, 2007 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Recent grad opinion

We get Bama again in 2010 and 2011.

Another side to this is all of the PSU fans who didn't go to PSU until after 1990. We never experienced a rivalry with Pitt. We care more for OSU, Ann Arbor, and ND. However, Pitt undergrads are still going "Fuck Penn State" whenever they can. It's seriously one-sided. I really could careless about playing Pitt because for me and many other people I went to PSU with, it would be just another game. And from what I've read, that would hurt Pitt people more than us not playing them.

by kmblue on Mar 28, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

I wouldn't be so careless in what you define as a rivalry. Ohio State, Michigan and Notre Dame do not consider Penn State a rival as much as you might think, or wish they would.

Ohio St and Michigan obviously consider each other as top rivals. ND and USC are traditional rivals, as well as ND and Michigan. Penn State is certainly not on the top of the list for any of these respective schools.

Much like Texas / Texas A&M, Pitt and Penn State used to be one of the country's best rivalries. I just think that it's terrible that it has been nonexistent for years. Somehow I think it would be more than "just another game" once resumed. Sadly, I think that won't happen until JoePa is long gone.

by Jerry on Mar 28, 2007 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, and?

I don't know. I just have a hard time understanding why people care so much about it. Many people I know who were students when I was at PSU and are still students really can careless about Pitt. Pitt is just another university. And from what I've learned recently, I don't blame Joe for not wanting to play Pitt anymore.

by kmblue on Mar 28, 2007 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who then?

I guess the point I am trying to make, (not real successfully thus far), is that since Pitt fell off the schedule, Penn State has been lacking an opponent that considers us THEIR top rival. I'm not even sure we as Penn State fans can agree on who may be our #1 rival. (Hell, just look at the pool results here.)

The Pitt/Penn St. game used to be THE game of the year for BOTH teams and I really believe it would become that again if renewed. I know you could not care less about Pitt, but trust me - sit with the "Pitt-idiots" for a game and you will be singing a different tune.

On top of all of that, it sure to be a win each year for the Nit' Lions! :)

by Jerry on Mar 29, 2007 7:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trophy Games

We also have trophy games with Michigan State and Minnesota, but both of those teams believe Michigan to be a bigger rival (I would believe). And let's be honest, both of those rivalries are kind of phony and made up since Penn State joined the Big 10.

by hasuprotoss on Mar 28, 2007 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Paterno

Exactly - at this point in time this is all about Joe. While I agree that Pitt has much more to gain from the renewal of the series than PSU and that Pitt was lame in their buy 2 games to get the PSU ticket scam, I believe the series should be renewed.
I can not think of any good examples of state's that have 2 major programs in different conferences who do not play each other.
Georgia - Georgia Tech
Clemson - S. Carolina
Iowa - Iowa St
Florida - Florida St
Colorado - Colorado St
WVU - Marshall
There may be others, but the only example of two not playing (other than Pitt - PSU) is Ohio St & Cincinnati, but in this case there is no tradition of a rivalry.

by grg78 on Mar 29, 2007 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

re: Paterno

You are spot on grg78.

Pitt certainly is lame in their ticketing policies, and unfortunately I don't see that changing either. Most recently when Notre Dame played a home-and-away with Pitt, the Panthers required those that wanted to purchase Notre Dame tickets to also purchase SEASON tickets. (I guess the 2-game requirement for PSU wasn't so bad after all!)

Still, I think any resumption of the Pitt/PSU is good for college football.

by Jerry on Mar 29, 2007 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The point is its not going to be 2-games anymore

It's going to be a season ticket purchase for a game I don't give a shit about in the first place. Pitt isn't our rival, West Virginia is their rival, "The Backyard Brawl" is their rivalry game. I'd be far more intested in playing Rutgers out of the Big East or Maryland or Virginia out of the ACC than Pitt, those are games that benefit the program.

by PSU Nick on Mar 30, 2007 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but....

I know you don't get a shit about this game, but there are a ton of Lions players from Western PA that would love to play Pitt each year and rub their faces in it.

I just don't buy that Virginia or Maryland can be more appealing than playing Pitt. Rutgers maybe - but one season doesn't a powerhouse make either.

Sorry for beating a deadhorse, (or maybe dead-panther is more apt), but based on the huge number of PSU grads in Allegheny County; the historical tradition of the rivalry; as well as the recruiting advantage that can be maintained - to me it makes sense to play Pitt on an annual basis.

by Jerry on Mar 30, 2007 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pitt

Thanks for your comments Jerry and everyone. I agree as a fan, I would love to see the rivalry renewed. That mutual hate is what makes college football the greatest sport on earth, IMO. Unfortunately, the economic magic 8 Ball says, "Prospects not looking good."

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Mar 30, 2007 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs