For the record, I rarely agree with Pederson but do in this instance.

We're worried that we're going to get tossed in the ACC's junk drawer of this permanent rivals deal so it's probably best for us to maintain the status quo than to take our chances that we'll get a fair shake from the group whose always trying to whine their way to power on every single issue.

I like eight games too because it at least keeps open the possibility that we'll resume our once annual series with Penn State and/or West Virginia.

(05-10-2014 09:36 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  We're worried that we're going to get tossed in the ACC's junk drawer of this permanent rivals deal

This is a concern I don't really understand. I could understand if ND, WVU, or PSU were in the conference that Pitt would absolutely have to be paired with them for historical reasons. However, given who is in the conference, is there really that big of a difference between playing a team everyone year versus playing them once every two?

(05-10-2014 09:36 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  For the record, I rarely agree with Pederson but do in this instance.

We're worried that we're going to get tossed in the ACC's junk drawer of this permanent rivals deal so it's probably best for us to maintain the status quo than to take our chances that we'll get a fair shake from the group whose always trying to whine their way to power on every single issue.

I like eight games too because it at least keeps open the possibility that we'll resume our once annual series with Penn State and/or West Virginia.

You don't see the humor in this, eh?

Junk drawer? You'd face FSU, GT, Clemson, Miami, UL and VT a minimum of 12 times over a 4-year period. Currently you face those 6 teams a minimum of 12 times over a 4-year period.

I'm guessing its more likely he thinks pitt has a chance to be more competitive vs 6 teams rather than 13.

(05-10-2014 02:35 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I'm guessing its more likely he thinks pitt has a chance to be more competitive vs 6 teams rather than 13.

Obviously it's easier to go undefeated versus 6 teams instead of 13. But nobody would be playing 13 ACC games.

If you mean he's afraid of playing FSU or Clemson more often than twice every 12 years, then say that.

(05-10-2014 01:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 09:36 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  For the record, I rarely agree with Pederson but do in this instance.

We're worried that we're going to get tossed in the ACC's junk drawer of this permanent rivals deal so it's probably best for us to maintain the status quo than to take our chances that we'll get a fair shake from the group whose always trying to whine their way to power on every single issue.

I like eight games too because it at least keeps open the possibility that we'll resume our once annual series with Penn State and/or West Virginia.

You don't see the humor in this, eh?

Junk drawer? You'd face FSU, GT, Clemson, Miami, UL and VT a minimum of 12 times over a 4-year period. Currently you face those 6 teams a minimum of 12 times over a 4-year period.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but as I have said repeatedly, I'd much rather be guaranteed to play Miami and Virginia Tech every year than have the opportunity to play Florida State and Clemson slightly more often than we are under the current set up.

Also, under the current set up, we play Georgia Tech every year so we would lose in that trade off too - even though that game is less important to me than the others listed.

That's just not a good trade for us.

Remember, in addition to playing FSU and Clemson more frequently we will also play Boston College and Wake Forest more frequently too.

I'll try to contain my excitement.

I say this with all due respect to the rest of the league but no thank you. I'd rather stick with the current set up and play teams we care about every year.

Now, if Pitt could be guaranteed that its three annual rivals be Virginia Tech, Miami and Syracuse, then I'd be happy to go along with whatever plan anyone else wanted us to follow. However, when I see all of these mock set ups and we're paired with teams that we have no history with and don't care about - at all - I'm sorry but no, that will not work for us. It's nothing personal, it's just business.

We compete in an NFL market with a six time Super Bowl champion. That's no day at the beach. We can't fill our stadium simply by opening the gates and we'll never be in that position.

In the past decade or so, we have lost our three biggest rivals/gate draws in Penn State, West Virginia and Notre Dame. Now, you want us to sacrifice our secondary draws too in Miami and Virginia Tech?

Umm, no.

We. Have. To. Sell. Tickets.

I'm sorry if this makes me/Pitt come off as a pain in the arse or in some way "ungrateful" but the truth is I don't view this as the ACC somehow saving us from some inglorious fate but rather the ACC partnering with us for the betterment of both parties.

Look, we've been exceptional partners so far and we love the ACC and what it stands for. Also, we fully respect every other league school. Further, we plan on continuing this fruitful/mutually beneficial relationship. However, neither are interested in serving as anyone's patsy and we are not just going to sit in the corner and do as we're told. That's simply not how this partnership is going to work. You are going to have to meet us half way on the scheduling front or we are going to be a major pebble in the shoe. Really, what other choice would we have?

I just wanted to point out that you were whining about others whining, while whining about not wanting to change the current setup.

With that said, I'd have to think Pitt would get Cuse and one of VT/Miami. I think something like Cuse, VT and UL would be a more than adequate grouping, even though Pitt seems to give zero f's about UL. And I've repeatedly said I'd be in favor of giving Pitt more games against ND than the rest of the ACC.

But wanting VT and Miami frequently in order to create buzz and excitement applies to FSU and Clemson as well. So I still don't understand that thinking.

Yeah and how can he say well it gives Pitt BC/Wake more often so no thanks, and then wonder why we complain? We have those 2 every year PLUS Syracuse every year. And at least Pitt would be a northern school for BC/Cuse with some history. FSU has no history with them and gets them both every single fricken year. Of course FSU fans have reason to be pissed. They have carried the ACC for years in football and they are the ones getting the shaft. If anything the best football school should be rewarded in their sport.

Evidently there is a GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING of how the 3-permanent + 5 rotating schedule works... so let's review it ONCE AGAIN (try to pay attention this time):

If you have a team as one of your 3 rivals you'd play them EVERY YEAR.

However, you'd play ALL of the other teams EVERY OTHER YEAR.

So at WORST, instead of playing Miami and VT every year and either FSU or Clemson once every 6 years (but it would take 12 years to get them at home), you'd play all 4 teams every other year. However, something tells me that Pitt would get either Miami or VT as a permanent rival.

So, in a 12-year cycle, currently Pitt plays
Va Tech - 6 home, 6 away
Miami - 6 home, 6 away
Clemson - 1 home, 1 away
Florida St - 1 home, 1 away

Under the proposed 3+5 plan, assuming Pitt gets NONE of those teams as rivals:
Va Tech - 3 home, 3 away
Miami - 3 home, 3 away
Clemson - 3 home, 3 away
Florida St - 3 home, 3 away

MUCH MORE LIKELY, IMO*:
Va Tech - 3 home, 3 away
Miami - 6 home, 6 away
Clemson - 3 home, 3 away
Florida St - 3 home, 3 away

*Why? Because every team needs a partner for the final week of the season

(05-10-2014 03:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I just wanted to point out that you were whining about others whining, while whining about not wanting to change the current setup.

With that said, I'd have to think Pitt would get Cuse and one of VT/Miami. I think something like Cuse, VT and UL would be a more than adequate grouping, even though Pitt seems to give zero f's about UL. And I've repeatedly said I'd be in favor of giving Pitt more games against ND than the rest of the ACC.

But wanting VT and Miami frequently in order to create buzz and excitement applies to FSU and Clemson as well. So I still don't understand that thinking.

Well, that's one perspective but it is not one I share. I just want to maintain the status quo. No whining, just a firm preference that nobody has come close to softening, much less changing.

You are right, we don't really care about renewing our five or seven year-old rivalry with Louisville. I'm sure we don't exactly fire their engines either. Why would we? We never did anything of note during our brief association together.

What the Louisville fans (and Cincinnati too) never quite understood is that their rise from C-USA to the BE was directly proportional to our loss in prestige in losing two excellent programs (Miami and Virginia Tech) and one long time opponent (Boston College) and replacing them with a trio of C-USA schools with which we had no history whatsoever.

For many Pitt fans (and I'd imagine Syracuse too), for all intents and purposes the Big East died when Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College left the league. I know that's not fair to the schools that replaced them as UC and UofL in particular built excellent programs. However, rightly or wrongly, that was the perception and frankly, that never changed.

Hell, Dave Wannstedt was winning 8-10 games a year and he was fired because he "couldn't even win a watered down Big East." Who do you think those folks were talking about when they levied that criticism?

I distinctly remember walking out of Heinz Field after Pitt lost to Cincinnati 45-44 in what was a great game with great atmosphere and the consensus was, "Damn, we couldn't even beat Cincinnati with the league title on the line. Wanny needs to go."

Please understand that I do not share that perspective. In fact, I thought it was ridiculous. I am fully aware of how good those programs became. I'm just trying to explain the locals' mindset and that was never going to change.

As for the rest of it, we don't need "big name teams," coming in periodically. We can achieve that through out of conference scheduling with any number of schools throughout the country by virtue of our location alone. What we need are legitimate rivals that get the casual fans excited. We need to play teams our fans can embrace as legitimate villains. How do you do that if you are only playing most of those teams periodically?

