Penn St, flicking Pitt's ear

Penn State got two great football commitments this week. The first was longtime Pitt fan Miles Dieffenbach (☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ Scout; ☆ ☆ ☆ Rivals), who contacted PSU on Tuesday. The second was western PA prospect Tom Ricketts (☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ Scout; NR Rivals). The best part of all this for Penn State fans? Pitt fans are fuming.

Remember all that talk about Pitt coach Dave Wannstedt building a wall around western Pennsylvania, not allowing any recruits to escape? My, how four years can change a landscape.

Instead of trying to analyze the finer aspects of recent Penn State recruiting (not yet, at least) , I think a quick study on how we got here is in order. It's really an interesting timeline, considering where Penn State and Pitt were respectively in the summer of 2005, as Wannstedt took over, claiming western PA was his domain.

Pittsburgh was coming off (as undeserved as it was) a Fiesta Bowl berth, and a conference title. The Panthers hadn't had a losing season since 1999, making a name for itself as a very good passing team under Walt Harris. While it wasn't piling up wins like Oklahoma or Miami, Pitt football gained a decent level of respectability during the first half of this decade.

Penn State wasn't quite so prosperous. Beginning with the new millennium (and a 12-0 loss to Pitt), the Lions went on to a dreadful 28-33 record from 2000-2004. Calls for Joe Paterno to retire, claims that Penn State would never regain its elite status, and low recruiting confidence were rampant. Going into 2005, all anyone wanted was a record better than .500.

Then something happened. Pitt grew tired of "only" winning eight or nine games each year, and probably saw an opportunity to solidify itself as the premier Pennsylvania football program. Meanwhile, Penn State grew up, realizing that resting on your laurels, as the program did in the late 1990s, wouldn't win games or recruits.

The Panthers became greedy, while the Lions were humbled.

The hiring of Wannstedt was probably the worst head coaching move during the 2004-05 offseason. Numbers don't lie. Once Wannstedt came aboard, Pitt never won more than six games until 2008, and lost to teams like Ohio University, Navy and Bowling Green. Toss in an 0-4 record against Rutgers, and a downright pathetic 3-0 loss to Oregon State in the 2009 Sun Bowl, and the Wannstedt era could be viewed as beyond disappointing.

That same offseason, Joe Paterno told reporters that if he didn't start winning some games, he needed to get his ass out of Dodge. Luckily for Paterno, with a little help from a fantastic recruiting class, the Lions came within one second of playing for the national championship, finishing 2005 with an 11-1 record, a Big Ten championship, and an Orange Bowl win. The spark returned to Happy Valley, primarily because of the lessons learned from 2000-04.

The last four years, Penn State and Pitt both sharply reversed course, for good and bad. No one could have guessed these two programs would be in the positions they are today, eerily reminiscent of past decades when Pitt was the perennial "little brother."

Could Pitt turn things around? Sure. They made great strides last season. But if 2009 is a reversion to anything like Wannstedt's first three years on the job, it could be a hot time for "The 'Stache" on Heinz Field.

What about Penn State; is a down season inevitable? That depends on what is considered "down." Of course, 2009 won't be an accurate gauge of where the program is right now. A high school team could win three or four games against this schedule. But is a season with as few as nine or ten wins possible? I think so. It just doesn't seem logical to forecast anything but continued success for Penn State the next few years.

Then again, isn't that what we all said about Pitt not long ago?

For more on the Dieffenbach and Ricketts commitments, and Pitt's sufferings, click here, here, here (love the South Park ref) or here.

More below the fold...

Tuesday linkage: Shipley, Steelers and Pitt

◊ Two interesting news clippings from the Pittsburgh papers. I've never met people so cocky about their city than Steel City natives. Even those outside the metro area thump their chests about Pittsburgh. That aside, the competing papers are filling the time between the bowl season and the NFL draft. Here's what's up in western PA...

• Bob Smizik wrote in his blog yesterday, questioning if Pitt would join the Big Ten, if the conference came calling. Of course, any discussion about this kind of thing must warrant a customary slap towards Penn State:

"Rivalries: Hopefully, West Virginia would not pout like Penn State and continue to play Pitt in football and basketball. The loss of the great rivalries in basketball with the likes of Connecticut, Georgetown and Syracuse wouldn’t be that large a factor. New rivalries quickly would spring up. The football rivalries with Penn State and Ohio State would be enormous."

