A lot of folks like to focus on Penn St getting rejected by the Big East as being the pivotal moment that sealed the fate of an Eastern all sports conference but I think something else happened in 1982 that was even more consequential: Pitt’s decision to leave the Eastern 8 and join the Big East.

Penn St had been struggling to get an eastern all sports league together since the mid 70s and in the Eastern 8 that began in 1976 they were almost there. They had Penn St, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, and Villanova. What they really needed was Syracuse and BC to cement the football side.

Villanova chose the Big East and dumped football but Temple was right there in the same market and could have been a suitable replacement and indeed joined the Eastern 8/Atlantic 10. That’s 5 of the 8 necessary to get a league off the ground. (VT is an easy to grab 6th; maybe that get darning early and try Miami and/or FSU).

Maybe in a post-1984 Supreme Court decision, with only 2 schools needed to flip, Penn St gets Syracuse and/or BC makes the jump. Really I think it only takes 1 of the 2 to get nervous to drive the other one running too.

This brings me back to Pitt. If Pitt doesn’t move in ‘82, Penn St only needs to flip one program to the E8/A10.

Alternatively, let’s say Pitt stays but in a post-84 world Penn St sees the Big 10 as their future. Maybe Penn St, mindful of Pitt’s loyalty in ‘82, advocates to bring them along to the Big 10.

I wonder if that caused the somewhat bad blood between Penn State and Pittsburgh. I grew up with the Penn State-Pittsburgh football season ending rivalry, in Pennsylvania it was our Iron Bowl, our Ohio State-Michigan. I hate that it's no longer with us.

Too bad it was the wrong time. When Penn State was added it was before the SEC Championship Game even started, there was no incentive to add a 12th team, and PSU barely had enough votes to get in themselves, adding a 12th team had little benefit for everyone else. Maybe when the ACC took Miami and started their championship game the Big Ten should have added Pittsburgh (or Syracuse) to give Penn State an Eastern companion. They could have also added them before the ACC did instead of getting stuck with Rutgers.

They could have easily done 6 all sports (Penn State, Pitt, WVU, Temple, Rutgers, VA Tech) with Cuse and BC as affiliates.

Rules were a lot looser back then

$$ was the roadblock

(12-22-2022 06:25 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I wonder if that caused the somewhat bad blood between Penn State and Pittsburgh. I grew up with the Penn State-Pittsburgh football season ending rivalry, in Pennsylvania it was our Iron Bowl, our Ohio State-Michigan. I hate that it's no longer with us.

Too bad it was the wrong time. When Penn State was added it was before the SEC Championship Game even started, there was no incentive to add a 12th team, and PSU barely had enough votes to get in themselves, adding a 12th team had little benefit for everyone else. Maybe when the ACC took Miami and started their championship game the Big Ten should have added Pittsburgh (or Syracuse) to give Penn State an Eastern companion. They could have also added them before the ACC did instead of getting stuck with Rutgers.

I’m not sure if the CCG provisions were on the radar of the Big 10 or Penn St at the time but that provision was made for the PA-based PSAC so I tend to think at least the Nittany Lions knew they were on the books. The SEC adds were only a few months after the Penn St add.

Nothing says natural rivalry for Penn St than the Pitt Panthers. It would have been nice to see them in the Big 10 too. Burning them in 82 was certainly fresh in their minds in 89. Big 10 groupthink became ND or bust for 2 decades instead. 12 and a CCG would have been nice.

(12-22-2022 06:34 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They could have easily done 6 all sports (Penn State, Pitt, WVU, Temple, Rutgers, VA Tech) with Cuse and BC as affiliates.

Rules were a lot looser back then

$$ was the roadblock

They could but that would have been all give and no take for Penn St.

Membership in a football league with Penn St would serve to elevate Syracuse and BC but Penn St wanted them for all sports to help elevate their own basketball.

(12-22-2022 03:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A lot of folks like to focus on Penn St getting rejected by the Big East as being the pivotal moment that sealed the fate of an Eastern all sports conference but I think something else happened in 1982 that was even more consequential: Pitt’s decision to leave the Eastern 8 and join the Big East.

