Big Ten football championship game?

[HD MM]

Big-10 Commish Denies Any Immediate Expansion

Delany responded to Paterno's comments Monday, saying that while a league championship game has its benefits, particularly from a marketing perspective, expansion requires much more.

"It's not the reason you would expand," Delany told ESPN.com. He also said Paterno isn't the only Big Ten coach who has stumped for expansion in recent years.

"The issue has come up with our football coaches a couple times -- with the extra week and if we did expand, would we be more competitive?" Delany said.

"I would say in some years they might be right. But has it enhanced the competitiveness of the ACC in football? Has it enhanced the competitiveness of the WAC? I don't know.

"Just because you have a championship doesn't make you more competitive. It's about coaching the players. The SEC game has been a marketing bonanza. I wouldn't discount that. But others have struggled with it."

"There's not an obvious move," Delany said. "There might be to some coaches, including Coach Paterno, but it's not as obvious to the university presidents and to the athletic directors.

"There are a lot [of schools] that could take a lot away, but there aren't a lot that could bring so much to make the choice an easy one. You have to have a lot to make something go like this, and it's broader than really a championship game or a basketball tournament."

[ame="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4141080"]Big Ten Conference in no hurry to expand, commissioner Jim Delany says - ESPN[/ame]

 

[mattsarz]

Did Delany miss the WAC implosion? The WAC has only nine members and hasn't had 10+ since before the MWC breakaway.

Using the WAC is a poor example. Their expansion was

1) Too big
2) Into areas they had no business going (OK and Texas).

Stay w/UNLV and SJSU, you should be OK. Taking in the SWC refugees and Tulsa pulled the conference too far apart.

Plus the talk is adding one, not five teams. The WAC had ten when they added two from the Big West, three from the soon-to-be defunct SWC and one football indy/MVC basketball school was too much.

 

[Derwin0]

Pitt is doing just fine in the Big East.

Even Vanderbilt could do just fine in the Big East.

 

[SideshowBob]

Bob forgot to quote the other part, or was too busy getting wrapped up in JoePa throwing Pitt a bone since he won't play them in a regular series

PSU has offered Pitt the same two year home/home series they have offered other eastern teams (like Syracuse, BC, Rutgers) and Pitt turned it down. Pitt would only agree to a long term deal 1-1 deal which PSU doesn't want to do with any team. So, I don't see how anyone can attribute either side as won't play" the other so much as that the two schools just don't agree on how to schedule.

 

[Derwin0]

PSU has offered Pitt the same two year home/home series they have offered other eastern teams (like Syracuse, BC, Rutgers) and Pitt turned it down. Pitt would only agree to a long term deal 1-1 deal which PSU doesn't want to do with any team. So, I don't see how anyone can attribute either side as won't play" the other so much as that the two schools just don't agree on how to schedule.

Pennsylvania should just do like other states that have 2 major public universities. Force them to play each other.

 

[cybok0]

PSU has offered Pitt the same two year home/home series they have offered other eastern teams (like Syracuse, BC, Rutgers) and Pitt turned it down. Pitt would only agree to a long term deal 1-1 deal which PSU doesn't want to do with any team. So, I don't see how anyone can attribute either side as won't play" the other so much as that the two schools just don't agree on how to schedule.

1-1 is fair, just because they are mighty Penn State doesn't mean everyone should bow down to them. Just because Syracuse or mighty Temple agrees, doesn't mean Pitt should.

 

[cybok0]

Even Vanderbilt could do just fine in the Big East.

Not in BB.

BTW...Penn State BB stopped playing Pitt because they always lost. They pick nobodys for out of confrence schedual so they don't lose. Where did it get them? The N.I.T. LMAO!!!!!

 

[SamCdbs]

Penn State, as a Big 10 member, certainly has a right to dictate the terms of how it plays a Leastleftover in football. 3 for 1 would seem about right. Anything better is a gift from PSU to its little in-state brother. After all Pitt @ PSU sells exactly zero more tickets, since PSU sells out every game, while PSU @ Pitt fills the sea of empties that Pitt generally plays before. It was selling tickets for $7 last season and still had 20K empties for some games.

 

[cybok0]

Penn State, as a Big 10 member, certainly has a right to dictate the terms of how it plays a Leastleftover in football. 3 for 1 would seem about right. Anything better is a gift from PSU to its little in-state brother. After all Pitt @ PSU sells exactly zero more tickets, since PSU sells out every game, while PSU @ Pitt fills the sea of empties that Pitt generally plays before. It was selling tickets for $7 last season and still had 20K empties for some games.

Penn State football is the only thing State College has. The place is boring, of course they are gonna sell out. Something exciting to do.

Pitt has to compete with the Steelers and Penguins, which both sell out every game.

Penn State can keep Temple, I like going against WVU better, their fans know what a rivalry is.

 

[SideshowBob]

Pennsylvania should just do like other states that have 2 major public universities. Force them to play each other.

Even if the state were to obligate it (and if they did, I think that's reaching far beyond their dutes), they would have to compel both PSU and Pitt to not only play each other but also to play Temple who is also Div 1-A and public. I don't see how you could justify forcing PSU and Pitt to play but ignore Temple.

Penn State football is the only thing State College has. The place is boring, of course they are gonna sell out. Something exciting to do.

Pitt has to compete with the Steelers and Penguins, which both sell out every game.

Pretty much a bunch of crap. A huge numbner of the 100,000+ people that go to PSU games travel from Pittsburgh or Philadelphia or father (NYC, DC, Baltimore). Such people certainly have plenty of options of things to do, but would rather travel 3-5+ hours to State College to watch PSU play. It happens.

The argument that Pitt (or any other city based school) doesn't draw well because there is alternative activities is stupid. People don't go to Pitt games because they don't care enough. If they cared more, then choosing to spend money there instead of on the Steelers, Pens, whatever would happen. It's just that such folks value their Steelers, Pens, etc. game more and thus choose to spend their money there. It's a matter of priorities and Pitt is lower on the totem pole for many folks.

 

[cybok0]

Even if the state were to obligate it (and if they did, I think that's reaching far beyond their dutes), they would have to compel both PSU and Pitt to not only play each other but also to play Temple who is also Div 1-A and public. I don't see how you could justify forcing PSU and Pitt to play but ignore Temple.



Pretty much a bunch of crap. A huge numbner of the 100,000+ people that go to PSU games travel from Pittsburgh or Philadelphia or father (NYC, DC, Baltimore). Such people certainly have plenty of options of things to do, but would rather travel 3-5+ hours to State College to watch PSU play. It happens.

The argument that Pitt (or any other city based school) doesn't draw well because there is alternative activities is stupid. People don't go to Pitt games because they don't care enough. If they cared more, then choosing to spend money there instead of on the Steelers, Pens, whatever would happen. It's just that such folks value their Steelers, Pens, etc. game more and thus choose to spend their money there. It's a matter of priorities and Pitt is lower on the totem pole for many folks.

They sell out every BB game, so don't say fans don't care. Just keep rooting for Penn State never having a chance to win another National Championship plus that Temple game should be challenging.:up

I sure hope Joe PA remembers his Depends if he ever makes onto the field again.

 

[SideshowBob]

They sell out every BB game, so don't say fans don't care.

Right, that's exactly it. Pitt basketball fans have no problems avoiding the distractions of the city to go to games at the Pete. Poor attendance has nothing to do with other things to spend money on and everything to do with people simply not being interested enough in the product.

Similarly, great attendance at PSU games have everything to do with a large loyal fanbase that is devoted to watching the team. And that includes boatloads of folks from Pittsburgh itself who would happily spend 2.5+ hours in a car and drive to Happy Valley on weekends to watch games instead of coming up with excuses about other things they could be doing.

 

[mattsarz]

PSU has offered Pitt the same two year home/home series they have offered other eastern teams (like Syracuse, BC, Rutgers) and Pitt turned it down. Pitt would only agree to a long term deal 1-1 deal which PSU doesn't want to do with any team. So, I don't see how anyone can attribute either side as won't play" the other so much as that the two schools just don't agree on how to schedule.

I've heard differently, and I thought it came from JoePa's own mouth so I'll try to find the quote, that he'd rather play Pitt in a five game contract with three games in Happy Valley. Again, I'll try to find the quote, but JoePa also mentioned how it was necessarily to have seven home games in a given season and that was why he wanted the series slanted in favor of more games in Happy Valley.

And I understand that the majority of the PSU-Pitt series was played in Pittsburgh as you corrected me on that earlier.

EDIT: Not 3-2, but JoePa offered up 2-1

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07171/795565-143.stm

He also spoke about the fate of several of his players involved in an off-campus fracas in April and addressed the obligatory question of renewing the rivalry with Pitt.

Paterno answered that question the way he always has, bringing up his attempt at forming an all-sports eastern conference which was nullified when Pitt joined the Big East for basketball in 1982. That forced Penn State to join the Big Ten a few years later, and eventually, in 2000, the series ended. There have been no serious talks on renewing the series, and Paterno reiterated that Pitt would have to play the series on Penn State's terms.

"Financially, we have to have seven home games," Paterno said. "Now, if Pitt would say tomorrow that we'll play twice up at your place and once down here ... The last time we came to Pitt, they charged more money for our game than any other game.

 

[gck105]

1-1 is fair, just because they are mighty Penn State doesn't mean everyone should bow down to them. Just because Syracuse or mighty Temple agrees, doesn't mean Pitt should.

How many sellout games has Pitt had at home since the last time PSU was in town? Not too many, you could probably count them on one hand. They should be happy to get one game with PSU at home. Guaranteed sellout. They could even make people buy tickets for 3 games like they did last time to increase the sales. Don't forget, the away team gets a cut from PSU for playing at Beaver Stadium, so going there twice gets them paid anyway.

 

[cybok0]

How many sellout games has Pitt had at home since the last time PSU was in town? Not too many, you could probably count them on one hand. They should be happy to get one game with PSU at home. Guaranteed sellout. They could even make people buy tickets for 3 games like they did last time to increase the sales. Don't forget, the away team gets a cut from PSU for playing at Beaver Stadium, so going there twice gets them paid anyway.

Blah Blah Blah Who cares? The last time they played, Penn State lost, Joe Pa will crap his pants again if that would ever happen again, so they play Temple.

Will Joe PA ever make it onto the field again, or will he continue to sit upsatirs and coach from his house? Maybe he'll just stay home during away games and use his cell phone to tell the team what to do.

BTW...How did that National Title bid go last year? Oh yeah....they lost the last game.

Well how did they do in BB big dance...wait they weren't good enough to make the top 64....they had to play against losers in the NIT.

WooHoo they won the NIT......wait no one cares.

Just remember Pitt has nine National Championships and Penn State has two.

Ron Cook said it right.

"Paterno doesn't want to play Pitt and will use any excuse not to do it...Paterno doesn't want to play Pitt because of a grudge he still carries from more than 20 years ago when Pitt joined the Big East basketball conference instead of his dream all-sports Eastern league."

And for playing 2-1 Cook also said it right.

"The arrogance of that proposal is almost incomprehensible. At last check, Pitt was running a major college program, too."

Cook: Pitt-Penn State series is bigger than Paterno

 

[gck105]

I wasn't talking about basketball, was I? I was talking about football, where it is a fact that Penn State is a bigger draw Pitt. 75,00 people showed up 3 weeks ago to watch scrimmage. Harvard, Princeton, and Yale have more national titles than PSU also, but who cares about 1915. You need to fill the seats with fans, you need tv coverage. There are many Saturdays when you can't even watch Pitt on tv in Pittsburgh. My point was that Pitt would benefit from the deal, but they would rather keep having "buy one get one free" deal on tickets to try to get fans to come to the games.

 

[SideshowBob]

I've heard differently, and I thought it came from JoePa's own mouth so I'll try to find the quote, that he'd rather play Pitt in a five game contract with three games in Happy Valley. Again, I'll try to find the quote, but JoePa also mentioned how it was necessarily to have seven home games in a given season and that was why he wanted the series slanted in favor of more games in Happy Valley.

Certainly PSU has said that they'd only do a long term deal if it unbalanced with more games at PSU. That's been clear. But that's not unique to Pitt -- they simply haven't signed long term deals with any team and simply don't want to be tied to one team unless they get extra home games out of it. The only deal they've signed for more than 2 games recently has been with Temple (which was 5 games at PSU/2 games at Temple).

As for the 1-1 deal for 2 games (the same deal that PSU has signed with BC, Syracuse, and Rutgers) that they offered Pitt, here is some proof:

post-gazette

Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley said Penn State would be willing to bring Pitt back onto the schedule, but only for a two-game series.

Pitt officials have balked at that, saying the rivalry should be played every season.

post-gazette 2

Curley said the reason Penn State and Pitt broke off discussions the last time around was because Pitt wanted something more than a two-year deal, while Penn State was and is married to the two-game contract.

I make no claims of other side being "right" or "wrong". The two sides simply can't agree. PSU only wants to play a 2 game series or wants an unbalanced series for a longer commitment. Pitt wants a long term contract that is even. It happens. Both sides have moved on and will be fine. But it's silly to "blame" either school for acting in their best self interest.