PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

Paterno Scheduled to Retire in 2015


#1

Penn State and Pitt to Renew Football Rivalry in 2016-17


#2

That’s the first thing I thought, “Well, now we know when Joe’s retiring.”


#3

So is this our game against a Division 1AA team? :slight_smile:


#4

Anyone else think this is quid pro quo for an annual home and home against Pitt in hoops?


#5

I don’t. I’m not aware of any scheduling decision that has ever been made by one sport to help out another (other than moving game start times). For one thing, it only generates resentment between your own programs and interdepartment squabbles are very unproductive.


#6

Nah. I’d definitely welcome a home and home vs. Pitt in hoops, though.


#7

I really don’t think the thread title is remotely funny. Paterno has never been the one preventing this and obviously isn’t preventing it now. This is the same deal PSU has offered Pitt for years, but I guess they finally relented to agree to it. Before Pitt was only willing to do a long term even home and home deal or nothing.


#8

As evidenced by the entire Rene Portland regime. ;D


#9

Not so sure about that, I had a conversation at a PSU tailgate with a AA and former coach for Joe. He adamently felt we needed to be playing Pitt, he said that every team needs a rival that they hate. I asked him what was standing in the way of the Pitt series and he said, it was Joe. He didn’t offer that as his opinion, he offered that as fact.

As far as what has been offered for years??? Not sure, but what I always heard was that PSU was not looking for a balanced home and home. Word was that PSU minimally wanted a 6 home, 4 away deal. (Also there was a desire of 2 of 3, 3 of 5, and 4 of 7). In the end it may be only two games but it is a balanced home and home arrangement.

The precedent for a home and home is not new as the two Universities are now on for the same exact arrangement that they came to once before (since the annual series stopped) in 1999 and 2000.


#10
[quote="SideshowBob, post:7, topic:2499"]I really don't think the thread title is remotely funny. [b]Paterno has never been the one preventing this and obviously isn't preventing it now.[/b] This is the same deal PSU has offered Pitt for years, but I guess they finally relented to agree to it. Before Pitt was only willing to do a long term even home and home deal or nothing.[/quote] Not so sure about that, I had a conversation at a PSU tailgate with a AA and former coach for Joe. He adamently felt we needed to be playing Pitt, he said that every team needs a rival that they hate. I asked him what was standing in the way of the Pitt series and he said, it was Joe. He didn't offer that as his opinion, he offered that as fact.

As far as what has been offered for years??? Not sure, but what I always heard was that PSU was not looking for a balanced home and home. Word was that PSU minimally wanted a 6 home, 4 away deal. (Also there was a desire of 2 of 3, 3 of 5, and 4 of 7). In the end it may be only two games but it is a balanced home and home arrangement.

PSU offered the same two game home and home, at least in the early part of the 2000’s if not since then. Pitt refused saying they only wanted to play a long term series. PSU said they would only sign a long term series if they got extra home games in the deal. Pitt was only interested in something that was balanced.

But make no mistake: PSU was willing to do a 2 game series for some time. What has changed is Pitt now willing to take the deal.

Also, the idea that Paterno is holding a grudge is silly – there is just as much reason, if not more, to hate Syracuse. In fact, we cancelled a bunch of games that were scheduled in the early 90’s with them over some contract disputes. And they were critical in preventing an eastern conference in the 80’s and not inviting PSU to the Big East. And yet… we played them a few years ago and have scheduled them again in the near future. Why would Paterno have such a hatred for Pitt that he wouldn’t play them but simply not care about Cuse? Doesn’t add up.


#11

According to the article, of the 96 games played in the series, 66 were at Pitt, 23 at PSU and 7 neutral (most of which were also in Pittsburgh). We could play 2 for 1’s for the next 120 years and still not be equal. Pitt owes us some home games.


#12

I’d say the scenario has the potential to be funny but this implementation doesn’t work very well.


#13

Fortunately the title of this thread has been changed by either Tim A. or Tim B. :slight_smile:


#14

What happened in scheduling 50 or more years ago has no relevance today. I’m sure Steve Pedersen would laugh at the thought of Penn State claiming the scheduling inequity of the 40’s and 50’s as a primary basis for Penn State seeking a home field hegemony in a renewed series, and he should.


#15
[quote="mjg, post:11, topic:2499"]According to the article, of the 96 games played in the series, 66 were at Pitt, 23 at PSU and 7 neutral (most of which were also in Pittsburgh). We could play 2 for 1's for the next 120 years and still not be equal. Pitt owes us some home games.[/quote]

What happened in scheduling 50 or more years ago has no relevance today. I’m sure Steve Pedersen would laugh at the thought of Penn State claiming the scheduling inequity of the 40’s and 50’s as a primary basis for Penn State seeking a home field hegemony in a renewed series, and he should.

Good point Evan. Thought the economics are against a home-home long term series too. PSU and Pitt’s needs at this point are different: the Panthers need some high profile home games to build up a fan base and improve attendance; PSU can sell 90K seats againsts the Sisters of Mercy, and so is trying to get as many home games as possible. It makes no economic sense for Pitt to give PSU a 2-1 deal, nor does it make economic sense for PSU to play Pitt home-home.

I had thought since the schedule moved to 12 games (4 out of conference) that PSU would shoot for the following strategy: 2 ‘extra’ home games against ‘lower tier’ teams willing the make the trip without wanting PSU to make one in return; 1 home/away against a team of national interest (Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami) and 1 home/away against a former eastern rival (rotate BC, Temple, WV, Pitt). Hence a two game Pitt home/away series works for PSU as part of the ‘eastern rival’ rotation.


#16

Apparently it was Miami dropping out of their verbal commitment that opened the door to schedule these two games against Pitt.


#17
[quote="mjg, post:11, topic:2499"]According to the article, of the 96 games played in the series, 66 were at Pitt, 23 at PSU and 7 neutral (most of which were also in Pittsburgh). We could play 2 for 1's for the next 120 years and still not be equal. Pitt owes us some home games.[/quote]

What happened in scheduling 50 or more years ago has no relevance today. I’m sure Steve Pedersen would laugh at the thought of Penn State claiming the scheduling inequity of the 40’s and 50’s as a primary basis for Penn State seeking a home field hegemony in a renewed series, and he should.

Was just trying to point out something I didn’t know. Didn’t expect anyone to really take my comment seriously. I guess emoticons are necessary in every case.


#18

I couldn’t tell if you were being somewhat jocular, but some people on TOS football boards take the Pitt-Penn State home field imbalance too seriously.

Now, to flip the coin a little, Chambers expressed an interest in putting Pitt back on the MBB schedule and Pederson said the football agreement could lead to other scheduling opportunities. What if Jamie Dixon demanded a 2 for 1 arrangement in renewing the Pitt-Penn State BB series? Pitt is certainly the more prominent program at this point, will likely have better attendance and revenue production from such a game, and Penn State “needs” to schedule Pitt in basketball more than Pitt needs to play PSU in MBB. Should Chambers accept such an offer?


#19

[quote=“Evan Ceg, post:18, topic:2499”]I couldn’t tell if you were being somewhat jocular, but some people on TOS football boards take the Pitt-Penn State home field imbalance too seriously.

Now, to flip the coin a little, Chambers expressed an interest in putting Pitt back on the MBB schedule and Pederson said the football agreement could lead to other scheduling opportunities. What if Jamie Dixon demanded a 2 for 1 arrangement in renewing the Pitt-Penn State BB series? Pitt is certainly the more prominent program at this point, will likely have better attendance and revenue production from such a game, and Penn State “needs” to schedule Pitt in basketball more than Pitt needs to play PSU in MBB. Should Chambers accept such an offer? [/quote]

I would, if I were he.


#20

[quote=“Evan Ceg, post:18, topic:2499”]I couldn’t tell if you were being somewhat jocular, but some people on TOS football boards take the Pitt-Penn State home field imbalance too seriously.

Now, to flip the coin a little, Chambers expressed an interest in putting Pitt back on the MBB schedule and Pederson said the football agreement could lead to other scheduling opportunities. What if Jamie Dixon demanded a 2 for 1 arrangement in renewing the Pitt-Penn State BB series? Pitt is certainly the more prominent program at this point, will likely have better attendance and revenue production from such a game, and Penn State “needs” to schedule Pitt in basketball more than Pitt needs to play PSU in MBB. Should Chambers accept such an offer? [/quote]

In MBB, you have other considerations, such as the RPI. It makes sense from an RPI score standpoint to play games on the road. I don’t realy see such positives on the FB side of things.