Steelers notebook: Bills find Steel City uninviting
Forty-three years, one regular-season win.
That's the Buffalo Bills' record in Pittsburgh, and it's not an enviable one. It's also not the worst one.
The Bills are 1-9 in Pittsburgh, though they did win a 1992 playoff game here. The Colts (1-10) have a worse record on the Steelers' home field than the Bills do, and that doesn't include three additional Colts playoff losses.
Three NFL teams have never won in Pittsburgh: Atlanta (0-6-1), Carolina (0-3) and Tampa Bay (0-3).
The Bills' only regular-season win was 30-21 on Sept. 28, 1975, when O.J. Simpson's 88-yard touchdown run highlighted his 227-yard rushing game.
Sad sack record
No doubt Ben Roethlisberger is glad Heinz Field has new grass between the hash marks. It might make for some softer landings.
Roethlisberger has been sacked 31 times in eight games, and is on pace to break the Steelers' single-season record of 51 by Cliff Stoudt in 1983. (Remarkably, despite those sacks, and Stoudt's 21 interceptions to only 12 TD passes, the Steelers went 10-6).
The NFL record is 76 by David Carr of the expansion Texans in 2002.
Those empty seats at Heinz Field on Sunday will illustrate a growing problem in the NFL: getting fans out of their living rooms and into stadiums.
For the first time since 2007, NFL attendance rose slightly last season, when an average of 65,074 paid their way into regular-season games. That's up from 64,698 in 2011, but still off the peak of 67,755 in 2007.
Alan Robinson is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org or via Twitter @arobinson_Trib.
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 â 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.