Neutral Site game

[Sean Miller Fan]

I agree. I think Franklin wants two cupcakes and would prefer to play, say -- Auburn, Buffalo, and Idaho (two true auto-wins, one big game) over Pitt, Navy, and Temple (three games that are historically interesting that you should win but could also lose.)

To be fair, most teams who play 9 conference games, do not play 2 P5 OOC games but some do. The fact that they need that extra home game to fund for financial reasons is simply a lie. The vast majority of their tickets are sold as a season ticket PACKAGE. They could drop the FCS game from the schedule and play 6 home games and still charge the same amount as for their 7 game home season. They'd also save the million bucks it costs to bring them in and dont have to staff the stadium that day.

Since they are so awesome and great, beating Pitt, who is at least a half decent team every year will look better on their CFP resume than an FCS team

 

[dookpsu13]

I can tell you that in 2016 Penn State reported $31.4M in ticket revenue. I'm not going to research further, so I am making an assumption that this number includes all of their ticket revenue from football games, which ends up averaging roughly $45 per ticket per game and roughly $4.5M per game in total ticket sales. I don't know if they breakdown the other revenue for concessions, parking, club seating, etc. However, I would be confident that if this game were a special yearly event at Heinz Field as the neutral site (say on Veterans Day weekend, for example) then both schools should be able to work on maximizing revenue beyond just ticket sales. Have sponsors for the game. Share a portion of the concessions. Make it a THING. Would Penn State still end up earning less? I have no idea. However, they would likely win 8/10 so it benefits them from that perspective. Not a total cupcake, but a decent win most years.

With that being said, it isn't going to happen. Too much work involved for Pitt to even consider that type of thinking ahead. Much easier to stay at HF, collect the ACC paycheck, transfer money to other athletic programs within Pitt, and then tell people you are working to make football great.

the $4.5 is just ticket prices.
Factor in Parking - lets be conservative and say 30 k park there (3-4 to a car, offsite parking, students) at 25 per spot - that is an additional 750,000
Let's look at concessions
Assume the average person spends a bit more than $10 (one drink, 1 item). That is an additional 1.1 million
Now Look at Merchandise. Most PSU fans aren't buying Merchandising at the stadium - so lets say 10 k (1 in 10) purchase at $20 - additional 200k.

This totals ~2 million - so the net income is ~ 6.5 million. In the scenario that pays PSU 7 million to play at Heinz - that would be 500k more.

Yes PSU has expenses to operating home games (Cleanup, etc) - but they would have expenses playing in Pittsburgh. Transportation to Pittsburgh, More Hotel Rooms (especially if the band attended), renting Heinz, etc. It would probably cost more to travel to Pittsburgh than it costs to operate a home game. but lets assume this is a wash

So for 500,000 - PSU would limit scheduling flexibility, PSU would only cater to alums in WPA area with easily traveled road games, PSU would irritate the local community - who relies on PSU football for alot of revenue?

 

[JWB389]

the $4.5 is just ticket prices.
Factor in Parking - lets be conservative and say 30 k park there (3-4 to a car, offsite parking, students) at 25 per spot - that is an additional 750,000
Let's look at concessions
Assume the average person spends a bit more than $10 (one drink, 1 item). That is an additional 1.1 million
Now Look at Merchandise. Most PSU fans aren't buying Merchandising at the stadium - so lets say 10 k (1 in 10) purchase at $20 - additional 200k.

This totals ~2 million - so the net income is ~ 6.5 million. In the scenario that pays PSU 7 million to play at Heinz - that would be 500k more.

Yes PSU has expenses to operating home games (Cleanup, etc) - but they would have expenses playing in Pittsburgh. Transportation to Pittsburgh, More Hotel Rooms (especially if the band attended), renting Heinz, etc. It would probably cost more to travel to Pittsburgh than it costs to operate a home game. but lets assume this is a wash

So for 500,000 - PSU would limit scheduling flexibility, PSU would only cater to alums in WPA area with easily traveled road games, PSU would irritate the local community - who relies on PSU football for alot of revenue?

You cannot discount the value of a home game to the local community either. I have always wondered if there was some type of agreement with a local entity to maximize the home schedule. There are fans who like to mock the remote location of State College. Surely they recognize the impact of a home game on the local businesses.

People point to very specific reasons. In all likelihood, it's a combination of all of those reasons. The bottom line is that PSU has determined that they need as many home games as possible. You can choose to believe their reasons or not. Nobody outside of the inner circle is going to change it.

 

[NTOP]

the $4.5 is just ticket prices.
Factor in Parking - lets be conservative and say 30 k park there (3-4 to a car, offsite parking, students) at 25 per spot - that is an additional 750,000
Let's look at concessions
Assume the average person spends a bit more than $10 (one drink, 1 item). That is an additional 1.1 million
Now Look at Merchandise. Most PSU fans aren't buying Merchandising at the stadium - so lets say 10 k (1 in 10) purchase at $20 - additional 200k.

