You missed the point. The problem isn't scheduling Power 5 teams. The problem is only having six home games every other year. It makes paying for 31 varsity sports more challenging. No smart AD wants to risk their job by giving up a pay day.
Justin King, Paul Posluszny and Sean Lee were three awesome western Pa players recruited without playing Pitt. I'm sure there were others. And there will be more!
Screw ND too!
You got that right brother, Screw ND lol
Yet somehow schools in the Pac-12 and Big 12 are able to do it just fine.
...and might I add that Stanford has the best Athletic Department in the entire nation, and they do just fine scheduling 6 home games every other year.
Pretty much the entire Pac-12 conference does it, and none of those schools are lacking in a robust athletics department. In fact, they win more NCs than any other conference in other sports.
So excuse me if I disagree that no Power 5 school can handle the "money loss" from 1 home game every other year. The Pac-12 is an example that completely debunks that argument.
Congratulations, you have found the one Power 5 conference where having seven home games year is not a priority for most schools. I'm not sure why this is the case. Perhaps they have less varsity sports, have a lot of endowed scholarships, higher ticket prices, get a lot of donations, or have licensing agreements to cover the costs. Each institution probably has its own ways to defray costs. There are also a few other Power 5s that don't seem to worry much about it (i.e., WVU and Rutgers). WVU seems to like the big neutral site games where presumably they split the gate and it gives them exposure in particular markets (Landover, MD, and Atlanta). Personally, I don't think that we want to use Rutgers as our model for scheduling.
All I know is when the topic is brought up, Sandy Barbour, James Franklin, and their predecessors have all said we need to fill Beaver Stadium for seven home games each season to help pay for all 31 varsity sports. I take their word for it. They are also looking for other ways to use the facilities to make money, such as concerts. So, it must be a priority. If you don't believe them, that is fine. I'm just repeating what I have heard from them and other coaches and ADs across the country. Again, we can agree to disagree. ADs are held responsible for winning programs and fiscal responsibility.
It is a day trip from Pittsburgh. Have made the trip on more than one occasion with a young child. Takes about three hours. Drive up in the morning. Have lunch. Walk on College Avenue. Take pictures at the Nittany Lion Shrine. Visit the Creamery. Drive home. Easy.
Don't need Pitt. They need us more than we need them.
I said the Big 12 also does this, not just the Pac 12. So no, it isn't just one conference. It is the majority of schools in both the Big 12 and Pac 12, who are the only other Power 5 conferences with 9 conference games.
The SEC and ACC have 7+ home games every year because the get 4 OOC games, not just 3. So again, there is no reason the Big Ten can't do it. In fact, the Big Ten is in the minority considering the only other two Power 5s with nine conference games seem to do it just fine.
You think Pac 12 schools or Big 12 school have more money than Big Ten schools? That is laughable. The Big Ten schools are rolling in money. Also, the other schools have plenty of athletic programs.
Quite simply, the argument that Big Ten school "need" the money is just plain false. They don't. They wouldn't havr to get rid of any programs, and wouldn't have to cut anything back. All that would happen is the profits would go down slightly. Nothing significant that would lead to no facilities being built, or programs being cut. Just wouldn't happen.
The neutral site games pay out top programs about 6 million. That is about triple what an average home game will take in. So actually if Penn State was to schedule one of those kickoff classics, it would make more money from it than a home game. Of course, that money doesn't translate into the local community... So there is that. Just saying, 2 million isn't making or breaking athletics at PSU. Our AD would still be making a large profit.
All I am saying is it's financially viable to do it...
Okay, so 7 Big 12 schools have years scheduled with less than 7 home games and three do not. Also, all of the Big 12 schools have less than 20 varsity sports. Among Pac-12 schools, six have less than 20 varsity sports, five have 20-30 varsity sports, and one (Stanford with the third largest endowment in the nation) has 36. So, in all cases, we are comparing apples and oranges. Everybody's situation is different.
As far as local businesses are concerned, screw them. I mean come on, we have to fill Pitt's stadium for them or they might have another mustard-out game. Pitt is not going to be building an on-campus stadium in the future. They've made their bed and they are going sleep in it. There is no need to make it more comfortable for them.
But all of this is a moot point. Of the eight people responding to this thread, only two want to play Pitt. My guess is if you polled the alumni, the percentages would be similar.