Why won't the Pittsburgh loyalists just admit it? Pitt needs Penn State more than Penn State needs Pitt.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

• Will AQ Shipley continue to play football in the Keystone State? Over at Pittsburghlive.com, Mike Prisuta gives us a little insight.

"Yesterday was the first day players were permitted to work out at their team's headquarters and receive compensation per the NFL's collective bargaining agreement.

"That's [Shipley]," [Steelers' director of football operations Kevin] Colbert said of Harrison. "It's not surprising because that's his work ethic. He was here as much as anyone last year. It says a lot about who he is."

Shipley did well for himself at the combine a few weeks ago, and we can wish him only the best.

Pittsburgh Trib

More below the fold...

National Picks, Week 10

I figured since I have some extra time this week, I'd take some shots around college football. Mind you, these picks were formulated from about 10 percent research, 90 percent gut feel.

Outright Upsets:
Tennessee over South Carolina
Pitt over Notre Dame

Does not cover/watch for outright upset:
Florida St. over Georgia Tech
Utah over New Mexico

Does not cover:
Texas over Texas Tech
Oklahoma over Nebraska

Covers:
Oklahoma St. over Iowa St.
Florida over Georgia

*Ed-Yeah, I know I didn't do Joe Pa's presser. But hey, you've already read about it everywhere else, so why would you care about reading it here? Plus, beating up on ESPN is more fun.

More below the fold...

Wow, Pitt looks horrible

The "Best Kicker in the Big East" Conor Lee, just missed from 43 out. Pitt's down by 10 with 4 minutes left. How many times is Pitt going to take long shots down field, get into 3rd and Long, then drop the 4th down pass attempt? However many times it will take to blow it.

More below the fold...

Big East looking at Service Academies

It seems that the New York Post is trying its hand at college football. Sure, they've done it in the past, but now that Rutgers is a player, the Post must feel obligated to devote more than a fraction of its attention to college football. According to a story run this morning, the Big East is stable enough to explore stronger relations with the conference's closest allies next to Notre Dame--the two service academies, Army and Navy. What's really interesting about this is how Big East Commish Mike Tranghese envisions the early stages of a deal. "...Army would play Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville and Pittsburgh. Navy would face Rutgers, South Florida, Syracuse and West Virginia," the Post article said, reasoning that the Big East and the academies are just falling victim to the 12th-game crisis happening across college football. You know, how it's now "impossible" to find opponents for that 12th game? Puh'lease.

"A ninth member, even limited partners such as Army and Navy (both have a significant TV following) would give league members eight league games. That would allow the flexibility of four non-conference games so teams could pursue non-conference rivals such as Pittsburgh and Penn State."

If I'm not mistaken, Pitt is already in the Big East. Papers like the Post should stick to covering A-Rod's next bowel movement. College football to them is just a gambling sport, nothing more.

More below the fold...

Dodd and Mandel: Gotta love hatin'em

Dennis “Douche” Dodd over at CBS(EC) joined our good buddy Stewart Mandel, in choosing Pittsburgh over Penn State in the really early rankings. I just don’t get it. These guys get paid?

What they’re saying, through ranking Pitt over PSU, is that Dave Wannstedt’s three non-winning seasons will translate into a higher ranking than Penn State’s three nine-plus winning seasons, a conference title, a BCS Bowl win, and three straight bowl wins against the ACC, SEC and Big XII in that same timeframe. Unbelievable.

I really don’t want to go through this whole thing again. So, I’ll just refer you back to my original Pitt/PSU rankings argument I posted just after Stewie released his back in January.


Email: ZombieNationPSU@gmail.com

More below the fold...

If you want respect, schedule good teams, Part 3 of 4

3/4.

Part 2/4.
Part 1/4.

Everyone argues that strength of schedule should mean everything in college football, until someone calls their team out on scheduling Directional Community College...