This totals ~2 million - so the net income is ~ 6.5 million. In the scenario that pays PSU 7 million to play at Heinz - that would be 500k more.

Yes PSU has expenses to operating home games (Cleanup, etc) - but they would have expenses playing in Pittsburgh. Transportation to Pittsburgh, More Hotel Rooms (especially if the band attended), renting Heinz, etc. It would probably cost more to travel to Pittsburgh than it costs to operate a home game. but lets assume this is a wash

So for 500,000 - PSU would limit scheduling flexibility, PSU would only cater to alums in WPA area with easily traveled road games, PSU would irritate the local community - who relies on PSU football for alot of revenue?

You nitwits claimed for years that there were more psu grads in Allegheny County than Pitt grads.....a total lie. Even with your bloated size diploma mill, it wasn't even close. The truth was/is that there are more of you ag grads in Allegheny County than any other......mowing lawns at our country clubs, changing sheets in hotels and manning drive throughs.

 

[HailtoPitt]

the $4.5 is just ticket prices.
Factor in Parking - lets be conservative and say 30 k park there (3-4 to a car, offsite parking, students) at 25 per spot - that is an additional 750,000
Let's look at concessions
Assume the average person spends a bit more than $10 (one drink, 1 item). That is an additional 1.1 million
Now Look at Merchandise. Most PSU fans aren't buying Merchandising at the stadium - so lets say 10 k (1 in 10) purchase at $20 - additional 200k.

This totals ~2 million - so the net income is ~ 6.5 million. In the scenario that pays PSU 7 million to play at Heinz - that would be 500k more.

Yes PSU has expenses to operating home games (Cleanup, etc) - but they would have expenses playing in Pittsburgh. Transportation to Pittsburgh, More Hotel Rooms (especially if the band attended), renting Heinz, etc. It would probably cost more to travel to Pittsburgh than it costs to operate a home game. but lets assume this is a wash

So for 500,000 - PSU would limit scheduling flexibility, PSU would only cater to alums in WPA area with easily traveled road games, PSU would irritate the local community - who relies on PSU football for alot of revenue?

$7M is just my estimate from ticket sales. The two schools could also share sponsor revenue, concessions, and more. Perhaps the tv revenue would be decent ad well. Personally, I don't think Penn State (or Pitt) cares one bit about the local revenue if it doesn't help their own bottom line.

 

[pittdan77]

It is a money thing, which is why I disagree with this post. Heinz Field would be chump change compared to Beaver Stadium: 40,000 more seats, all the parking and concession revenue, no travel expenses.
PSU would never, ever give up a home game to play anywhere on the road — even if PSU kept all the revenue.
The fact is a Pitt game at PSU does not bring in much more revenue than an Idaho game at PSU. Maybe 5,000 additional tickets. It makes far more economic sense to play seven home games and pay out a $1 million guarantee than to drop back to six home games every other year to fit any school in the schedule.

I’ve enjoyed the debate, but spent too much time on it. I’m out. Enjoy the game Saturday.

It was an exaggeration. My point isn't about where or how. It's this notion that PSU and Pitt owe it to the world to play a game that only Gen X-er's and older care about when it's really about money.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You cannot discount the value of a home game to the local community either. I have always wondered if there was some type of agreement with a local entity to maximize the home schedule. There are fans who like to mock the remote location of State College. Surely they recognize the impact of a home game on the local businesses.

People point to very specific reasons. In all likelihood, it's a combination of all of those reasons. The bottom line is that PSU has determined that they need as many home games as possible. You can choose to believe their reasons or not. Nobody outside of the inner circle is going to change it.

So now that I proved their FCS scrimmage has no financial value, the reason for playing it has shifted to helping out the shops on College Avenue? Geez.

 

[dookpsu13]

$7M is just my estimate from ticket sales. The two schools could also share sponsor revenue, concessions, and more. Perhaps the tv revenue would be decent ad well. Personally, I don't think Penn State (or Pitt) cares one bit about the local revenue if it doesn't help their own bottom line.

Assuming $200/ticket (which is high) the $7 million take would be maximum from gate

The teams would also have to lower that amount as they would have to pay the rent of the stadium.

Now let's look at your additional revenue you site
1) How much is a company really going to contribute for 1 game a year? Maybe a million dollars - so 500 k each
2) Parking/Concessions probably won't be split 50/50 as no stadium authority would do that for 1 game/year unless the rental was very high (which would offset this)
3) TV revenue wouldn't change. Whoever 'hosted' the game (assume 'home' would rotate) and it would fall under the conferences tv deal.

At most the peripherals would add maybe 500k-1 million to the pot per team. Again not enough to offset the negatives.

