Pitt who?

by meanjoe on Apr 10, 2008 9:47 PM EDT

From the diaries...

How is it, that almost every off season, the topic of Penn State-Pittsburgh comes up?

"If I had to make a choice between Pitt and West Virginia, I would feel more obligated to West Virginia because of the fact that West Virginia stayed with us when we were trying to do some things," Paterno said at last week's annual football media day, "But Pitt did what it felt was best for Pitt. They didn't give a darn about us." - Joe Paterno, 1990

It's just not going to happen, not solely because of Joe Paterno, but because Pittsburgh is no longer relevant.

Yes, the sad truth is that while the alumnus from yesteryear would relive tales of epic Nittany Lion - Panther games, the new generation of Penn State fans have moved on and Pittsburgh excites them as much as Syracuse. A more prestigious opponent when compared to Temple, Akron and Central Michigan, but offers as much value to the Penn State football program as a box of tampons.

How is it, that almost every off season, the topic of Penn State-Pittsburgh comes up?

It's just not going to happen, not solely because of Joe Paterno, but because Pittsburgh is no longer relevant.

Why would we lock ourselves into a long term contract with Pittsburgh when we could have rotating opponents like South Florida, USC, Alabama, Syracuse, and Virginia. You are not only talking about fresh new BCS opponents descending upon Happy Valley every two years, but the chance for Nittany Lion fans to visit new venues, towns and states in the process. A long term series with Pittsburgh would generate what? A chance to look forward to the city of Pittsburgh every two years? I'd take a raucous college atmosphere over an empty stadium, bridges and tunnels any day of the year.

Its a sorry revelation, but Pittsburgh has become less of a quality opponent than fellow Big East member Rutgers or even Louisville, once considered a basketball power.

A simple look at the Sagarin ratings for the last 5 years tell the tale. Only during the dark ages of the Zack Mills era, Penn State would have benefited from playing Pitt and even then we would have been extremely competitive.
    Penn State     Pittsburgh
2007     26     66
2006     18     45
2005     4     59
2004     63     55
2003     71     39

Playing Pittsburgh would simply be unnecessary dead weight. True, they are a much better opponent than Temple, East Carolina or Central Michigan, but those teams serve a much greater purpose than simply showing up for the game. Those games are almost a tune-up, an extra fall scrimmage to prepare the Lions for the real meat of the schedule when conference play begins. Unlike the NFL where preseason games serve the same purpose, the Lions schedule these patsies so we can prepare ourselves for the Big Ten matchups against another team not dressed in a Lion's uniform.

If Penn State were to schedule Pittsburgh, it would mean replacing Alabama, Syracuse, Oregon State, Virginia and Notre Dame from our schedule, not Temple, East Carolina and Western Michigan as oblivious critics of Joe Paterno claim. We simply can't afford to pad our non conference schedule with opponents that actually registers a pulse on offense and defense. We already have enough of that during Big Ten play, it would be overkill to do so in our non-conference portion. Get the big picture here?

We CAN schedule Pittsburgh, but are we willing to sacrifice possible rotating matchups with the likes of Alabama, Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Virginia to do so? Bring on the legions of Alabama crimson, Irish green and gold, Syracuse orange and Virginia shirts and ties. At least playing those programs will guarantee that we will see at least 20 of them which is more than Pittsburgh can say for their empty stadium on game day.

Lets for a second forget the atrocious funk that some of the programs are currently in, but if the proponents of the rivalry have their way, we would see Pittsburgh year in and year out without any other big name program for years to come. We are no longer in the era of conference independence, we can't pick and choose several big name opponents padded with cupcakes. The Big Ten IS our gauntlet of big name opponents, with them it actually matters when it comes to the BCS and the Big Ten title. Pittsburgh just isn't worth it.

So enough about Joe Paterno harboring a vendetta against Pittsburgh for leaving Penn State in the dust when it mattered. I too would not give Pitt the time of day if they snubbed me when I needed them back in the day and now want something of their own. That's not the point here. It's not that we CAN'T schedule Pitt because of Joe Paterno. Its because we DON'T WANT to.