As promised, here's the top five weakest schedules BCS bowl teams have played from 2003 through 2007. Here’s my criteria for selection:

-I-AA schools! Like in Schedules, Part 2 the addition of I-AA schools has a huge impact on the relative ease of a team’s schedule. Most of the teams on this list have at least one I-AA opponent on there. While some of those I-AAs are very good teams, and others are a close step up from high school ball, they are all a detriment to any pro-strength of schedule argument. Face it, if you want to get respect for your team’s schedule, then play teams in your own classification.

-Opponent records, looking back. Was a team hyped in the beginning of the year, only to fall flat on its face? Sure, beating Michigan State in September looks good, but how good is it when they’re in one of those patented late-season meltdowns. Even in the bowl games, beating a team that was thought to be unstoppable all year, then was blown out in its last regular-season game, seriously diminishes the significance of playing them in the bowl.

-Opponent conference affiliations. Think of this as a two-parter. If a team plays in the MAC or the Sun Belt, do you think its schedule is nearly as difficult as one from the Big Ten or SEC? I don’t care if a team plays five strong OOC games; if it doesn’t play more than half its schedule against strong competition, it’s not a strong schedule.

So here's what I came up with. THIS IS ALL IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER!

Just missed the cut. Close, but not easy enough...


Boise State started out 2006 with a real bang, playing a I-AA with a losing record. Oregon State was a nice win, but nothing real special. The Beavers are middle-of-the-pack Pac-10, so any decent team has a shot at beating them. Outside of the Fiesta bowl win over Oklahoma, the only other team with double digit wins was Hawai’i. Also playing seven teams with non-winning records won’t win any points with me.


If it wasn’t for the Red River Shootout against Oklahoma, this schedule would have been a complete joke. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a thousand times better than the Mid-Majors’ schedules, but to only play three ranked teams the entire season isn’t very good. To top that off, only one of them finished with more than nine wins, and Oklahoma was blown out in the BCS national championship game. The second best regular season game was against Texas Tech, which won eight games.


So now that the SEC fans are laughing at the rest of the BCS teams, here it goes. In 2003, LSU won the BCS national championship, but didn’t have to work that hard to get there. It was a down year in the SEC, and LSU jumped at the opportunity. The first three wins were near automatic, and outside of the Georgia game, any good team should beat all of the remaining opponents. I know there are three games against top-10 opponents, but the two wins against Georgia is a glaring smudge on LSU’s credibility. This schedule is much less spectacular than the SEC fans want to think.

Now, for the top five easiest schedules among BCS bowl teams from 2003-2007...


I do love Kansas State. They usually follow right along with the other Big XII folks by telling I-AA “Come on down! We’ll give you lots of money to lose to us!” I know KSU played mostly teams with winning records, but when you have those two glaring I-AAs on there, you can’t expect to be taken seriously. The only reason this isn’t the clear-cut most horrible schedule is due to the two top-ten teams played late in 2003.


It must be a Kansas thing. Right on the heels of its state rival, the Jayhawks could sum up the 2007 schedule as nothing less than The Mediocre Express. I’ve never seen so many teams hovering around .500 in my life. Throw in Florida International—the Panthers won their last game of the year over North Texas to avoid going winless—and this schedule has a hard time using Missouri and Virginia Tech to compensate for the top 11 teams.


If I were to actually rank these schedules, I think this one would go right to the top. When the best team played is only ranked No. 25 at the end of the year, you’re in trouble. Utah’s 2004 schedule featured no teams with 10 wins or more. That’s rough, especially since the Ute’s BCS opponent lost four games. There’s not much more to say about this one. It’s pretty clear cut.


On the flip side, however, look at Pittsburgh’s 2004 schedule. Playing in a Virginia Tech and Miami-less Big East really killed all possible chances for this schedule to be considered tough. But then again, if those two were still in the league, Pitt wouldn’t have won the conference. Boston College was the best team on the schedule until the bowl, and the only other team to win more than nine games was I-AA Furman. The I-AAs strike again!


Hawaii was a good team in 2007, but its schedule cloaked the fact that the Warriors were still a far way off from competing at the BCS level. I’m still not really sure how people (I’ll admit it, I thought they had a change against Georgia) just looked past Hawaii’s schedule. I mean, for God’s sake people, more teams lost 10 games than won ten games. A MAC team could have gone undefeated playing Hawaii’s 2007 schedule.

