Kevin Gorman: If Pitt wants to revive Penn State rivalry, the Panthers need to win | TribLIVE.com
Kevin Gorman, Columnist

Kevin Gorman: If Pitt wants to revive Penn State rivalry, the Panthers need to win

Kevin Gorman
1670023_web1_gtr-PittOhio05-090719
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Pitt head coach Pat Narduzzi on the sideline against Ohio Saturday, Sept. 7, 2019 at Heinz Field.
1670023_web1_GTR-PittPSU02-090918
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Penn State head coach James Franklin leads his team onto the field at the start of their game against Pitt Saturday, Sept. 8, 2018, at Heinz Field.

Pat Narduzzi and James Franklin spent the week talking about what makes Pitt-Penn State a great rivalry and all of the reasons why they can’t continue to play each other.

That makes perfect sense, especially given the absurdity that Pitt and Penn State will play for the 100th time Saturday, and it might be the last time for the foreseeable future.

I won’t say for the last time because this rivalry is bigger than Narduzzi and Franklin, bigger than athletic directors Heather Lyke and Sandy Barbour and bigger than all of their excuses.

They are but blips in a century of college football games between a pair of proud Pennsylvania programs, and you would have to hope common sense ultimately will prevail.

“We’re open to having discussions,” Franklin said. “But it’s got to equally make sense for both parties. It’s got to make sense for Pitt. It’s got to make sense for Penn State.”

That a great rivalry is about to be interrupted for the second time makes no sense to me. And I understand both sides as a native Pittsburgher who has covered Pitt and Penn State alumnus who has covered the Nittany Lions.

It comes down to this: If the rivalry is to be revived, Pitt must win. And keep winning.

The Panthers don’t need to beat the Nittany Lions just for years of bragging rights, although Pitt fans would love nothing more than an encore to chanting 12-0 for the next 15 years even if Penn State’s comeback was to remind its foes about 48-14.

When it comes to college football rivalries, you need only to cite the score. Both sides know exactly what the implications represent in a rivalry that regularly involved one of the schools ranked as the nation’s No. 1 team between 1976 and ‘86.

Therein is the greater implication: They both killed each other’s last shot at a national championship, with Penn State handing top-ranked Pitt its only loss in that 48-14 game in 1981 and Pitt beating Penn State, 42-39, in its 2016 Big Ten title season.

That was the resumption of the rivalry. Penn State has won the past two meetings: 33-14 in 2017 at Beaver Stadium and 51-6 last year at Heinz Field.

“The games,” Franklin said, “have been awesome.”

That’s one reason the rivalry should continue. Another is it’s for the good for the commonwealth, as every game provides a sellout that benefits businesses in the state.

“Of course we all want to play this game,” Narduzzi said. “It’s a big game. It’s another game for us, but it’s a big game because it’s a rivalry game, in state. I’m going to emphasize to our kids, you might be the last team to ever play this game. It might be.”

Cue the excuses. We hear about how the Big Ten teams playing nine conference games to the ACC’s eight has created a scheduling conflict. We hear how Penn State needs to play seven home games for financial reasons — padding its record against pushovers in Idaho and Buffalo — so scheduling the same Power 5 opponent annually leaves little wiggle room.

We hear how the 15-year hiatus caused a generational gap. We hear how Penn State fans don’t view Pitt as a true rival anymore, instead focusing on Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State even though Michigan is the archrival to Michigan State and Ohio State more than any of them is to Penn State.

We hear Franklin suggest a neutral-site game, which is maybe the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. Not only would it take away home-field advantage for both sides, but it’s a scenario to which he knows that Pitt would never agree.

And it’s all absolute nonsense.

But Penn State holds the upper hand. Not just in its 52-43-4 all-time record against Pitt, but in its national status. The Nittany Lions (2-0) are ranked No. 13 in the AP poll and No. 11 by the coaches. Pitt (1-1) isn’t even receiving votes, hasn’t finished a season in the final AP rankings since 2009 and only three times since 1990.

That puts Penn State in a no-win situation. A victory is expected, so a loss to an unranked opponent can be crushing. That makes it counterproductive. The view in Happy Valley is there is nothing to be gained by playing Pitt, much less beating the Panthers, except a sellout.

That could be viewed as symbolic of Penn State’s perceived superiority, but the numbers don’t lie. Since 1968, the Nittany Lions have been nationally ranked all 23 times they beat Pitt; the Panthers haven’t been ranked in any of their past five victories.

If Pitt wants to extend the series against Penn State, the Panthers need not only to beat the Nittany Lions in this finale but become a national powerhouse program again.

That’s the best way to force the unrivaled to revive the rivalry.

Get the latest news about Pitt football and all things Panthers athletics.

Kevin Gorman is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Kevin by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.