Other than a geographical commonality, little else brings the two programs together. Pittsburgh claiming that they deserve an annual game against Penn State is like Western Michigan deserving an annual matchup against Michigan or Michigan State. It's time they moved on.

Thanks for the fanpost! Please do not post any content from a premium site that requires a subscription. Also, if you just want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using fanshots instead. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You are

trivializing the history and tradition of the series and have no vision for the possibility that the series can at times be as big as the FSU-Miami games of the 90's. There's no theoretical reason Pitt can't consistently have a top 20 program, and it might revive itself as soon as this year. Their win at WVU last year gives them approximately one more big road win that Penn St. has had in recent memory.

Take a look at Penn St.'s out-of-conference schedule since they dropped Pitt after 2000:
'01: Miami, SoMiss, UVA
'02: Neb, LaTech, UVA, CentFla.
'03: Temple,BC, Neb, KentSt
'04: Akron, BC, CentFla.
'05: SoFla, Cinc., CentMich
'06: Akron, ND, Temple, Y'townSt
'07: FIU, ND, Buff, Temple
'08: CCarolina, Syr, Temple, OregSt. (almost ArkSt.)
'09: EMich, Syr, Temple, E.Illinois

2001 is good, 2002-03 is passable, the rest is pathetic and the Penn St. athletic department abuses the loyalty of its fans by having OOC schedules like this. Pitt has been taken off of the schedule and replaced by and endless parade of Akron, UCF, and Directional Michigan.

Compare this to the 1999 OOC: Arizona, Akron, Pitt, Miami. This I consider the gold standard of OOC scheduling. You have an intriguing PAC-10 matchup, your natural rival, a high-profile game with the "U", and a breather.

Getting teams like Alabama, ND, Neb., etc. in here on a consistent basis is a pipe dream. Everybody wants seven home games, and all of these teams have more regional games they'd like to schedule. What you're actually getting is stuff like seeing ND and Nebraska every 17 years or so.

This rivalry is not ancient history. I went to the 1998 game in Pittsburgh, and it was a great game to go to on a warm September day, especially the moment when Chafie Fields caught a long bomb for a touchdown in a tight game. You go to games for moments like this, not to see overpriced scrimmages against Youngstown State. I've been to four of these games in Pittsburgh with my family, Penn State has taken them away and I want them back. With 12 games on the schedule, it would be easy, and it's the right thing to do.

by Joe 96alum on Apr 10, 2008 11:38 PM EDT reply actions

excellent

some would apparently have us just pad Joe's record to help him pass Bobby. because now it's all about Joe, it's all about him: his bitterness, his record. he's officially placed himself ahead of the program. and the stepford fans (and bloggers) support him. how f*cking sad.

by loyalopposition on Apr 11, 2008 3:10 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree

that getting at least two decent non-conference games each year shouldn't be a chore, and shouldn't be something to be looked down upon, as Joe96alum demonstrated. Whether it's Pitt or some other quasi-respectable team, we can schedule them, plus our usual 2-year rotations of Notre Dame, Syracuse, Alabama and Virginia, plus two tasty MAC cupcakes if PSU so chooses. If you have three out of those four be home games (have one of the good/decent games be home and the other away), you get your precious 7 home games. It's really not that hard.

And with the pundits all dumping on the Big Ten these days (even though, fairly or not, that's really only a function of aO$U laying an egg in their bowl two years in a row), our teams now really do need to schedule some teams with a pulse in order to help their national profile. With Penn State's absolutely pathetic OOC schedule next year, if they lose even one game in Big Ten play they'll almost certainly be out of the running for BCS at-large consideration. That's why we need a good OOC schedule every year, not 3-4 cupcakes. Teams that play good teams and beat them get respect.

by Gopher Broke on Apr 11, 2008 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions

well said Joe....

the only reason, that i can think of, that JoePa said he'd rather have WV is b/c that was WV was a cupcake team and a guaranteed victory every year. Plus that was 1990...ask him now who he'd rather have on the schedule...

thank you.

by Stately NOVA Lion @ Black Shoe Diaries on Apr 11, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Pitt/WVU

Pitt has beaten Joe Paterno seven times, WVU only twice, but I sincerly doubt he feared either program in 1990. Or now for that fact.

