Update on Pitt-PSU Series
- Thread starter poconopanther
- Start date
If you subbed out Wisconsin for Marshall & Mississippi State for Villanova and marketed it the season tickets would not increase more than 1000, if at all.
In fact, if we were coming off a bowl win, top 25 finish, and returning Pickett (or whoever) as a potential all american, your hypothetical schedule would sell more season tickets in the off-season than mine would coming off a non-top 25 finish and crap bowl game loss
To repeat....there are two teams that move the OOC needle & ticket sales, PSU & ND
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Well, the conference requires one OOC P5 game but that doesn't have to be at home. Right now you're asking her to market a program that is usually somewhere between 5-7 and 8-4. That's the hurdle now matter how dramatically you want to portray the schedule.
Also, if you look at actual, announced, OOC attendance the last few years, it becomes pretty obvious that the quality of opponent or whether they're P5, doesn't move the needle or carry any extra weight. Villanova outdrew Iowa and Youngstown State outdrew Oklahoma State. The only outliers are ND and PSU.
2014 Delaware 40,549
2014 Iowa 48,895
2014 Akron 40,059
2015 Youngstown State 49,969
2015 Notre Dame 68,400
2016 Villanova 50,149
2016 Penn State 69,983
2016 Marshall 45,246
2017 Youngstown State 40,012
2017 Oklahoma State 38,952
2017 Rice 33,290
Of course, those numbers are imaginary. Villanova certainly was, as was Marshall. Youngstown State was nowhere near that number. And yeah, I was there for all of them.
The guy who reports attendance must be a creative writing professor.
The guy who reports attendance must be a creative writing professor.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
That's fine. It's the only data set we have. There's a pretty clear correlation between Pitt's record/expectations and attendance though.
Interesting to note that Pitt's trip out to Stillwater drew 53,514. Two weeks later, sitting at 2-2, the game at home against Texas drew 53,468. It's not just Pitt.
The same you would any other schedule. Fans don't come out for Oklahoma State or Iowa and they wouldn't come out specifically for an OOC game against Rutgers or Cincinnati or any other also-ran non rival. The casual fans also won't come to the game against VT if Pitt went 2-2 OOC and are 6-4 overall going in, but the crowd will absolutely be better if we went 4-0 OCC and are 8-2 overall going in against VT, even though we would have exactly the same chance of winning our division.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I don't why all you guys advocating a dumbed down schedule automatically assume Pitt loses games with teams that are not roadkill. It's Narduzzi's fourth year and isn't it about time to expect that winnable games are just that, winnable.
That said, nothing I say is going to change your mind, so send Heather an email pitching a schedule made to manufacture 7-9 wins a year is the way to go. After all it worked out so well for Dixon on the basketball side.
Yes, yes it did. And it worked wonderfully for PSU for years and years and years and...
The reported numbers are for tickets sold not attended. The reason villanova was so high was because PSU was a home game and PSU fans had to buy seasom tickets therefore all season the attendance would be high. Ok State played at Pitt when they had neither ND or PSU at home. This year the numbers will be up again.
That's not true either. They've published numbers far lower than just the season tickets sold for certain games.
everyone's favorite nitter troll who admits he doesn't go to games is now commenting on attendance. Brilliant
HEY PITT FANS, PENN STATE DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY YOU. FILM AT 11. WHAT THE HELL MORE IS THERE TO SAY? WHY IS THIS A SURPRISE? JUST LET IT GO. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LET IT GO.
I agree. Just let Penn State go. Build a strong program that wins ten games regularly and play in major bowls. When Penn States sees an advantage to play Pitt, they will come knocking.
It's fashionable for the two premier Southern conferences to play only eight conference games. Want to take the PSU discussion off the table? Promote a 9-game ACC schedule. End of discussion. And with that 9-game schedule PItt will be playing FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and BC more often. That would be a positive.
The real story in those number is that Pitt needs a marque game that people fear will sell out to sell tickets to other games. So Pitt needs to try to get ND, Penn State, or another big name in every year.
Last edited:
never, it would be a sea of red and why give them one more recruiting tool
The post was in response to an assertion that two and only two visiting teams would fill Heinz.
I disagree and you affirm my perspective.
But you also use the same argument put forth by the folks in State College.
We remain our own worst enemy.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Want and need are two different things. Obviously, it's nice to have one of those schools on your schedule but it's never going to "fix" the problem. I'd much rather see Pitt average 45-50k per game than see a one game bump and average 35k the rest of the season. There's very little point in doing any deal with PSU that favors them if the "bump" is all that matters because it won't happen often enough to be impactful. If anything, it really messes up your long-term scheduling. ND is boiled into the schedule already so that's not a conversation worth having.
A nine game ACC schedule would make it even harder to play historic rivals. As well as to have the flexibility to schedule tougher OR easier schedules. Why would playing Boston College or Louisville more often excite you, by the way? I have no interest in those games.