Penn St had been struggling to get an eastern all sports league together since the mid 70s and in the Eastern 8 that began in 1976 they were almost there. They had Penn St, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, and Villanova. What they really needed was Syracuse and BC to cement the football side.

Villanova chose the Big East and dumped football but Temple was right there in the same market and could have been a suitable replacement and indeed joined the Eastern 8/Atlantic 10. That’s 5 of the 8 necessary to get a league off the ground. (VT is an easy to grab 6th; maybe that get darning early and try Miami and/or FSU).

Maybe in a post-1984 Supreme Court decision, with only 2 schools needed to flip, Penn St gets Syracuse and/or BC makes the jump. Really I think it only takes 1 of the 2 to get nervous to drive the other one running too.

This brings me back to Pitt. If Pitt doesn’t move in ‘82, Penn St only needs to flip one program to the E8/A10.

Alternatively, let’s say Pitt stays but in a post-84 world Penn St sees the Big 10 as their future. Maybe Penn St, mindful of Pitt’s loyalty in ‘82, advocates to bring them along to the Big 10.

It’s a long read if you have time, but here are a lot of the answers your looking for

http://66.118.64.36/125/JA-61716.html

Basically a lot of squabbling between Pitt, Penn St, Syracuse and WVU over rules concerning scholarship limitations etc. in the second half of the 20th century those four schools were the foundation of eastern football. If they couldn’t agree on basic issues, there was no chance for an eastern league

Jackson

The version of events i remember happening was that PSU was the driving force for, and ultimately against, an all sport eastern league. Their demands were too great and their BB not so much. PSU was already in a league with Rutgers, Pitt WVU. I don't know if affiliate membership was a thing at that time. It's a shame that after it was obvious Cuse and BC weren't leaving and PSU wasn't going to, the BE The A10 didn't offer BC, Cuse and others FB only membership. (not that that would have stopped PSU form going to the B10) I seem to remember Paterno being pissed that PItt joined the BE shortly after the unofficial vote on PSU fell short, perhaps that played a part.
i'm also curious why after sharing league membership in the Eastern 8, why Villanova was one of the 3 not in favor of offering PSU membership but was ok with Pitt. Was it purely a BB , located in Eastern city, focused decision?

I don't know if staying with Penn State and forming the all sports conference would have meant that Pittsburgh is in the Big Ten now but it certainly wouldn't have hurt. At the time, going to the Big East was IMO more of a basketball decision because they didn't sponsor football at the time. When I think of Pitt in the early 80's, I think of them as more of a football school and their rivalry with Penn State than a basketball school and wanting to align with a bunch of small private schools like Villanova, Georgetown, and St. John's. Now Syracuse football was decent in the 80's but you associate them more as a basketball school and they are also a private school (although not Catholic like most of the Big East) so you can understand it more that they would want to be in the Big East (or stay instead of leaving to join Paterno's all sports conference). For Pitt IMO they clearly made the wrong choice. I'd argue Boston College probably made the wrong choice although it was a few years before Doug Flutie's miracle, BC is also a Catholic school, and the Big East had New England representation with UConn and Providence. Of the three FBS schools at the time, Pittsburgh was the one that I would say was the most football focused and would've had a clear rival in the "all Eastern league". Right now all three of Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Boston College are in the ACC and none of them are probably comfortable in men's basketball but I'd look forward to seeing Syracuse play Duke and North Carolina way more than either Pittsburgh or Boston College. If money wasn't a factor, IMO Pitt should be in the Big Ten with Penn State. I can't say that about Syracuse or Boston College.

(12-23-2022 06:10 AM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 03:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A lot of folks like to focus on Penn St getting rejected by the Big East as being the pivotal moment that sealed the fate of an Eastern all sports conference but I think something else happened in 1982 that was even more consequential: Pitt’s decision to leave the Eastern 8 and join the Big East.

Penn St had been struggling to get an eastern all sports league together since the mid 70s and in the Eastern 8 that began in 1976 they were almost there. They had Penn St, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, and Villanova. What they really needed was Syracuse and BC to cement the football side.