WVU, along with Penn State, was left out by Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College's decision to scrub the eastern all sports league. That's why JoePa said what he did back in 1990. Penn State's decision to join the Big Ten was going to adversly affect WVU (who had tried to help us) as much as Pitt (who six years earlier had made a similar decision to stick it to us).

Who would you be more loyal to under that circumstance? Seems like an easy choice to me.

For the Glory National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994,

by jesse. on Apr 11, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Bravo

Great minds think alike. Seriously, I would much rather go the direction of Syracuse, Alabama , Virginia and Nebraska than play a steady home and home series with Pittsburgh. This is a far better path for the program. We are assured of a quality non-conference opponent for the next eight years. It's a good move.

Reg4

by Regulator4 on Apr 10, 2008 11:55 PM EDT reply actions

I couldn't disagree more.

2 Serious OOC games against solid teams should not scare a program the caliber of PSU. Also for a guy who's point is that pitt sucks now and offers very little, you seem very worried that it would be a tough game.

Penn State needs and deserves a rival. Pitt is close, and the series has had 89+ games in it (tried to look it up and found conflicting results so i went with the lowest number) making it one of the longest running out there. Anyone that would pass up the kind of passion that that kind of history brings doesn't know what a real rivalry is. I haven't been a Penn State fan long enough to personally remember the Pitt days, but my highschool was over 100 years old, and we had some old time rivalries. There is nothing like it!

I personally feel there are only 2 acceptable reason not to restart the Pitt rivalry.

Find and lock in another big time rival we can all hate (like a ND or BAMA or F$U, none of which are going to happen).
the reason that Mike put forth some time ago. Renewing the series will help Pitt, and we hate them too much to help them in anyway!!!

by platnumkid on Apr 11, 2008 1:11 AM EDT reply actions

way to carry the old man's bags

seriously ... arguing for eternally crap warm up fodder who offer no tradition and referring to 2003/2004 as "the Dark Ages"? what of institutional memory? in the final analysis isn't tradition what separates college football from it's pro counterpart? enjoy the Coastal Carolina game without me.

very disappointed.

by loyalopposition on Apr 11, 2008 2:58 AM EDT reply actions

So dead it's dog food.

Mike--

Rather than beat the dead horse of the Pitt / Penn State rivalry; (which I believe will be renewed once Paterno is out of the picture) - how about the following thought for conversation? To ensure the integrity of the Big Ten conference, each Big Ten team should play every other Big Ten team once each year. This would allow for two non-conference games such as Michigan/Notre Dame; Ohio State/USC or PSU/Coastal Carolina.

This would allow for a true Big Ten Champion, and would seem to make more sense than scheduling non-conference cupcakes.

Your thoughts?

by Jerry @ Black Shoe Diaries on Apr 11, 2008 6:45 AM EDT reply actions

so if it's renewed after Paterno is gone ..

... then the rivalry must have value, and thus is only on hiatus because of the Old Man's personal vendetta?

just making sure we're on the same page.

by loyalopposition on Apr 11, 2008 7:03 AM EDT up reply actions

I disagree....

Playing Northwestern, or Minnesota in the years they would normally rotate off the schedule does nothing for me. Yes, I understand we'd pick up UM and Wisky but I'd rather see good competition from outside the conference...Now, if only we could schedule good competition from outside the conference.

Also, SEC apologists will be all over this as the Big 10 hiding in the Big 10, not playing anyone of note outside the conference, yada yada yada. This would hurt us the most, as we use our 2 OOC to schedule Syracuse and Directional Michigan. The Big 10 is going to have a hard enough time getting to the MNC, and I think scheduling more in-conference games will make it harder for PSU to make the MNC than actually scheduling tough games.

by Screen Name 20 on Apr 11, 2008 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions

I would concur.

