This year's edition of the Pitt-Penn State rivalry will be played in prime time at Heinz Field. The 8 p.m. start time September 8 feels appropriate for a game that will be the major sporting event in the commonwealth that weekend.
Unfortunately, after this and next year's contests, the rivalry disappears into the ether yet again, until at least 2030. That is a shame for fans of both programs, a shame for college football and a shame for people who don't even have a dog in the fight but simply like the idea of watching a game in which the stakes are high, even if one or both of the teams are struggling.
More than anything else, this game is a victim of the business of college football. There are other dynamics in play, like the fact that Penn State's program is clearly further along right now and is trying to put together a schedule that gives it the best chance at competing for a spot in the College Football Playoff. But in the end, it all comes down to business.
What happened to playing a game because both fan bases wanted it, were rabid for it and would circle it on the calendar every year before bothering to look at the rest of the schedule? I'm aware that, at this point, Penn State fans especially are probably rushing to tsk-tsk me in the comments, to tell me about the nuances of Penn State's Big Ten schedule, and how it only allows for this, that and the other thing, and how playing Pitt really is a no-win proposition for the Nittany Lions.
Spare me, please.
Back to the business part of things, for a minute. I don't just mean that in the strictly financial sense, the one where Penn State's football program helps subsidize other sports at the university, one where home games are a must. I also mean it in the less formal sense, the sense of "business decisions," like the one where the Nittany Lions, after possibly losing out on a chance at the College Football Playoff in 2016 because of an early-season loss to Pitt, decide to make a "business decision" to not actively court a potentially destructive loss, and instead schedule a much more reliably beatable team in the future.
I suppose on some level I understand Penn State's position here. James Franklin has made it clear that the College Football Playoff selection committee seems to value a team's record over anything else, including strength of schedule. In a way, he's grudgingly giving Pitt a compliment, suggesting that the Panthers are too dangerous to play. That the downside of a loss is greater than the upside of a win.
Still, whatever happened to wanting to beat your biggest rival as part of a stepping stone to bigger and better things? Whatever happened to a rivalry game that functioned as a gateway to the promised land? It still exists in situations like the "Iron Bowl," or "The Game," in which both participants play in the same conference. Why can't Penn State and Pitt find a way to make it happen?
We know Penn State's position; Pitt is more trouble than they're worth. Evidently a team like Virginia Tech isn't.
If that indeed is the argument emanating from State College, then my question is this: If Pitt's program continues on what seems like a very gradual upward trend and eventually cements itself as a perennial top-25 program, will Penn State change their minds? Will they see enough value in playing the Panthers to court the risk?
I'd love to be proven wrong someday, but my guess is no.
Chris Mueller hosts a weekday sports talk show on 93.7 The Fan.