Villanova chose the Big East and dumped football but Temple was right there in the same market and could have been a suitable replacement and indeed joined the Eastern 8/Atlantic 10. That’s 5 of the 8 necessary to get a league off the ground. (VT is an easy to grab 6th; maybe that get darning early and try Miami and/or FSU).

Maybe in a post-1984 Supreme Court decision, with only 2 schools needed to flip, Penn St gets Syracuse and/or BC makes the jump. Really I think it only takes 1 of the 2 to get nervous to drive the other one running too.

This brings me back to Pitt. If Pitt doesn’t move in ‘82, Penn St only needs to flip one program to the E8/A10.

Alternatively, let’s say Pitt stays but in a post-84 world Penn St sees the Big 10 as their future. Maybe Penn St, mindful of Pitt’s loyalty in ‘82, advocates to bring them along to the Big 10.

It’s a long read if you have time, but here are a lot of the answers your looking for

http://66.118.64.36/125/JA-61716.html

Basically a lot of squabbling between Pitt, Penn St, Syracuse and WVU over rules concerning scholarship limitations etc. in the second half of the 20th century those four schools were the foundation of eastern football. If they couldn’t agree on basic issues, there was no chance for an eastern league

Jackson

That’s a very interesting read. I had never heard of the Big 4 before so I had no idea that a confederation was in place and that it had already broken down in the early 70s.

I also wonder how much separation there was at the time between the Big 4 and other programs on their periphery like BC, Holy Cross, Fordham, Rutgers, Temple, and Villanova. Was there ever any thought to bringing any of them under the oversight of the Big 4?

(12-23-2022 08:25 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  The version of events i remember happening was that PSU was the driving force for, and ultimately against, an all sport eastern league. Their demands were too great and their BB not so much. PSU was already in a league with Rutgers, Pitt WVU. I don't know if affiliate membership was a thing at that time. It's a shame that after it was obvious Cuse and BC weren't leaving and PSU wasn't going to, the BE The A10 didn't offer BC, Cuse and others FB only membership. (not that that would have stopped PSU form going to the B10) I seem to remember Paterno being pissed that PItt joined the BE shortly after the unofficial vote on PSU fell short, perhaps that played a part.
i'm also curious why after sharing league membership in the Eastern 8, why Villanova was one of the 3 not in favor of offering PSU membership but was ok with Pitt. Was it purely a BB , located in Eastern city, focused decision?

You are definitely right; Villanova played a critical role in detailing the eastern all sports league and it all came down to timing. In the early 80s they had some very anti football administrators who killed the program and moved the Wildcats to the Big East. A few years later the anti-football faction was gone and football came back at the FCS level.

Take those anti-football admins out of the narrative and either Nova votes to bring Penn St into the Big East, knowing that the Nittany Lions will help elevate their own program or Villanova is still in the Eastern 8 and aligned with PSU and their efforts to make the Eastern 8 that all sports league.

Unless Duquesne upgraded football and George Washington brought it back (they left the Southern Conference in 1966), The Eastern 8 wasn't going to be an all-sports league. But it was never going to coalesce around football for one big reason: Penn State. Joe Paterno had a reputation of stepping on the other independents when it came to scheduling. He was never going to be an co-equal partner and that was a contributing factor in the Big East taking a pass--they were worried Paterno would try to run that conference, too.

The scenario also leaves out the other I-A independent at the time, Holy Cross. What do they do? Had Doug Flutie took the offer from Holy Cross instead of the one from BC, who knows.

(12-23-2022 09:46 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Villanova played a critical role in detailing the eastern all sports league and it all came down to timing. In the early 80s they had some very anti football administrators who killed the program and moved the Wildcats to the Big East.

Villanova joined the Big East before it dropped football--the decisions are not directly related.

(12-23-2022 09:53 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Unless Duquesne upgraded football and George Washington brought it back (they left the Southern Conference in 1966), The Eastern 8 wasn't going to be an all-sports league. But it was never going to coalesce around football for one big reason: Penn State. Joe Paterno had a reputation of stepping on the other independents when it came to scheduling. He was never going to be an co-equal partner and that was a contributing factor in the Big East taking a pass--they were worried Paterno would try to run that conference, too.

The scenario also leaves out the other I-A independent at the time, Holy Cross. What do they do? Had Doug Flutie took the offer from Holy Cross instead of the one from BC, who knows.