Yes, IMHO the only reason the series isn't being played today rests with Paterno.

by Jerry @ Black Shoe Diaries on Apr 11, 2008 7:08 AM EDT reply actions

Good Idea Jerry

Jerry I think you have hit on something there. Ten conference games together with one strong non-conference game would add to the general excitement of the season. Everybody could schedule(as they already do) their cupcake game at the beginning of the season.

Reg4

by Regulator4 on Apr 11, 2008 8:26 AM EDT reply actions

I explained this in the diaries

But I'll say it again here. Playing 10 conference games would suck. Every school would get five home games in the conference. So what do you think they would do with the remaining two games to fill? You've heard Joe say they need at least seven home games a year. You're not going to get Alabama, Notre Dame, or even Pitt to agree to any deal where they come to Happy Valley every year. So the schedule will undoubtedly be filled out with losing programs willing to come take a beating for a paycheck. So be careful what you wish for.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Apr 11, 2008 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions

I miss the independent scheule

Playing West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Notre Dame and Boston College year in and year out, meant a lot more than playing teams from the mid-west.

But, with the conference, Penn State has also established rivalries over 14 years. And there's no going back to independent status, obviously.

Once you're in a conference, your conference opponents are your rivals. If the games against Pitt would have continued that would be one thing, but since they haven't, maybe we should move on.

by CDRS on Apr 11, 2008 9:28 AM EDT reply actions

"Loyal Opposition...

to the Loyal Opposition",

I love the passion you are showing for your beliefs, but Joe is not the problem here. It is the Pitt folks who actually believe they belong in the same stadium as the Nitts. IMO they are no better than Cinncy, or gulp! Akron, who we bring in every so often to be a sacrificial lamb. In Pitt's opinion they deserve equal status with PSU, despite the fact that they consitantly struggle in a sub-par conference, and haven't been a true national contender in years.

by carolinaeasy on Apr 11, 2008 12:31 PM EDT reply actions

Akron?

Thats a bit extreme sir, but I see where you're going. No, Pitt isn't a national title contender, but that doesn't mean we're to good to play them. What is the difference between them and Syracuse? If our OOC was full of either powerhouses of cupcakes, they probably wouln't be a good fit. But we're giving a home and home to Syracuse, one of the few teams Pitt beat last year. In that respect, I think we're fooling ourselves when we say they aren't "equal" enough for a home and home.

God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...

by Adam Bittner on Apr 11, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Pitt

Forty years ago, as a Penn State freshman, I watched through an alcoholic haze as the Nittany Lions ended the season, embarassing a hapless Pitt team by scoring 60+ points. I was told this was a rivalry game but the toothless Panthers seemed less significant than Syracuse (who beat us) and even Navy (who beat us)that year. In years to come Pitt cycled in and out of relevance, but no more so than other Eastern rivals such as Boston College or Maryland or West Virginia or North Carolina State, even Temple. To some extent I miss them all nostalgicly. But Pitt is nothing special anymore, if it ever was. To those who say PSU needs a rival, I point to MSU. It was an arranged marriage to be sure, but it fills a need for both schools. Perhaps we would both prefer to beat Michigan on a yearly basis, but Michigan saves its real emnity for OSU and we'll never change that. MSU is the rival we've got, and every bit as strong a football squad as Pittsburgh can claim to have. I look forward to beating them this season.

by sandy on Apr 11, 2008 12:52 PM EDT reply actions

That's it

Feel the hate for MSU like I do.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Apr 11, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

constructive

I support the idea to embrace the rivalry with MSU, even if it is, as was well-said, a pre-arranged marriage.

But the rivalry needs something to make it a bit more exciting. Maybe some students could steal "Sparty's" costume, or, I don't know, spray paint MSU's version of old-main. There's probably some funnier and better agriculture-related stunt that could be pulled.

In any event, I think if people can figure a way to get the rivalry a little bit more intense, by really pissing off MSU fans or having them do the same to us, we could stop feeling like an only-child, with no built-in rival to really enjoy playing against.

by spakajewia on Apr 11, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

How's this?