By playing the schedule you favor, that robs us of at least one more rival. I mean how much blood do we have to give to satisfy everyone because it seems like while we're making sacrifice after sacrifice for the good of this league, nobody else seems to be willing to give up an inch and bristles at the mere suggestion they should.

(05-10-2014 06:34 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yeah and how can he say well it gives Pitt BC/Wake more often so no thanks, and then wonder why we complain? We have those 2 every year PLUS Syracuse every year. And at least Pitt would be a northern school for BC/Cuse with some history. FSU has no history with them and gets them both every single fricken year. Of course FSU fans have reason to be pissed. They have carried the ACC for years in football and they are the ones getting the shaft. If anything the best football school should be rewarded in their sport.

See, this is the entitled bullschitt I'm talking about. For all the whining about "Tobacco Road this" and "Tobacco Road that," I've never once in our two or three years being associated with this league seen any of those schools' fans act like you guys regularly act.

I don't care how many super talented rapists you are willing to tolerate in pursuit of gridiron glory, you don't get to have everything your way on every single issue, you just don't.

You can huff and you can puff and you can threaten and cajole all you like. You can even hold your breath in the corner and pout but that is never going to change.

If you want to control everything, it's really very simple. Just go back to being an independent like Notre Dame. I can only speak for myself in saying I'll certainly miss your BCS points but I won't miss much else. And I CERTAINLY won't miss your continued insistence that everyone else should bow to you when you enter the room.

As for the North/South thing, please let that go too. The Civil War is looooong over and nobody with a brain even thinks that way anymore. I don't feel any/much closer to Boston College than I do Wake Forest. In fact, it is 6h 48min from Pittsburgh to Winston-Salem, NC and 9h 4min from Pittsburgh to Boston. Who my great grandfather's great grandfather supported politically in the 1860's is completely irrelevant in 2014.

Now, we have played BC more than we have Wake but that only goes so far. We've played them 29 times, you've played them 12 times.

I will acknowledge that Boston is a WAAAY more appealing city to visit than any other ACC city - by a mile TBH - but that doesn't necessarily carry over to football.

My point is, as with any marriage, to make this whole enterprise work, everyone is going to have to give on some issues. We get that and accept it. However, we are NOT going to give on every issue in some sort of ill advised attempt to satisfy your ever growing sense of self-importance.

(05-10-2014 10:20 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 06:34 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yeah and how can he say well it gives Pitt BC/Wake more often so no thanks, and then wonder why we complain? We have those 2 every year PLUS Syracuse every year. And at least Pitt would be a northern school for BC/Cuse with some history. FSU has no history with them and gets them both every single fricken year. Of course FSU fans have reason to be pissed. They have carried the ACC for years in football and they are the ones getting the shaft. If anything the best football school should be rewarded in their sport.

See, this is the entitled bullschitt I'm talking about. For all the whining about "Tobacco Road this" and "Tobacco Road that," I've never once in our two or three years being associated with this league seen any of those schools' fans act like you guys regularly act.

I don't care how many super talented rapists you are willing to tolerate in pursuit of gridiron glory, you don't get to have everything your way on every single issue, you just don't.

You can huff and you can puff and you can threaten and cajole all you like. You can even hold your breath in the corner and pout but that is never going to change.

If you want to control everything, it's really very simple. Just go back to being an independent like Notre Dame. I can only speak for myself in saying I'll certainly miss your BCS points but I won't miss much else. And I CERTAINLY won't miss your continued insistence that everyone else should bow to you when you enter the room.

As for the North/South thing, please let that go too. The Civil War is looooong over and nobody with a brain even thinks that way anymore. I don't feel any/much closer to Boston College than I do Wake Forest. In fact, it is 6h 48min from Pittsburgh to Winston-Salem, NC and 9h 4min from Pittsburgh to Boston. Who my great grandfather's great grandfather supported politically in the 1860's is completely irrelevant in 2014.

Now, we have played BC more than we have Wake but that only goes so far. We've played them 29 times, you've played them 12 times.

I will acknowledge that Boston is a WAAAY more appealing city to visit than any other ACC city - by a mile TBH - but that doesn't necessarily carry over to football.

My point is, as with any marriage, to make this whole enterprise work, everyone is going to have to give on some issues. We get that and accept it. However, we are NOT going to give on every issue in some sort of ill advised attempt to satisfy your ever growing sense of self-importance.

Bud, you're talking to fans, not AD's, Commissioners, or even administrators. Nobody here is doing anything but watching. Sure some posters are annoyingly vocal and frustratingly juvenile/slow, but nobody has any real power to change things one way or the other. We are *all* just spectators. Nobody in this forum is asking Pitt (or any other school) to bow to anything, because nobody here *can* (at least not in any meaningful way).

Life is too short to get too worked up about any of this.

(05-10-2014 09:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  [quote='Marge Schott' pid='10739728' dateline='1399754334']
By playing the schedule you favor, that robs us of at least one more rival. I mean how much blood do we have to give to satisfy everyone because it seems like while we're making sacrifice after sacrifice for the good of this league, nobody else seems to be willing to give up an inch and bristles at the mere suggestion they should.

Exactly which rivals has Pitt had to sacrifice to be a member of the ACC?


Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW)

(05-10-2014 09:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  [quote='Marge Schott' pid='10739728' dateline='1399754334']
By playing the schedule you favor, that robs us of at least one more rival. I mean how much blood do we have to give to satisfy everyone because it seems like while we're making sacrifice after sacrifice for the good of this league, nobody else seems to be willing to give up an inch and bristles at the mere suggestion they should.

Exactly which rivals has Pitt had to sacrifice to be a member of the ACC?


Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened. Evidently Notre Dame didn't want that. They kept USC, Navy, and Stanford. They must have overlooked Pitt.

If Pitt wants to play WVU and/or Penn State it is up to Pitt to make that happen, and has nothing with the ACC.

So why exactly are you, Mr "I can't stand the crying", crying about?

(05-10-2014 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened.

Wow, how convincing. I'm sure you were in the rooms during the negotiations with ND documenting all the details. I couldn't imagine the level bitching from you if Pitt had gotten a special arrangement with ND.

Pitt's division arrangement is good for Pitt. It has no reason to want to change. Personally, I don't care if divisions are scraped if it is best for the conference. However, what is best for the conference isn't automatically what is best for Clemson, which I am absolutely indifferent towards. Personally, I find this continual assertion from fans of Clemson and FSU that they are somehow better than the ACC absolutely laughable, and it has done the exact opposite of engendering sympathy for their positions.

(05-10-2014 11:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened.

Wow, how convincing. I'm sure you were in the rooms during the negotiations with ND documenting all the details. I couldn't imagine the level bitching from you if Pitt had gotten a special arrangement with ND.

Pitt's division arrangement is good for Pitt. It has no reason to want to change. Personally, I don't care if divisions are scraped if it is best for the conference. However, what is best for the conference isn't automatically what is best for Clemson, which I am absolutely indifferent towards. Personally, I find this continual assertion from fans of Clemson and FSU that they are somehow better than the ACC absolutely laughable, and it has done the exact opposite of engendering sympathy for their positions.

Great rant.

Exactly which rivalry did the ACC force Pitt to give up? And please provide links.

K Thanks!

(05-10-2014 11:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened.

Wow, how convincing. I'm sure you were in the rooms during the negotiations with ND documenting all the details. I couldn't imagine the level bitching from you if Pitt had gotten a special arrangement with ND.

Pitt's division arrangement is good for Pitt. It has no reason to want to change. Personally, I don't care if divisions are scraped if it is best for the conference. However, what is best for the conference isn't automatically what is best for Clemson, which I am absolutely indifferent towards. Personally, I find this continual assertion from fans of Clemson and FSU that they are somehow better than the ACC absolutely laughable, and it has done the exact opposite of engendering sympathy for their positions.

Great rant.

Exactly which rivalry did the ACC force Pitt to give up? And please provide links.

K Thanks!

Is Pitt playing Notre Dame annually like it has for most of the past 80 years? No.

Did the ACC give an exception for Pitt so that it would be the only ACC member to get the Irish more than once every three years? No.

Did Pitt or ND request such an exception? I don't know, and neither do you.

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/colle...1209130277

(05-10-2014 11:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened.

Wow, how convincing. I'm sure you were in the rooms during the negotiations with ND documenting all the details. I couldn't imagine the level bitching from you if Pitt had gotten a special arrangement with ND.