(12-23-2022 09:46 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Villanova played a critical role in detailing the eastern all sports league and it all came down to timing. In the early 80s they had some very anti football administrators who killed the program and moved the Wildcats to the Big East.

Villanova joined the Big East before it dropped football--the decisions are not directly related.

Those schools you mentioned would have been non-fb members or eventually pushed out.

Villanova’s BE move and dropping football weren’t directly related but they were both made by an anti-football administration. The former move served to emphasize an urban Catholic basketball identity; the later killed football.

(12-22-2022 03:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A lot of folks like to focus on Penn St getting rejected by the Big East as being the pivotal moment that sealed the fate of an Eastern all sports conference but I think something else happened in 1982 that was even more consequential: Pitt’s decision to leave the Eastern 8 and join the Big East.

Penn St had been struggling to get an eastern all sports league together since the mid 70s and in the Eastern 8 that began in 1976 they were almost there. They had Penn St, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, and Villanova. What they really needed was Syracuse and BC to cement the football side.

Villanova chose the Big East and dumped football but Temple was right there in the same market and could have been a suitable replacement and indeed joined the Eastern 8/Atlantic 10. That’s 5 of the 8 necessary to get a league off the ground. (VT is an easy to grab 6th; maybe that get darning early and try Miami and/or FSU).

Maybe in a post-1984 Supreme Court decision, with only 2 schools needed to flip, Penn St gets Syracuse and/or BC makes the jump. Really I think it only takes 1 of the 2 to get nervous to drive the other one running too.

This brings me back to Pitt. If Pitt doesn’t move in ‘82, Penn St only needs to flip one program to the E8/A10.

Alternatively, let’s say Pitt stays but in a post-84 world Penn St sees the Big 10 as their future. Maybe Penn St, mindful of Pitt’s loyalty in ‘82, advocates to bring them along to the Big 10.

Penn St barely got in themselves in '92, no way they could have brought along a buddy.

(12-22-2022 06:25 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I wonder if that caused the somewhat bad blood between Penn State and Pittsburgh. I grew up with the Penn State-Pittsburgh football season ending rivalry, in Pennsylvania it was our Iron Bowl, our Ohio State-Michigan. I hate that it's no longer with us.

Too bad it was the wrong time. When Penn State was added it was before the SEC Championship Game even started, there was no incentive to add a 12th team, and PSU barely had enough votes to get in themselves, adding a 12th team had little benefit for everyone else. Maybe when the ACC took Miami and started their championship game the Big Ten should have added Pittsburgh (or Syracuse) to give Penn State an Eastern companion. They could have also added them before the ACC did instead of getting stuck with Rutgers.

What's interesting is that they might have added Rutgers then as the 12th, then Nebraska would have been 13 and they'd probably have added Maryland or another school with Nebraska as the 14th. What was the situation like in 2010? I wonder who might have been chosen instead of Maryland at that time? Or would Maryland have even wanted to go? It was not clear at all that the B1G would form 1/2 of the p2 back then...which makes me wonder if they might have actually rebuffed Nebraska.

Oh man, that's an interesting situation. All of a sudden Nebraska is still unhappy in the big 12 but still looking for a home, and the Pac just added CU and Utah. Could they have also brough on Nebraska +1, or even taken Nebraska + 4 more without Texas or A&M? Something like:

Nebraska
Missouri
KU
Texas Tech

I think that would have pushed OUT to go with A&M to the SEC back in 2010. Alternatively, if the Pac had been clever, they would have leaked those rumors and gotten the deal they really wanted, only with Nebraska in for A&M:

CU
Nebraska
Texas
OU
Texas Tech
OSU

I'm not saying that the B1G would have ever told Nebraska "no", but if they'd tried that buy in crap back then and Nebraska had other options, who knows what happens. And a full 16 team Pac led by OUT, Nebraska, USCLA, Washington, Oregon...I mean, that looks a whole lot like the current B1G, but mostly in the South and West instead of the NE and midwest. We might have a P3, or perhaps a P2 with the Pac and SEC ascendant.

Nebraska to the Big 10 worked out because the Huskers were worried about a raid from the PAC 10 and the Big 10 had a need for a 12th. It Pitt is already their 12th, then there is no sense of urgency on the Big 10’s part to take in any Big 12 teams.

We might have just seen Colorado leave, and TCU cycle in to replace them.

When TAMU decided they wanted out that creates a quandary regarding who is #14 for the SEC. Is Missouri as anxious to leave the Big 12 if it looks like Oklahoma and Nebraska are both staying?

Wouldn’t it be wild if the Big 10 at that point went for Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St and the SEC took TAMU, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, and a sixth—say Florida St?

Penn State’s demands in the Eastern Conference they proposed were ridiculous. In football, there would be unequal revenue sharing and two for ones would be allowed. But basketball revenue would be shared equally. That’s right-they proposed that football revenue be shared unequally, but basketball revenue be shared equally. (Clearly because nobody watches PSU basketball.)

Penn State applied to the Big East in 1982 and was rejected. Assuming they hasn’t left for the Big Ten by the time the Big East formed a football conference, they would have been forced to play on less ridiculous terms than they had been proposing for their 1970s Eastern league.


Pitt was accepted to the Big East shortly after Penn State was rejected. I’m not sure why people think this killed Penn State’s proposed league. Nobody was going to join PSU’s league as long as they demanded unequal revenue sharing in football but equal sharing in basketball.

(12-23-2022 08:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Nebraska to the Big 10 worked out because the Huskers were worried about a raid from the PAC 10 and the Big 10 had a need for a 12th. It Pitt is already their 12th, then there is no sense of urgency on the Big 10’s part to take in any Big 12 teams.

We might have just seen Colorado leave, and TCU cycle in to replace them.

When TAMU decided they wanted out that creates a quandary regarding who is #14 for the SEC. Is Missouri as anxious to leave the Big 12 if it looks like Oklahoma and Nebraska are both staying?

Wouldn’t it be wild if the Big 10 at that point went for Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St and the SEC took TAMU, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, and a sixth—say Florida St?

Any hypothetical where the Big Ten invites Iowa State (historically terrible program and second favorite team in a small state where the Big Ten already has a team) is ridiculous.



I think the real question is if the Big Ten expands at all in 2010 if Penn State was in the Big East and the Big Ten was still at 10 teams. For starters, the Big Ten wouldn’t have had the annoying 11 team scheduling format that they wanted to get rid of. Plus it seems like the Big Ten was really planning to look at adding teams from the depleted Big East (Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers) when they first made their expansion announcement in December 2009, but they learned during the expansion process that Big 12 teams (Missouri, Nebraska) were also interested.

The truly interesting question is what if Pitt joined the Big Ten in the 50’s?

(12-24-2022 09:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  The truly interesting question is what if Pitt joined the Big Ten in the 50’s?

That’s another fun what if. Had they taken a “more the merrier” approach to replacing Chicago, maybe you get Michigan St, Pitt, and a third school.

I wonder how a Big 10 Pitt affects the rise of Penn St football.

(12-24-2022 09:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 09:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  The truly interesting question is what if Pitt joined the Big Ten in the 50’s?

That’s another fun what if. Had they taken a “more the merrier” approach to replacing Chicago, maybe you get Michigan St, Pitt, and a third school.

I wonder how a Big 10 Pitt affects the rise of Penn St football.

Paterno still goes to Penn State and grows their program. I'm not sure if they would have been a national power, but they would still have been competitive in the East at least at the level of West Virginia or Syracuse. By 1991, their institutional profile would have still made them a candidate for B1G expansion.

But Pitt in the B1G is an interesting scenario. In the 60's, 70's, and 80's, they recruited top-notch local players (Tony Dorsett, Dan Marino, Bill Fralic, etc.). They would still have been able to keep those guys home. Whether they could have beaten Ohio State and Michigan consistently to go to Rose Bowls and win NCs is another question. But Pitt in the B1G would have given them cushion to handle the fall they hit in the late 80's and 90's. They may or may not have been good, but they would have had the stability and $$$$ of the B1G. Still, with the changes in the local economy and population drain, and the rise of the Steelers, they would still have had a hard time competing with the NFL for fans and attention.