Why Two Years of Pitt-Penn State is Enough

by mikeo90 on Jun 15, 2011 12:07 PM EDT

Reader mikeo90 comments on the recent news about Pitt-Penn State renewing the rivalry:

Very exciting -- and very unexpected -- news broke this afternoon when it was announced that Pitt and Penn State will renew their dormant rivalry with a home-and-home series for the 2016 and 2017 seasons. After hearing the news this afternoon, I bumbled through my remaining few hours at work in a state of stunned euphoria. The lore of this great game, which I grew up around, but only vaguely experienced as a kid, will finally be tangible to me. That's great and that's why I'm so looking forward to this. However what makes me most excited? The series is only for two years. That's ideal, as this should not be a long-term agreement.

I'm without question one of the biggest Pitt fans you'll ever come across, but I'm thrilled this is just a two-year deal. Disgruntled fans are already out there, calling for the series to be resumed past the 2017 game. These people are simply foolish. It doesn't need to be and it shouldn't be. Pitt has 12 games during their regular season, around which to build a schedule. Beginning in 2012, with TCU joining the Big East, Pitt will play eight conference games (WVU, Cincy, TCU, Syracuse, Rutgers, USF, UConn, and Louisville). That leaves Pitt (and Penn State, because they also play eight conference games) with four "flexible" games. For Pitt, two of those games typically go to smaller schools from mid-major conferences. While these match-ups may not be the most riveting for fans, they're nice warm-up games to ease into the more consequential in-conference schedule. More importantly, they bring solid revenue to the athletic department at almost no cost, because Pitt doesn't have to do a return game. You don't have to be a financial savant to understand that revenue with few costs equals nice profit, so the fluff games aren't going anywhere. That leaves two games on the schedule, one of which goes to storied Notre Dame, who have a deal in place with Pitt through at least 2015. Add that up and it gives you one remaining game. Sure, that slot could go to Penn State (assuming they would agree to it, which they wouldn't) but that would mean the Panthers would play the same schedule EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. Sorry, but I'm no fan of that. I like playing Utah from out west. I like playing Big Ten power Iowa. Suiting up against the heros from Navy is always cool. Virginia Tech comes to Heinz Field in 2012. I'd much prefer to play a different schedule every year, with new opponents and fresh logos, than the same damn thing year in and year out. Even if that means passing on a long-term renewal of the Pitt - Penn State game.

A two year set for the Pennsyvlania Classic is perfect. It sparks excitement among two hungry fanbases and reinvigorates one of college football's classic rivalries, while giving both schools remaining flexibilty in their schedules. A game here, a game there - sure. But extending the series annually just isn't good business.

Here's to raising the gold & blue on high on September 10, 2016.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I agree in part.

It’s too much of a sacrifice for both schools to have the game as a fixture in the schedule, but a 15-year gap is too much. If the ’16 and ’17 games are successful, I think it could be extended. Ideally, we should lay each other every 4 or 5 years so each graduating class can get the experience.

by SlingStone on Jun 14, 2011 11:07 PM EDT reply actions

Agree/Disagree

In theory, Mike, I get your point. Looking at it from the business side, sure it makes sense that Pitt plays lower-level schools to boost financial revenue, but I’m not so sure that an bi-annual home game with Penn State would generate less revenue.

Think about it – a game against New Hampshire would obviously not sell out (unless Pitt gets to the point where they sell out season tickets). But a game against Penn State is a clear sell out. Further, ticket prices for that game could (and likely will) be packaged with other games, which will bring in more money. Then add in all of the concessions, etc., sold from that game.

I think in the end, the revenue would be a lot closer than you might think.

Plus, this is a big rivalry game. If there’s only one open slot, I’d much rather see Pitt play Penn State in that one slot each year than a Utah, Iowa, etc. That’s a matter of personal preference as I know you’d prefer to mix it up. But Ohio State would never dream of ending its series with Michigan to play someone like Florida State.

And I’d certainly rather play Penn State than Notre Dame, who has become an annual opponent. Good points, but I think we’re on different sides of the aisle on this one. I’d play Penn State at all costs – it’s so important for schools to have a rival and with all due respect to West Virginia (who, by the way, has clearly outplayed Pitt in football as of late), if Pitt plays Penn State again, that’s a bigger rival for Pitt in my opinion.

by CardiacHill on Jun 15, 2011 12:18 PM EDT reply actions

Penn State vs Pitt

I liked your article. I too was filled with the euphoria for the past and the hope for a renewal of the old annual classic. But after reading your points, I think your arguments are compelling and after a little reflection, I find myself agreeing with you. Thanks for a cogent article. Dan Powers

by Dan Powers on Jun 15, 2011 1:25 PM EDT reply actions

I think it would be great

to see the series be played every five years or so, as SlingStone commented, to keep the rivalry and excitement alive and well, without locking either school into a long-term commitment. Pitt doesn’t need Penn State on the schedule to accomplish its goals and I think constantly talking about it just makes us look inferior. And admittedly, in football, we currently are, but there is no need to propagate that.

Hail to Pitt, Hail to Pitt Every Loyal Son
Twitter: @mikeo90

by mikeo90 on Jun 16, 2011 9:21 PM EDT reply actions

Playing at Buffalo?

I’m with you on the PItt – Penn State football game although I do think a basketball game should be on the schedule every year. Why is Pitt playing at Buffalo next season & why did Pitt agree to do a home-and-home with Buffalo? Small crowd at last game in Buffalo. Don’t understand why Pederson did that.

by Tony77019 on Jul 30, 2011 11:53 PM EDT reply actions