Check out Schedules, Part 4, which should be out by next week. In that, I’ll go over which premier games I’m looking forward to in the next five seasons. Hope you enjoyed the “bests and worsts” of BCS bowl team schedules. Well, actually I don't really care if you enjoyed it. But thanks for reading anyway.

More below the fold...

The 2008 Penn State recruiting class: Always look on the bright side of life

Look, it’s not that bad. This is hardly a killer class, but what did you expect? There were three—3—classes in Scout.com’s top 25, and three—3—in Rivals.com’s top 25 for 2008, which signed fewer than 20 players. Ohio State, USC and Washington (Rivals.com only) and Pittsburgh (Scout.com only) all signed 19.

In the Scout.com rankings, PSU is an underachieving No. 41, but is that really lower than it should be? Outside of the top 25, No. 35 Tennessee and No. 30 North Carolina both signed 18. No. 43 Stanford is the only other top-50 class—excluding PSU—to sign 18 or fewer to its 2008 class. Just to put that into perspective, PSU signed 14 players. The next highest class, after PSU, to sign fewer than 18 is Texas Tech (15 signed), at No. 59.

And what about Rivals.com’s rankings? Not far off, as they ranked PSU No. 42, tied with Texas Tech. As for teams in the No. 26-50 range signing fewer than 20 players, Rivals.com has No. 29 Pitt, No. 32 Maryland, No. 34 UNC, No. 36 Tennessee, and No. 50 Stanford, which signed the lowest (17 signed) next to PSU and TTU.

I don’t want to hear it, that PSU is now on the same level as Texas Tech. That’s just not true. Had PSU been able to hand out more scholarships in 2008, you bet your ass that the class would have been better. What was PSU supposed to do, put all its efforts into signing four and five-star players and forget about the threes and twos? That’s just not good recruiting. Just to remind people, Jordan Norwood was a one-star, Deon Butler a two-star, Paul Pozluszny a three-star, Tony Hunt a three-star. For some weird reason, PSU is actually good at developing lower-ranked recruits into top-notch players. Too bad they can’t develop those blue-chippers more often.

More below the fold...

Straight from Stewart Mandel's cave: Pitt in the top-10?!

Yes, a new season is beginning, and SI.com's resident overlord of college football has bestowed his wisdom onto us once again. In his early preseason top-10, he is not that far off:

Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC, Missouri, West Virginia, Florida, Kansas, LSU and Wisconsin.

They all have good chances to reach or remain in the top-10 come August. I have no beef with Mandel on that. But, then take a look at his teams on the cusp. Remember, this is the TOP-10 we're talking about:

Auburn, Clemson, Illinois, Texas Tech and Pittsburgh.

Yes, you read that correctly, PITTSBURGH. My oh my how the world changes. Not too long ago, Penn State was mired in the worst stretch of football in its history, while Pitt was playing in the Fiesta Bowl. Then the tables turned, with the Nittany Lions roaring towards an Orange Bowl victory, while Pitt was struggling to win five games. Now, things are finally evening out. Sure, Pitt is on the rise with guys like Pat Bostick and LeSean McCoy, but are they really a top-10 possibility? Are they, in the warped mind of Mandel, better than Penn State right now? Let's find out, shall we? (Try opening the stats in a new window for size's sake) Probably the most telling stat is the number of returning starters on both teams. Had there been fewer starters coming back, most of the statistics would have been useless; if a team is senior-laden, the following season is usually very different, statistically. But in this case, both squads return key players on both sides of the ball, which means each team should improve next season.

Penn State's defense was a bit of a worry going into 2007, but shaped up to be very, very good, especially on the young defensive line. 2008 should see increased quarterback sacks, which is scary enough. Most of the Lion's secondary will be seniors. The last time there were four seniors in the back field, Penn State went 11-1. On offense, all five offensive linemen return, and all three senior wide recievers.

Pittsburgh is the epitome of a young, talented team. Bursting with raw ability, the Panthers lack something many top-25 teams have, experience. While the defense will be stout once again, it wasn't all-world in 2007. Some of the losses on each level of the defense could adversely affect it's ability to clamp down on opponents in crunch time. On offense, there's possibly no more exciting freshman east of Ohio than LeSean McCoy. Ripping through defenses for almost 1,400 yards is no accident. But Bostick, as improved as he will be, could be this offense's Achilles' Heel.