As to your last point, maybe the head coach doesn't home field advantage for a neutral site.
Mustard out is fine now that Heinz has diversified it's condiment line.
1. "As far as local businesses are concerned, screw them." - I was taking about local businesses in State College if we played a neutral site game, I don't care about Pitt businesses.
2. How many times do I have to say I would like to play Pitt, but I understand it's not feasible rivalry wise at the moment, before it sinks in? I've stated multiple times now that I feel they need to build an on-campus stadium and show a much greater devotion to their football program before it would be a good rivalry again. I made a point of talking about how the tearing down of Pitt Statdium is what really killed the rivalry. IMO
3. The Big Ten averages 24 athletic teams, with Ohio State having 37. The Pac 12 averages 22 athletic teams, with Stanford having 36. Yes, the Big Ten schools have more but really not all that much. Again, I'm not saying the Big Ten "should" schedule less home games, I am just saying the argument saying teams would have to be sacrificed and it would damage the school monetarily is just not correct. AGAIN, THAT IS NOT ME SAYING WE SHOULD DO IT. It is just me saying 2.5 million less every other year isn't going to kill an athletic department making a 45 to 50 million in profit. It's also not going to prevent 600 million in facility upgrades.
4. I stand by my assertion that we could schedule region Power 5s, a national Power 5, and a MAC team every year. Penn State is a big enough name to command a major payday from a neutral site game like Michigan and Wisconsin have recently.
Ultimately… Let me break it down. I would prefer that the Big Ten would go back to 8 conference games. I don't particularly like 9, because of the 5/4 home game thing every other year. It would be easier to schedule good home/home OOC games if we still had the flexibility to get 2 group of 5 conference games at home, then 2 Power 5 games every year home/away. That would give us 3 OOC home games every year, with one Power 5 away. I love that, and think it's better for college football. But it is what it is. I was playing devil's advocate a bit with the 3 OOCs, just pointing out it is feasible without financial destruction. It's not that we can't do it, it's that we just don't want to do it. And that's fine.
Screw sPitt , JoePA made the right move and dumped their stupid asses when they started making PSU fans pay for tickets to 4 (or was it 3?)games just to attend 1. Obviously sPitt is desperate and needs us more than we'll ever need them.
I was born and raised in NE PA in Wyoming Valley. In that area no one ever talked about Pitt. Most of the fans were either Golden Domer fans or Nittany Lion fans. I have family members who are Notre Lame fans and I don't even talk to them during college football season! Could care less about Pitt, would much rather see us play ND than Pitt! Better game, more lucrative from a revenue stand point IMO. Whether they play in South Bend or State college = full stadiums. Just my opinion. Could care less about Pitt, and the 2 coaches I loathe in college football are Narlosey and Hairbagh. Just my opinion.
What’s happening brother? Hope everything is great on your end. Did you see Notre lames post on who’s the most hated teams? Who’s your top 3? I’ll look on his post for your 3
SPF how's the wife doing? Hope she is doing better! Things are great down here! All is good except the bank account!! LOL!! Busy month this month! I graduated and got my 2nd masters degree, Alyssa got her Associates degree and got accepted into Nursing School Bachelors program and Jennifer is graduating high school on the 29th!! Not to mention Anthony and my birthdays and Mothers day!!
1. Notre Lame 2.Notre Lame 3. Jim Hairball and whatever team he coaches
Tanya is doing better buddy thanks for asking. What a top 3 my friend lol, I knew Notre Lame would be 1st lol, congratulations on all the achievements going on in the family and happy birthday to you and Jr
1. I was also talking about the State College businesses when I said screw them because giving Pitt a sellout every other year is more important. It’s called SARCASM!
2. What killed the “rivalry”, and I use the term very loosely, was the admission of Pitt into the Big East without Penn State. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State–Pittsburgh_football_rivalry : “In 1982, Penn State applied for membership, but was rejected, with only five schools in favor (Penn State needed six out of eight). It was long rumored that Syracuse cast the deciding vote against Penn State, but Mike Tranghese confirmed that this was not the case and that Syracuse had, in fact, voted for Penn State's inclusion. Penn State would loom large over the conference during future rounds of realignment as the Nittany Lions had the potential to shore up the conference once football members began to join. Following the decisions by Georgetown, St. John's, and fellow Pennsylvania school Villanova to vote against Penn State's admission, then-Big Ten administrator and future-Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese said the conference would "rue the day" they rejected the Nittany Lions.”