There are only 3 games that are consistently played at a neutral site.
1) CU/CSU - The Broncos stadium is significantly bigger than both CUs and CSUs stadium so it would make sense. Most stadiums that Pitt/PSU would use are similar size to Heinz and smaller than Beaver Stadium
2) UF/UGA - UGA has tried in the past to go back to Home/Home - but has been rebuffed. There is also an advantage that they have a game yearly in Florida (recruiting) which probably helps them recruit there some even though Athens isn't that far from Florida
3) UT/OU - Dallas is essentially the mid point between Dallas/Norman (From city Centers - it is 196 to Austin and 190 to Norman). It is part of the Dallas State Fair - which draws many fans from both teams - which likely increases merchandise sales out side the stadium. Plus OU benefits from the game as it gives them an annual game in Dallas (a recruiting hot bed). Texas may be the only school in the country that doesn't need revenue from anything (due to oil money)

 

[goethe14]

So now that I proved their FCS scrimmage has no financial value, the reason for playing it has shifted to helping out the shops on College Avenue? Geez.

It's no value to play Pitt. It's pretty simple. PSU can plug any team into that slot and will make the same money. Pitt adds no more to the equation than Idaho or Buffalo in regards to money PSU will make. For the last time the only team that benefits is Pitt every other year with increased season ticket sales and a larger than normal home game.

Edit. To add the only people that do benefit from playing Pitt over Buffalo etc are the ones you are mocking. Every VRBO, campground etc will charge more for this game. Not the school though.

 

[JWB389]

So now that I proved their FCS scrimmage has no financial value, the reason for playing it has shifted to helping out the shops on College Avenue? Geez.

I think you failed to read the entire post..I'll copy the important part here again for you...People point to very specific reasons. In all likelihood, it's a combination of all of those reasons.

You're probably right though, there is likely no value to the local economy, which is why NFL teams have stopped building new stadiums altogether.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Assuming $200/ticket (which is high) the $7 million take would be maximum from gate

The teams would also have to lower that amount as they would have to pay the rent of the stadium.

Now let's look at your additional revenue you site
1) How much is a company really going to contribute for 1 game a year? Maybe a million dollars - so 500 k each
2) Parking/Concessions probably won't be split 50/50 as no stadium authority would do that for 1 game/year unless the rental was very high (which would offset this)
3) TV revenue wouldn't change. Whoever 'hosted' the game (assume 'home' would rotate) and it would fall under the conferences tv deal.

At most the peripherals would add maybe 500k-1 million to the pot per team. Again not enough to offset the negatives.

There are only 3 games that are consistently played at a neutral site.
1) CU/CSU - The Broncos stadium is significantly bigger than both CUs and CSUs stadium so it would make sense. Most stadiums that Pitt/PSU would use are similar size to Heinz and smaller than Beaver Stadium
2) UF/UGA - UGA has tried in the past to go back to Home/Home - but has been rebuffed. There is also an advantage that they have a game yearly in Florida (recruiting) which probably helps them recruit there some even though Athens isn't that far from Florida
3) UT/OU - Dallas is essentially the mid point between Dallas/Norman (From city Centers - it is 196 to Austin and 190 to Norman). It is part of the Dallas State Fair - which draws many fans from both teams - which likely increases merchandise sales out side the stadium. Plus OU benefits from the game as it gives them an annual game in Dallas (a recruiting hot bed). Texas may be the only school in the country that doesn't need revenue from anything (due to oil money)

What are the negatives. I guess it shoud be clear that Penn State and it's fans will use every excuse in the book to not play the game, which is why we should not play it... ever.

 

[dookpsu13]

What are the negatives. I guess it shoud be clear that Penn State and it's fans will use every excuse in the book to not play the game, which is why we should not play it... ever.

1) Negatives - Players/Coaches have to leave town. Road/Neutral site games are harder on athletes than home games
2) Less games for majority of students to be able to view.
3) Dramatic impact to the local economy.
4) More expenses to travel to the game - Airfare for team, band, support staff. Hotels for support staff/Band (team typically stays in hotel night before game so that is a wash), Per diem for hundreds of personel
5) One less home recruiting weekend

 

[JWB389]

What are the negatives. I guess it shoud be clear that Penn State and it's fans will use every excuse in the book to not play the game, which is why we should not play it... ever.

The fans have no input.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It's no value to play Pitt. It's pretty simple. PSU can plug any team into that slot and will make the same money. Pitt adds no more to the equation than Idaho or Buffalo in regards to money PSU will make. For the last time the only team that benefits is Pitt every other year with increased season ticket sales and a larger than normal home game.

Edit. To add the only people that do benefit from playing Pitt over Buffalo etc are the ones you are mocking. Every VRBO, campground etc will charge more for this game. Not the school though.

So you are telling me that the Pitt game and the Idaho game have the same VALUE for the PSU season ticket package?

 

[psuKinger]

To be fair, most teams who play 9 conference games, do not play 2 P5 OOC games but some do. The fact that they need that extra home game to fund for financial reasons is simply a lie. The vast majority of their tickets are sold as a season ticket PACKAGE. They could drop the FCS game from the schedule and play 6 home games and still charge the same amount as for their 7 game home season. They'd also save the million bucks it costs to bring them in and dont have to staff the stadium that day.