Pitt's division arrangement is good for Pitt. It has no reason to want to change. Personally, I don't care if divisions are scraped if it is best for the conference. However, what is best for the conference isn't automatically what is best for Clemson, which I am absolutely indifferent towards. Personally, I find this continual assertion from fans of Clemson and FSU that they are somehow better than the ACC absolutely laughable, and it has done the exact opposite of engendering sympathy for their positions.

Great rant.

Exactly which rivalry did the ACC force Pitt to give up? And please provide links.

K Thanks!

Is Pitt playing Notre Dame annually like it has for most of the past 80 years? No.

Did the ACC give an exception for Pitt so that it would be the only ACC member to get the Irish more than once every three years? No.

Did Pitt or ND request such an exception? I don't know, and neither do you.

So your rant, and the one by Mr "Get off my Lawn' is bogus.

Got it.


Again, if Notre Dame felt the Pitt "rivalry" was such a big deal they would have either A. secured it as one of the contracted games every year or B. refused the ACC's offer.

Notre Dame is still playing Navy, Stanford, and USC.

Just sayin'

Seems to me the complaint should be directed more towards Notre Dame than the ACC. Evidently Pitt takes the rivalry more serious than the Irish.

As for Penn State and/or WVU....that rests more with their athletic department and yours. The ACC isn't preventing anything there, and any complaints about that is just.....<gasp> whining on the Pitt fan's part.

Imagine that. After all Pitt "gave up" to be a member.


LULZ

I find it interesting that you assume such an air of superiority for supporting a school you never actually attended.

Living in the state of Alabama, I have met quite a few alumni of the Crimson Tide. They are generally nice people who love to watch their team. However, there is another group that show a disgusting level of arrogance towards other fan bases. This group never actually attended Alabama and are regarded as an embarrassment by the alumni. Amazing how similar Alabama and South Carolina are.

(05-11-2014 12:01 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:41 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Remember that Notre Dame had the bully pulpit and secured a pretty sweet deal for themselves already. If they had wanted to keep Pitt (or BC FWIW) as a permanent rival it would have happened.

Wow, how convincing. I'm sure you were in the rooms during the negotiations with ND documenting all the details. I couldn't imagine the level bitching from you if Pitt had gotten a special arrangement with ND.

Pitt's division arrangement is good for Pitt. It has no reason to want to change. Personally, I don't care if divisions are scraped if it is best for the conference. However, what is best for the conference isn't automatically what is best for Clemson, which I am absolutely indifferent towards. Personally, I find this continual assertion from fans of Clemson and FSU that they are somehow better than the ACC absolutely laughable, and it has done the exact opposite of engendering sympathy for their positions.

Great rant.

Exactly which rivalry did the ACC force Pitt to give up? And please provide links.

K Thanks!

Is Pitt playing Notre Dame annually like it has for most of the past 80 years? No.

Did the ACC give an exception for Pitt so that it would be the only ACC member to get the Irish more than once every three years? No.

Did Pitt or ND request such an exception? I don't know, and neither do you.

So your rant, and the one by Mr "Get off my Lawn' is bogus.

Got it.


Again, if Notre Dame felt the Pitt "rivalry" was such a big deal they would have either A. secured it as one of the contracted games every year or B. refused the ACC's offer.

Notre Dame is still playing Navy, Stanford, and USC.

Just sayin'

Seems to me the complaint should be directed more towards Notre Dame than the ACC. Evidently Pitt takes the rivalry more serious than the Irish.

As for Penn State and/or WVU....that rests more with their athletic department and yours. The ACC isn't preventing anything there, and any complaints about that is just.....<gasp> whining on the Pitt fan's part.

Imagine that. After all Pitt "gave up" to be a member.


LULZ

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-11-2014 02:55 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  I find it interesting that you assume such an air of superiority for supporting a school you never actually attended.

Living in the state of Alabama, I have met quite a few alumni of the Crimson Tide. They are generally nice people who love to watch their team. However, there is another group that show a disgusting level of arrogance towards other fan bases. This group never actually attended Alabama and are regarded as an embarrassment by the alumni. Amazing how similar Alabama and South Carolina are.

That's pretty much every fan base across America. Teams need more than just alumni to buy tickets, but when people make football TOO important it starts to warp their judgment

Now I'm NOT making specific allegations towards anyone - I wouldn't presume to know them well enough to judge based solely on what they type on a sports message board. I'm just speaking in generalities.

BOTTOM LINE: I want my team to win, and I want the teams in the same conference as my team to win, too, but win or lose there are more important things than college sports. Treating others as I want them to treat me is one of those things.