When that happened, it left Penn State to find another way to negotiate the changing landscape of television revenue. It had two main options, the ACC and Big 10. The Big 10 was far more lucrative because it also included an academic component which would increase Penn State’s stature as a major research institution. Pitt has had trouble filling Pitt stadium over the years. I went to a game against WVU in 1984 where the stadium was very empty and quiet. The inability to be consistently competitive has been their biggest problem at Pitt. The stadium was also in bad shape due to neglect by the time they tore it down. Johnny Majors said when he came back in the 1990s that the facilities hadn’t been upgraded from his earlier time. There is not going to be a new stadium in Pitt’s future. They have good facilities now. They just need to make the best use of them. They are not a nationally recognized brand and have not been for some time if they ever were. Changing their logo away from the script Pitt contributed to this problem. Playing Penn State or WVU does not help Pitt with that problem either. Bring on another OSU (Okie State).
3. Each institution is different with respect to how many sports they have and how they pay for them. In the end, the only one that matters to me is Penn State and those finances are vailed in secrecy due to the Pennsylvania laws pertaining to Penn State and an unwillingness of administrators to release any more than required. I can only repeat the public statements of the administrators.
4. Perhaps James Franklin and by extension Sandy Barbour don’t want to give up home field advantage. And maybe part of that is some obligation to local businesses. Their statements on the Caravan supports this premise.
I see from the postings below that more votes have been cast. I now count 6 “against” and 2 “for” continuing the Pitt “rivalry”. Let us remain Unrivaled! Pitt=Akron
PS – Don’t feed the troll.
OK, seriously... How many times can I say I am only for the Pitt rivalry if they get better and more committed to football before you stop counting me as someone who wants to play Pitt every year... Right now? ROTFLMAO
As for the rivalry, yeah I knew all of that. Mainly I meant them tearing down the stadium was symbolic of why the rivalry failed. As you said, they just aren't commited to football. We played them from 1997-2000, so them keeping us out of the Big East didn't really deter us from trying to play, but ultimately we saw it wasn't worth it and moved on.
8 Conference games. Please. Would be much better.
Reality is Pitt will not be getting better any time soon and if they do, it will be only be temporary. Exhibit A is the last 35 years of football. So, why continue with the fantasy that they will build an on-campus stadium and get consistently better in our lifetimes. It's time to move on.
"I made a point of talking about how the tearing down of Pitt Statdium is what really killed the rivalry." I'm not an English major but that doesn't sound like symbolism to me.
Reality is 9 conference games. That is a challenge, but it gives us a greater chance of playing one of the better teams from the west division in any given year. They may go back to less conference games in the future but I think not. The recent practice of playing some of the B1G games early in the season may help create more interest in the first three weeks.
I don't think you understand what a hypothetical argument is, because you keep trying to argue "reality". The whole freaking point of having a hypothetical discussion is you can talk about what you wish would happen, not what is "realistic". It gets really old trying to argue a point of why you like something, or think it's better, while every single time having to say "but I know it won't happen".
I mean, in another post thread I prefaced my whole point with: 'Totally hypothetical, so please no “that would never happen” responses. '...
...and of course you responded with a bunch of points like "would never happen" and "Unlikely to happen". I mean, come on dude... I bluntly stated it wouldn't happen and my post was entirely hypothetical. Did you not read it? Or was there an this overriding urge in you to just ignore my statement and still try and tell me why something I already stated wouldn't happen... REALLY wouldn't happen? ROTFLMAO
As for my point about Pitt Stadium, I probably ineloquently stated it. I n the previous post I stated "Pitt basically said they just didn’t really care about football all that much, and were content to have some good teams here and there but not worry about it all to much." - That's kinda what I meant. By tearing down the stadium, it was the last step in a systemic dismantling of their desire to be a top tier program. My apologies for not making that more clear.
Funny thing is that I think if we were sitting in a bar, we'd have a really good conversation going. On here though, it comes across and aggressive or demeaning sometimes. Just want you to know I'm not trying to dismiss or put down any or your posts at all.
No offense taken.
You can get as hypothetical as you want, but Pitt is still Pitt. When they were clicking in the 1970s, there using the local talent as the base and pulling in players from other places like Hugh Green from Mississippi and others. I just don't see it happening now.