Since they are so awesome and great, beating Pitt, who is at least a half decent team every year will look better on their CFP resume than an FCS team

First, charging people the same amount of money for less product without there being any sort of backlash would be silly or naive. I totally get it that you probably don't care about whatever backlash Penn State fans would give to the program for doing that, but the program does/would care... I can't imagine how, in any other aspect of your life, you would be perfectly happy to continue paying the same amount of money in exchange for 85.7% as much product. That's not real. People would (rightly) expect a price reduction in exchange for fewer tickets.

Secondly, Penn State scheduling 7-home-games-a-year for the added Gate Revenue is the norm, it's not the exception. Most other "big programs" do this too. That includes Clemson, Florida State, and Virginia Tech (as well as Notre Dame) from your conference, OSU, Michigan, and Nebraska from our Conference, and Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU from the SEC.

Are their "exceptions" to the norm? Sure. Just at a quick glance (without doing an exhaustive study) it looks like Texas and Oklahoma are both averaging 6.5 home games a year (almost 7, still more than your "you should just play 6" up above) over the next couple years. But *most* of the big, Blue Blood programs, with giant fanbases and giant stadiums with the ability to bring in "big gate revenue," take advantage of that fact by schedule 7 home games a year. This isn't a "Penn State thing". This is a "college football thing". It's ok if you don't like it. I don't either, FWIW. But it is what it is.

So from there, it becomes pretty simple math: if you play in a League that plays 9 conference games a year (Big10, Pac10, Big 12), then 4.5 home games and 4.5 away games a year are schedule for you. The only way to get to 14-home-games-every-2-years is to schedule your non-con so that you play 5 of your 6 non-conference games (every-2-years) at home. This does not give you a lot to work with in terms of flexability.

Is it IMPOSSIBLE to play Pitt every year, home-and-away? No. But it does mean we can ONLY play Pitt every year, home-and-away, and schedule two other one-and-done no-return-game scrubs. We can't schedule anyone else of significance. So do we WANT to play you and only you, and no one else (of interest), ever, forever and ever? The answer, for me, is yes... but I can totally see someone else's point if they say no... if you can't see how someone else can reasonably and rationally say "no" to that, I don't know what to tell you... doesn't matter what you can or can't understand. "It is what it is".

We should have been in the same conference for the last 35 years. Either on our terms (the All-Eastern League) or yours (The Big East). What's done is done. Our two program's inability to work together in the 1980's has had longterm implications on the "rivalry," and now we don't get to play a game that I personally wish we played every year (but can totally understand why we don't)....

 

[NTOP]

First, charging people the same amount of money for less product without there being any sort of backlash would be silly or naive. I totally get it that you probably don't care about whatever backlash Penn State fans would give to the program for doing that, but the program does/would care... I can't imagine how, in any other aspect of your life, you would be perfectly happy to continue paying the same amount of money in exchange for 85.7% as much product. That's not real. People would (rightly) expect a price reduction in exchange for fewer tickets.

Secondly, Penn State scheduling 7-home-games-a-year for the added Gate Revenue is the norm, it's not the exception. Most other "big programs" do this too. That includes Clemson, Florida State, and Virginia Tech (as well as Notre Dame) from your conference, OSU, Michigan, and Nebraska from our Conference, and Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU from the SEC.

Are their "exceptions" to the norm? Sure. Just at a quick glance (without doing an exhaustive study) it looks like Texas and Oklahoma are both averaging 6.5 home games a year (almost 7, still more than your "you should just play 6" up above) over the next couple years. But *most* of the big, Blue Blood programs, with giant fanbases and giant stadiums with the ability to bring in "big gate revenue," take advantage of that fact by schedule 7 home games a year. This isn't a "Penn State thing". This is a "college football thing". It's ok if you don't like it. I don't either, FWIW. But it is what it is.

So from there, it becomes pretty simple math: if you play in a League that plays 9 conference games a year (Big10, Pac10, Big 12), then 4.5 home games and 4.5 away games a year are schedule for you. The only way to get to 14-home-games-every-2-years is to schedule your non-con so that you play 5 of your 6 non-conference games (every-2-years) at home. This does not give you a lot to work with in terms of flexability.

Is it IMPOSSIBLE to play Pitt every year, home-and-away? No. But it does mean we can ONLY play Pitt every year, home-and-away, and schedule two other one-and-done no-return-game scrubs. We can't schedule anyone else. So do we WANT to play you and only you, and no one else (of interest), ever, forever and ever? The answer, for me, is yes... but I can totally see someone else's point if they say no... if you can't see how someone else can reasonably and rationally say "no" to that, I don't know what to tell you... doesn't matter what you can or can't understand. "It is what it is".

We should have been in the same conference for the last 35 years. Either on our terms (the All-Eastern League) or yours (The Big East). What's done is done. Our two program's inability to work together in the 1980's has had longterm implications on the "rivalry," and now we don't get to play a game that I personally wish we played every year (but can totally understand why we don't)....

It's all on Joe...... I expect the statue to be resurrected soon.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

First, charging people the same amount of money for less product without there being any sort of backlash would be silly or naive. I totally get it that you probably don't care about whatever backlash Penn State fans would give to the program for doing that, but the program does/would care... I can't imagine how, in any other aspect of your life, you would be perfectly happy to continue paying the same amount of money in exchange for 85.7% as much product. That's not real. People would (rightly) expect a price reduction in exchange for fewer tickets.

Secondly, Penn State scheduling 7-home-games-a-year for the added Gate Revenue is the norm, it's not the exception. Most other "big programs" do this too. That includes Clemson, Florida State, and Virginia Tech (as well as Notre Dame) from your conference, OSU, Michigan, and Nebraska from our Conference, and Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU from the SEC.

Are their "exceptions" to the norm? Sure. Just at a quick glance (without doing an exhaustive study) it looks like Texas and Oklahoma are both averaging 6.5 home games a year (almost 7, still more than your "you should just play 6" up above) over the next couple years. But *most* of the big, Blue Blood programs, with giant fanbases and giant stadiums with the ability to bring in "big gate revenue," take advantage of that fact by schedule 7 home games a year. This isn't a "Penn State thing". This is a "college football thing". It's ok if you don't like it. I don't either, FWIW. But it is what it is.

So from there, it becomes pretty simple math: if you play in a League that plays 9 conference games a year (Big10, Pac10, Big 12), then 4.5 home games and 4.5 away games a year are schedule for you. The only way to get to 14-home-games-every-2-years is to schedule your non-con so that you play 5 of your 6 non-conference games (every-2-years) at home. This does not give you a lot to work with in terms of flexability.

Is it IMPOSSIBLE to play Pitt every year, home-and-away? No. But it does mean we can ONLY play Pitt every year, home-and-away, and schedule two other one-and-done no-return-game scrubs. We can't schedule anyone else of significance. So do we WANT to play you and only you, and no one else (of interest), ever, forever and ever? The answer, for me, is yes... but I can totally see someone else's point if they say no... if you can't see how someone else can reasonably and rationally say "no" to that, I don't know what to tell you... doesn't matter what you can or can't understand. "It is what it is".

We should have been in the same conference for the last 35 years. Either on our terms (the All-Eastern League) or yours (The Big East). What's done is done. Our two program's inability to work together in the 1980's has had longterm implications on the "rivalry," and now we don't get to play a game that I personally wish we played every year (but can totally understand why we don't)....

Very simple. You guys are cultists. Have James Franklin or Sue Paterno or that fan son come out and introduce your new scheduling philosophy and all the benefits of dropping the FCS game and playing 2 P5 OOC games including a big in-state rival and how winning those games will help your CFP profile. Its all about the CFP. End in "We are" and PSU fans will think its the greatest thing ever.

 

[psuKinger]

It's all on Joe...... I expect the statue to be resurrected soon.

Is part of the reason why PSU doesn't play Pitt "on Joe"? Sure. You won't find me denying that.

But "it's all on Joe" is nonsense. It's typical of this board and fanbase, but nonsense none-the-less. After being rejected by Pitt and the other Eastern schools for his All-Eastern League (with terms and conditions favorable to PSU at everyone else's expense), PSU applied for acceptance into the Big East... which Pitt's leadership spearheaded the charge to keep PSU out of. That's squarely on Pitt.

 

[psuKinger]

Very simple. You guys are cultists. Have James Franklin or Sue Paterno or that fan son come out and introduce your new scheduling philosophy and all the benefits of dropping the FCS game and playing 2 P5 OOC games including a big in-state rival and how winning those games will help your CFP profile. Its all about the CFP. End in "We are" and PSU fans will think its the greatest thing ever.

And with that - I'm done here. There's clearly no good debate to be had. Nothing I say is going to change your mind in any way.

Enjoy the game on Saturday. Good luck and God Bless.

 

[NTOP]

Is part of the reason why PSU doesn't play Pitt "on Joe"? Sure. You won't find me denying that.

But "it's all on Joe" is nonsense. It's typical of this board and fanbase, but nonsense none-the-less. After being rejected by Pitt and the other Eastern schools for his All-Eastern League (with terms and conditions favorable to PSU at everyone else's expense), PSU applied for acceptance into the Big East... which Pitt's leadership spearheaded the charge to keep PSU out of. That's squarely on Pitt.

That's simply a false narrative. Gavitt told Joe no, not interested.....and THEN they called Pitt, who accepted. And my source of the backdrop was in a position to know....the MBB head coach of an original BE member.

 

[goalieman]

And with that - I'm done here. There's clearly no good debate to be had. Nothing I say is going to change your mind in any way.

Enjoy the game on Saturday. Good luck and God Bless.

Good luck to you as well, but look, if PSU doesn't want to play Pitt and restore a once great college football rivalry for whatever reason they can conjure up and spew out, that's fine ..... if PSU changes their mind, they can give us a call and we can decide if we want to accept their proposal ...... in the meantime, I can assure you of one thing, Pitt will be just fine with or without Penn State.

 

[PittMan 72]

Is part of the reason why PSU doesn't play Pitt "on Joe"? Sure. You won't find me denying that.

But "it's all on Joe" is nonsense. It's typical of this board and fanbase, but nonsense none-the-less. After being rejected by Pitt and the other Eastern schools for his All-Eastern League (with terms and conditions favorable to PSU at everyone else's expense), PSU applied for acceptance into the Big East... which Pitt's leadership spearheaded the charge to keep PSU out of. That's squarely on Pitt.

That's simply a false narrative. Gavitt told Joe no, not interested.....and THEN they called Pitt, who accepted. And my source of the backdrop was in a position to know....the MBB head coach of an original BE member.

Absolutely accurate, NTOP. Joe contacted Gavitt and requested that he add the nits to the BE. It was basketball only then. At the time Joe contacted Gavitt, Pitt was NOT a member of the BE. So there is NO WAY Pitt could have blocked the nits from getting in to the BE.

Just more "Nittany Lyin" being spewed by the nit you responded to. Some of them are great at revisionism. Just like the nonsense from some of them still crying as to why so many games were played at Pitt Stadium back in the day. Why were those games played in Pittsburgh? Pitt did it to ACCOMODATE the nits. In the days when most of the games were played in Pittsburgh, the nits played their home games at Beaver Field (pictured below). The nits WANTED those games AT PITT for financial and logistical reasons.

 

[Ditka1960]

I'm not even sure how this is relevant. Penn State may be the 4th best program in that division, but they are still ahead of Pitt by quite a large margin.

We’ll find out Saturday.

 

[PittMan 72]

I am telling you the season ticket package which is sold to over 95k people and obviously makes up the majority of the gate revenue woule be the same price yearly whether Idaho or Pitt was in that slot. They do not sell season tickets per game and you know this already. Again the only thing that would hurt sales is losing seasons not some slot in the 3rd week of the OOC schedule. But again you know this and want to argue over nonsense. The funny thing is the only thing that Pitt does add value to is the local businesses who can charge more for rooms etc but you laughed at the notion. They can manipulate whatever numbers they want on the tickets for example 45 for Pitt and 35 for Idaho whatever. But the end number will always be the number they want not the individual number you desperately want to keep talking about. Piit does not help sell season tickets...end of story. PSU however does help Pitt sell season tickets.

The nits sell individual game tickets. So they have to have an established per game price.

https://gopsusports.com/news/2019/7/1/football-public-single-game-ticket-sale-set-for-july-2.aspx

 

[tjb]

I loved the Pitt-Penn State series. I went to school during that brief period when one or both programs were top 5. I got to see some of the greatest college players of all time in person.

I really do think all the vendetta stuff from Penn State is over. Just about everybody running the place at Penn State athletics, and the university president, is post-Sandusky purge.

Now Penn State is all about balancing money (administrative side) and the risk/reward for a potential CFP spot (the football side). (Set aside for a minute your own opinion about whether Penn State should make any decisions based on CFP impact - that’s what the football people are concerned about.)

I don’t know if anyone knows for certain what the best CFP-smart scheduling strategy is, but I suspect Penn State believes that a win over Buffalo is better than a loss at Pittsburgh, and that a win in Pittsburgh nets out as neutral.

As for the money grab, here are the numbers of sports sponsored by the schools often mentioned in the OOC rival scheduling discussion:

UGA - 19
GT - 17

FL - 21
FSU - 20

CLEM - 19
SC - 19

PITT - 19
PSU - 31

TX - 18
TAMU - 20

That’s a lot of sports at Penn State, just about all of them competing against league foes who also get $55M a year in TV money.

Throw in nine league games (one more than just about everyone else), and the competition amongst internal factions for those OOC spots gets rough.

Right now it looks like the home and home is reserved for areas where Penn State wants to extend its recruiting footprint. (The incredible reduction in the D1 football talent produced by Pennsylvania is also a factor for Penn State scheduling.)

Disrupting the series during the vendetta period seems to have destroyed the perceived inevitability or requirement that the two schools play. The way the generations speed forward, the number of alumni who remember Hugh Green, Matt Millen, Matt Cavanaugh, Curt Warner or even Johnny Majors, Jackie Sherrill, Joe Paterno or Jerry Sandusky, is dwindling fast. The emotional connection is not there for them.

Kind of a bummer from my perspective.

 

[SLion]

Jealousy and bitterness by PSUs East rivals caused the demise of BE. There was no other reason and Pitt obviously angled itself to get in while trying to squeeze PSU out.

