Pitt football notebook: Renewal of Backyard Brawl could be in offing
• Pitt athletic director Steve Pederson said Friday night that playing eight ACC games in 2013, instead of the previously anticipated nine, will allow greater flexibility in scheduling nonconference opponents, including a possible renewal of the Backyard Brawl with longtime rival West Virginia. A hopeful expansion of the two-game Penn State series beyond 2017 also is possible, plus dates with Iowa and other Big Ten schools, he said. “(West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck) and I kind of talked about it, but it was hard to do without any definitive planning on our part,” Pederson said. Pederson attended meetings this week with ACC officials during which the decision was made to play eight conference games, with each school getting Notre Dame five times in a 14-year period. He said scheduling nine conference games could have forced teams to play 11 of 12 games against BCS opponents. “That's not what the Big Ten is doing; that's not what the SEC is doing,” he said. Pederson said Pitt's nonconference schedule for next season isn't complete but will include home games against Notre Dame and Villanova and a trip to Navy.
• Long snapper Kevin Barthelemy (hand injury) was replaced by redshirt freshman David Murphy on Friday night against Syracuse.
• Middle linebacker Dan Mason received his first significant playing time since suffering a serious knee injury in 2010. He replaced Shane Gordon, who was injured covering a kickoff in the second quarter. Mason played the fourth quarter against Gardner-Webb.
• Freshman guard Gabe Roberts said on his Facebook page that he had labrum surgery. Before the injury, Roberts was not expected to play this season.
— Jerry DiPaola
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.