I say we just beat them by fifty points every year until they hate us.

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

Hail to the Lion!

by BSD on Apr 11, 2008 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions

I do after blowing a 17 point 3rd quarter lead;

and after letting TWO MSU backs run for 200+ yards against us in '97, and for beating us without Arrington in '99, and for talking shit about beating us before the game in '04 to make themselves bowl eligible, and us, only being 3-7, beating the shit out of them at The Beav.

KILL SPARTY!!!

by Ab4PSU on Apr 12, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Michigan

Michigan locked in Notre Dame as their annual OOC 'rival' and is still scheduling one other decent team each year. There's absolutely no reason we can't do the same with Pitt; you're drinking Kool-Aid here.

by M1EK on Apr 11, 2008 2:42 PM EDT reply actions

Alabama

I'm a week late and most of this conversation has moved on from the idea of a PSU-Alabama rivalry, but I wanted to put my two cents in. I was born and spent the first 7 years of my life in Alabama. I was raised an Auburn fan, but went to Penn State, so therefore, became a Penn State fan. I've been living back in Alabama for the past 4 years, so that gives me a little different perspective.

I'm excited that PSU is playing in Tuscaloosa in 2010, and hope the series will continue past the two games in 2010 and 2011, but it's never going to become a true rivalry. Auburn and Alabama are intrastate rivals, but Alabama fans also see Tennessee as a huge rival (it's Alabama's oldest rivalry), especially after the Fulmer-probation deal. Now remember, I'm an Auburn fan, too, so I write this with a grimace: Alabama fans have a lot of respect for Penn State. They have a great deal of respect for Joe Paterno, too. They equate him to Bear Bryant all the time when talking to me. Growing up an Auburn fan, I know first hand that Alabama fans don't have any respect for Auburn or Tennessee and are actually very obnoxious towards both teams and fans. So, Alabama does not view us as potential rivals, just a team that they've had some memorable games against back in Bear Bryant's heyday.

We don't want Alabama for a rival (although I do like the fact that I would only have to travel 50 miles every other year to see the Nittany Lions play!). Their stadium is smaller, their town doesn't have as many hotels as State College, and their fans absolutely suck (I'm even impugning some of my relatives, here, but they deserve it)!

With that said, back to the Pitt rivalry, does anybody who lives east of State College care anything at all about a Pitt-Penn State rivalry? I even lived in Pittsburgh for two years and I don't care (but then again, I do care about Auburn and Alabama and hate Alabama with a passion).

Let's have the Land Grant Bowl each year and really make it a rivalry with MSU! I enjoyed reading the blog last year when Mike was trying to encourage all of us to bring on the hate!

And finally, just for the record, so you know where my true loyalties lie, I cheered for Penn State both times they played Auburn in bowl games.

Sorry for the long post, but I've been wanting to add my views on Bama for a while!

For the Glory,

by Paige2PSU on Apr 17, 2008 2:06 PM EDT reply actions

Penn State/Alabama

That series was what college football is supposed to be all about. It had two great teams, playing great games, with two fan bases that had all the respect in the world for each other.

I don't necessarily think that we need to hate anybody, if State and `Bama degenerated to "hate" like Alabama/Auburn or Penn State/Pitt that would be sad, not preferable.

Frankly, until Michigan beat us 116 straight times and our fans got all insecure, that was what Penn State and Michigan was turning in to. A rivalry that was built on mutual respect not hate, I find that much preferable to a silly rivalry where everybody hates on each other over some petty bullshit or insecurity.

If you look at some of the most heated rivalries they are all based on insecurity; Ohio State feels inherently inferior to Michigan, Auburn to Alabama, Pitt to Penn State. Perhaps that's a primary reason we don't have any Big Ten rivals? I certainly don't have any insecurity about my school vis-a-vie theirs. With the exception of Ohio State, I like everybody in the Big Ten, and I don't care for OSU because they put insecurity in the water in Columbus, and there is no reason for it.

For the Glory National Champions 1982, 1986, 1994,

by jesse. on Apr 17, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions