Pitt vs. Penn State....keep it HERE!

[The Ancient Enemy]

I wasn't trying to single you out. Sent you a PM just now.

I rip on Pitt because it a predominantly PSU - Pitt board. That's it. Would I make fun of Jim Tressel if this was a PSU - OSU board? Most definitely. I could have a field day with the dirty program they run and the "gee golly gosh let's pray about it" head coach they have. UM fans have had Carr in the crosshairs so much lately that I swear he's wearing a bulletproof vest. I think UM fans were secretly hoping the old man keeled over when it leaked out that he had a bunch of health problems.

If everyone took stuff lightheartedly, you wouldn't see stuff like "PSU fans constantly degrading Wanny and the coaching staff, constantly degrading Palko, Dorsett, etc". Do you honestly think that I feel like Tony Dorsett is a coward? I had a lot of fun with that thread b/c everyone else was so serious about it. It's just a football message board.

[Coach]

Funny Pitt quote in the Post-Gazette today...

This was regarding the attendance around the ballpark on Sunday:

All-Star events lured an estimated 100,000 visitors to the city, and local officials estimated the game was worth over $50 million to the economy in hotel rooms, restaurant tabs, parking and VIP parties and related galas.

Local businessmen such as Jeff Joyce, owner of Firewaters just outside the ballpark, were told to expect the business equivalent of three Steelers home games. But Sunday's crowd came up short of that.

"It was more like a Pitt-Bowling Green game," he said.

[frostlion]

Must be really, really bad times in Oakland. Now a Pitt faculty member advocates the abolition of football... (Note: I could not link directly to the New York Times, for you must have a register (free) a username so I copied the letter.)


The Football Sideshow (1 Letter)
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Save

Published: July 13, 2006
To the Editor:

Re “Small Colleges, Short of Men, Embrace Football” (“The New Gender Divide” series, front page, July 10):

More colleges ought to be dropping football rather than adding it, as you report. The mission of colleges is to educate. Football is a sideshow that detracts from education.

This misguided effort will not get more men interested in education. If they were interested in education, they would apply even in the absence of a football team.

A female applicant who is displaced by a football jock with lesser qualifications in the name of gender balance is entitled to feel very aggrieved. And what, by the way, is wrong with gender imbalance as long as it is not purposely created?

Alan Meisel
Pittsburgh, July 10, 2006
The writer is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

[The Ancient Enemy]

When that female student brings in as much money as a member of the football team does to the university, then we'll talk. Football is the biggest money-maker for colleges now, at least in terms of athletics. There is so much money to be made in bowls and TV revenue. Maybe Alan needs to think about where his paychecks come from. I'll bet he benefited from the Utah game on some level, even if it was just extra teaching supplies. I'm sorry if women's volleyball doesn't make as much loot as a BCS bid. Colleges are businesses, yes they provide an education, but it is just a service, just like the service provided by the exterminator when he comes to your house and you pay him for his service.

[frostlion]

[quote="The Ancient Enemy";p="124755"] Maybe Alan needs to think about where his paychecks come from. I'll bet he benefited from the Utah game on some level, even if it was just extra teaching supplies. [/quote]

That is absolutely correct. The athletic department at Ohio is running a $750,000 deficit this year and it's a huge problem.

Bowl games (and football) are huge, huge huge money making cows for any university. When I was on the faculty at WVU, each faculty member was allowed to select one book that the university library would purchase. Where did the money come from? Out of bowl game revenue. Even though WVU got destroyed in the bowl game, the university still reaped a huge profit that was large enough to allow EVERY faculty member to submit a book purchase.

[once a runner]

It should be noted that the article was talking about small schools, not Pitt. Here is a link to an article about small schools adding football:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20060710-100131-4118r.htm

Of course the article should say "Seton Hill", not "Seton Hall".

Nobody can argue the money that a D1 football program can bring in. However, in small D3 schools, that is not the case. A school like Seton Hill used to all female. Now they are trying to get an equal male/female ratio. I'm not sure how that is going to make them more money, but that is the intent. It has nothing do with a Pitt professor wanting the Panthers to drop football.

[frostlion]

"Football is a sideshow that detracts from education."

If any university, regardless of size, wants to really start doing away with things that detracts from education, I would humbly suggest doing away with the following before even thinking about football:

(1) drinking
(2) drinking
(3) drinking
(4) drinking
(5) the opposite sex

[The Ancient Enemy]

Maybe Seton Hill realized they are alienating 50% of the prospective freshmen when they are an all-girls college. Seton Hill and St. Vincent are both getting football programs. There's an abundance of quality HS players between Johnstown and Pittsburgh, there's no reason why these teams can't succeed locally.

[frostlion]

Is Pitt playing Grambling in 2007?

[Head Roadie]

Yes they are.....Pitt's 2007 non-league schedule is as follows:

2007

Sept. 1 Bowling Green
Sept. 8 Grambling
Sept. 15 at Michigan State
Sept. 29 at Virginia
Oct. 13 Navy


In '08 They have Iowa, Navy and Notre Dame
In '09 Navy, NC State and N.Dame
In '10 Miami (Fla), Clemson and N.Dame

Pretty nice non-league slate with 3 quality non-league opponents per year in this day and age of playing nothing but cream puffs