"If Penn State was rejected, B.C. and Syracuse might have no other option but to leave the BIG EAST, and join together with the other Eastern independents. To expand membership in The BIG EAST Conference six affirmative votes were necessary. The vote was 5-3. Instead of taking Penn State, we invited Pittsburgh as the ninth member. At that time Pittsburgh and Penn State were bitter rivals, and Pittsburgh was less than enamored with aligning itself with Penn State. Pitt's membership in the BIG EAST, along with B.C. and Syracuse, checkmated Penn State's eastern all-sports conference, and gave the Conference one more Division IA school. This football issue nearly caused the premature demise of the BIG EAST. Clearly, three schools in the BIG EAST had no concept of the importance of football, but the others realized that this decision not to invite Penn State would come back to haunt us. In fact, football would dictate every future consideration of membership expansion of our "basketball" conference.

-From Jake Crouthamel, SU AD

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

LOL, it was 3 basketball schools that voted against PSU. I didn't know G-Town, Nova, and St. John's were your rivals.

 

[Safety Blitz]

Wow....you guys are still going at it all these hours later.
SMF, I applaud your strong defense of Pitt and its football team. But you did not prove that playing Pitt home/home at the expense of a home game every other year makes economic sense for PSU. Far from it. Your financial acumen is weak. Your premise is wrong and that has been explained by multiple people in this thread.
I’m sorry you elected to slide into the gutter by calling PSU people cultists. That type of insult does nothing to advance civil discussion. How do you expect people to take your thoughts seriously when start calling names like a grade school kid?
The bottom line to this discussion is PSU will continue to play 7 homes games. PSU will not schedule long term home/home with any school. And there are not enough people in decision making positions at PSU who believe Pitt brings any significant value to the PSU football schedule. There is lots of room for disagreement, but nobody here gets a vote.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Jealousy and bitterness by PSUs East rivals caused the demise of BE. There was no other reason and Pitt obviously angled itself to get in while trying to squeeze PSU out.

"If Penn State was rejected, B.C. and Syracuse might have no other option but to leave the BIG EAST, and join together with the other Eastern independents. To expand membership in The BIG EAST Conference six affirmative votes were necessary. The vote was 5-3. Instead of taking Penn State, we invited Pittsburgh as the ninth member. At that time Pittsburgh and Penn State were bitter rivals, and Pittsburgh was less than enamored with aligning itself with Penn State. Pitt's membership in the BIG EAST, along with B.C. and Syracuse, checkmated Penn State's eastern all-sports conference, and gave the Conference one more Division IA school. This football issue nearly caused the premature demise of the BIG EAST. Clearly, three schools in the BIG EAST had no concept of the importance of football, but the others realized that this decision not to invite Penn State would come back to haunt us. In fact, football would dictate every future consideration of membership expansion of our "basketball" conference.

-From Jake Crouthamel, SU AD

Hold on a second. You are positing that what kept an all Eastern League from happening was jealousy and not Paterno's ridiculous plan that Penn State would get to keep all it's football revenues but that all basketball revenues were to be split equally?

God, you nitters are so dumb. Predictable, but dumb.

IF Paterno had proposed an Eastern Conference that worked in the same way as every other league in the country an Eastern Conference would have almost certainly happened. But he didn't care about Eastern Football, he cared about Penn State. Which is why he proposed a lopsided deal that no one was going to agree to, and it's also why he was so willing to overlook a pedophile for decades on the off chance that getting rid of him may have hurt the program.

There's a reason that Pitt didn't want any part of Paterno's plan. And neither did West Virginia. Or Syracuse. Or Boston College. Or Rutgers. Or Maryland. Or Temple. And jealousy had nothing at all to do with it.

 

[TempleBAPittMPA]

Jealousy and bitterness by PSUs East rivals caused the demise of BE. There was no other reason and Pitt obviously angled itself to get in while trying to squeeze PSU out.

"If Penn State was rejected, B.C. and Syracuse might have no other option but to leave the BIG EAST, and join together with the other Eastern independents. To expand membership in The BIG EAST Conference six affirmative votes were necessary. The vote was 5-3. Instead of taking Penn State, we invited Pittsburgh as the ninth member. At that time Pittsburgh and Penn State were bitter rivals, and Pittsburgh was less than enamored with aligning itself with Penn State. Pitt's membership in the BIG EAST, along with B.C. and Syracuse, checkmated Penn State's eastern all-sports conference, and gave the Conference one more Division IA school. This football issue nearly caused the premature demise of the BIG EAST. Clearly, three schools in the BIG EAST had no concept of the importance of football, but the others realized that this decision not to invite Penn State would come back to haunt us. In fact, football would dictate every future consideration of membership expansion of our "basketball" conference.

-From Jake Crouthamel, SU AD

Jake Crouthamel has the authoritative narrative? Jake Crouthamel is as responsible as anyone for the demise of the Big East.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Jake Crouthamel has the authoritative narrative? Jake Crouthamel is as responsible as anyone for the demise of the Big East.