Pittsburg is not close to a top-10 team, in 2008. Maybe in 2009, and definately in 2010, if McCoy stays. But not now. Penn State should start the season somewhere in the top-20. Granted, that's what this team deserves after choking away three games in 2007. But there is no way, when including teams like Pitt, Clemson and Texas Tech, that Penn State shouldn't be on the short list of possible top-10'ers. But this is the fun of the off season. The worst part, is that we have another seven and a half months to go until football kicks in again. I guess watching overpaid NFL babies complaining they don't get the ball enough, will have to sufice for now.

More below the fold...

In game update

PSU is sucking right now. If there was one thing they had to do, it was protect the football. They haven't, mainly Scott. If PSU wants to contend this year, fumbling the ball will not get them there. It's too bad I can't watch the game. Actually, I'm not sure it would be much better. There's no excuse for this performance so far. Kinlaw has been a nice surprise. 3-3.

Also, watching the MSU/Pitt game. Dave Pasch and Andre Ware don't exactly make a dynamic team. Pasch just said "there's no dominant team in the Big Ten." Bullshit! I know, I try not to curse here. But that was bad. Just because UM sucks, does NOT mean there's not dominant team. If they need a good broadcaster, I'm free next weekend.

OK, so PSU scored since I started writing this. Pass to Quarless. Paterno knows when it's time to forget about punishments and go to the play makers. 10-3 PSU.

More below the fold...

Shitt on Pitt (Not really, this time)

The Penn State - Pitt rivalry should be resuscitated anytime now! Well, at least that's what former players and coaches said this week at a charity golf tournament. Everyone from Shane Conlan to Jackie Sherrill gave their two cents to support renewing one of the greatest college football slug-fests of all time.

Even Heisman Trophy-winner Tony Dorsett stressed the importance of the rivalry, saying in the article that if the powers that be want it "they can make it happen."

So true, Tony.

Next to the eight consecutive losses to Them, the sour taste of the 12-0 loss to Pitt in 2000 lingers in Happy Valley. And now that Penn State is competitive again, there is even more pressure to schedule BCS schools for the non-conference slate each year.

If Graham Spanier and Joe Paterno want to get the respect in the polls Penn State has been missing the last few years, they will have to accept the fact that only one quality BCS team won't get the job done in the minds of voters.

Imagine if Penn State landed Notre Dame on the schedule in 2005, a year earlier, instead of South Florida, Cincinnati or Central Michigan. Better yet, think of this. Alabama was originally on the schedule for a two-game series in 2004-2005. What if there was no chickening out by the Tide, who requested the games be rescheduled for 2013-2014? Depending on the outcome, that should-have-been 2005 match up would have had voters and fans looking back saying "Wow, that game helped shape the entire season."

And it would have. What if Penn State lost? No BCS, plain and simple. What if 'Bama lost? No SI cover shot a few weeks later after waxing Florida.

With the increase to 12 games, the BCS conferences have really no excuse for their paltry scheduling decisions. Back before the conglomeration of college football in the 90s, teams could schedule teams that would give them the best chance of winning over the hearts and minds of voters.

It was all about the polls. Not no more it ain't.

Now, the goal is to schedule maybe one tough non-conference game to get the early season TV time, and hopefully make it out with the league title and the automatic BCS bid.

The competition on a national scale is long gone. Penn State used to play Miami (Fla.), Alabama, Notre Dame, North Carolina State, Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, Southern California, Army and Nebraska every or nearly every season. Those games brought in a national telecast almost every time and would have fans from, let's say, Nebraska talking about eastern football.

Actually, if it wasn't for those games Penn State used to play, the upcoming series with Alabama, Syracuse, and the past games against Nebraska and Notre Dame would hardly have such meaning.

Bottom Line: Don't wuss out when it comes to taking on a few big boys each year outside of the conference. Even better - oh no, I'll actually say it - go on the road to play in front of 80,000 roaring fans! Then you'll never have to use the "you don't respect us" line again.

More below the fold...