The Big 10 requires a nine game conference schedule to make sure the top couple of teams have an easy shot at the playoffs.
They play at best one decent OOC game, and then feast on easy conference games, while at best playing one or two good conference games.
I don't want to see the ACC follow suit.
They play at best one decent OOC game, and then feast on easy conference games, while at best playing one or two good conference games.
I don't want to see the ACC follow suit.
I'd like to see every conference go further than the Big Ten.
Playing half the conference every year, and then rotating the other half for one game a year, is horrible. It leads to unbalanced schedules (we saw that in the Big Ten West and SEC East last year), and kills rivalries.
When you have conference expansion, that means you have teams that don't have a history of playing each other, and don't have natural geographic hostility towards each other. There's no reason why we should hate NC State. Why UVA should hate Boston College. The only way they can possibly develop a rivalry, which is what every conference should want among its teams, is for them to regularly play each other. Which can't happen with divisions.
Ideally, divisions are dumped. Conferences go to 10 conference games with maybe one or two constant rivals. And the rest rotate every year. You'd then play 2 out of conference games. And if they are cup cakes, whatever.
It sounds to me like 12 team conferences should be eliminated, to get the desired result you're looking for.
With a nine team conference, each team would play EVERY other team in the conference, plus a four game OOC.
But, I don't see the genie going back in the bottle.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
The Dude is claiming that the Big 12 is raiding the Pac whatever they're calling themselves now. Of course he's always right.
That would be even worse for WVU's travel schedule.
He doesn't think too far ahead when he comes up with his "Scoops", does he?
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Not really. Lets say the ACC only adds 2 teams. ND would be one.
The Big XII folds after GOR is over, which is looking like a possibility.
ACC then adds WVU.
ACC is now at 16 teams.
We play WVU every year as our locked in rival.
That leaves 14 teams left to play.
We could play 7 of them plus WVU. Which keeps it at just an 8 game conference schedule for those that like out of conference games.
The next year we play WVU again plus the other 7 teams.
That way we are playing WVU every year, and not going more than a year without playing any team in the ACC.
This also means that schedules within conferences don't get too unbalanced, because everybody is playing everybody within any given year.
Going to less teams would cut down on markets and money. That I don't want.
We could also do this now, you just increase the number of permanent rivals. Which would unbalance the schedules a little more, but still not as drastic as we see today.
That's a lot of dominoes falling just right, but okay.
We'd have to assume the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 would all follow suit, and take on more teams, otherwise per team payouts would not be in our favor.
Regardless, I think I would like that idea even less that what we have now.
WVU would be H or A every year. The other conference teams would be H, off, A, off, (or some combination of two out of four) so a four year player would only play each twice. I find that hard to develop any conference affiliation at all.
It's not really a lot of dominos though. Most people think 4 Super Conferences will be happening. Sooner rather than later. I'm assuming it's the Big XII that fails, as it's probably 50-50 whether they survive past the current GOR. But the only real domino are the teams, not whether the ACC will be a 16 team league within the next 5 to 10 years. That's a lock, unless the elite programs break away from the NCAA and form their own college football league. Which I guess could happen, but I'm betting on the 4 Super Conferences instead.
And yes, you'd play each other every year, rotating the home and away games. But I'm not sure why you don't think that builds rivalry? The point would be to get teams in the conference actually playing conference games against each other, rather than seeing each other once every 5 years.
I see your point about playing each conference team every other year, but I see that as a watered down version of conference play.
Quantity vs quality?
I'd rather play divisional foes every year than all teams every other year.
That's just odd to me. The idea of playing a team in your conference, once every 5 to 6 years, is just a bizarre concept in my mind. It's literally the complete opposite of what a "conference" is created for.
And like I said, when the ACC expands in a few years, and it's going to if it's still alive, the rotation will be even worse. It's going to be possible to go through an entire two term presidency before you play each other twice. That's just not how it should be.
I don't think it's ideal, but we're going to have to agree to disagree.
I think it's odd to only play one team every year.
It will be interesting to see where the almighty dollar leads college football.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
pittdan77
Athletic Director
East = Division
AFC = Conference
I know it's not quite apples to apples but we accept it without too much argument. MLB, once upon a time, was much more closely aligned to your "conference" argument but they went away from that model too. Those days are gone.
But that doesn't mean College Football Conference = AFC Conference.
Divisions in pro sports were intended to be your regional rivalries, that you played every year. And by winning it, you got a reward (playoffs).
That's what "conferences" are in college sports. They still largely are regional. Expansion has changed that some, but the SEC is still mostly the south east The PAC 12 is still largely west coast teams. Etc. And winning them gives you a reward (the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Cotton Bowl, etc.).
You're too caught up in the language. Pro divisions are the equivalent of college conferences.
And I'm not following your MLB point?