And the funny thing is that if you read all of what he has said on the matter he puts the blame for an all eastern conference failing to come to fruition squarely on the shoulders of Paterno.

Notice how the nitter didn't mention any of that.

 

[JWB389]

Is part of the reason why PSU doesn't play Pitt "on Joe"? Sure. You won't find me denying that.

I think you have to qualify it by saying "at one time" part of the blame was on Paterno. I am pretty confident that Joe no longer has any influence.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

Yes and thank God for that! He can no longer help cover up a child molester who is now in jail!

I think you have to qualify it by saying "at one time" part of the blame was on Paterno. I am pretty confident that Joe no longer has any influence.

 

[fizzyskittles]

You can argue who did what 30-40 years ago but the move to the big ten killed any long term series. In western Pa. this is a big deal for many PSU fans. In eastern Pa. Notre Dame was considered more of a big rival than Pitt.
I knew 3 or 4 Pitt fans growing up and was friends with a Pitt player, Carson Long, later in life. But with the logistics and current lack of interest in what I believe is the majority of the alumni I don’t see a regular series happening.
Notre Dame is the second most popular team in my area by a huge margin fwiw.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

You can argue who did what 30-40 years ago but the move to the big ten killed any long term series. In western Pa. this is a big deal for many PSU fans. In eastern Pa. Notre Dame was considered more of a big rival than Pitt.
I knew 3 or 4 Pitt fans growing up and was friends with a Pitt player, Carson Long, later in life. But with the logistics and current lack of interest in what I believe is the majority of the alumni I don’t see a regular series happening.
Notre Dame is the second most popular team in my area by a huge margin fwiw.

Notre Dame is the second most popular team in a lot of parts of the country but it's hard to call them a PSU rival when the two teams have only played 19 times going back to World War I.

That is your 20th most common opponent. 20th!

 

[NTOP]

Jealousy and bitterness by PSUs East rivals caused the demise of BE. There was no other reason and Pitt obviously angled itself to get in while trying to squeeze PSU out.

"If Penn State was rejected, B.C. and Syracuse might have no other option but to leave the BIG EAST, and join together with the other Eastern independents. To expand membership in The BIG EAST Conference six affirmative votes were necessary. The vote was 5-3. Instead of taking Penn State, we invited Pittsburgh as the ninth member. At that time Pittsburgh and Penn State were bitter rivals, and Pittsburgh was less than enamored with aligning itself with Penn State. Pitt's membership in the BIG EAST, along with B.C. and Syracuse, checkmated Penn State's eastern all-sports conference, and gave the Conference one more Division IA school. This football issue nearly caused the premature demise of the BIG EAST. Clearly, three schools in the BIG EAST had no concept of the importance of football, but the others realized that this decision not to invite Penn State would come back to haunt us. In fact, football would dictate every future consideration of membership expansion of our "basketball" conference.

-From Jake Crouthamel, SU AD

That's B.S. Crouthamel was covering his tracks. Pitt wasn't approached until AFTER the BE rejected the Enabler and his lopsided view of sports.

 

[NTOP]

And with that - I'm done here. There's clearly no good debate to be had. Nothing I say is going to change your mind in any way.

Enjoy the game on Saturday. Good luck and God Bless.

Good riddance.

 

[NTOP]

I think you have to qualify it by saying "at one time" part of the blame was on Paterno. I am pretty confident that Joe no longer has any influence.

What? Ask Franco and the board faction. That's like saying Hitler had no influence on Israel.

 

[JWB389]

What? Ask Franco and the board faction. That's like saying Hitler had no influence on Israel.

Are you suggesting Franco has a say in Penn State's scheduling decisions? And the Board? With the exception of a couple guys with VERY little influence, they hate Paterno as much as you guys.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

And the funny thing is that if you read all of what he has said on the matter he puts the blame for an all eastern conference failing to come to fruition squarely on the shoulders of Paterno.

Notice how the nitter didn't mention any of that.

This is the part of the quote that the PSU fan left off:

"After only two years of existence as a conference formed specifically for men's basketball, football became an issue. Joe Paterno, head football coach and then Director of Athletics at Penn State, had been trying to put together an all-sports conference of the eastern Division IA independent schools. They included Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, West Virginia and Temple. While our football fortunes would be well served through such an alignment, it would have been a step backward for men's basketball. To enter into such an alignment Syracuse and Boston College would have had to leave the BIG EAST. With the reluctance of B.C. and Syracuse to do so, Penn State then asked for membership in the BIG EAST. This was a turning point in the Conferences history. If Penn State was accepted, our football would be protected. If Penn State was rejected, B.C. and Syracuse might have no other option but to leave the BIG EAST, and join together with the other Eastern independents. To expand membership in The BIG EAST Conference six affirmative votes were necessary. The vote was 5-3. Instead of taking Penn State, we invited Pittsburgh as the ninth member."

https://cuse.com/sports/2001/8/8/history.aspx