So Penn State and Temple have again renewed their series. No big surprise here - they've been playing for a while and since Penn State can sucker Temple into a 2-for-1, it's easy money. I don't begrudge for Penn State at snubbing Pitt, I just wish they would admit it's about not getting a 2-for-1.
Penn State AD, Tim Curley, a while back said that not renewing the Pitt series was partially about needing to appease alumni from all over. In case you don't remember, here were his nonsensical quotes:
"That is one of the challenges I am struggling with as we contemplate going to nine conference games," Curley said. "That reduces your ability to move around the country to make these games happen."
Games that are scheduled include visits to Temple next year and Virginia in 2012. Penn State also recently announced a game against Syracuse in 2013 in the New Meadowlands in East Rutherford, N.J., and a home-and-home series in 2020 and 2021.
"There are 500,000 Penn State alumni, and, depending on where I am, whatever part of the country, I am catching it everywhere," Curley said. "Our alums on the West Coast, which we have a lot of, want us to come out and play out there. We have a great base in Florida, and they want us to play there.
"We had a really great series with Pitt and, certainly, with all our alumni in (Western Pennsylvania), we do hear it."
As I pointed out before, if this were really about spreading the wealth, than why is Penn State playing the same opponents year after year? Sure there are some new opponents, but Temple and Syracuse, long-time doormats have repeatedly been able to get onto the Nittany Lions' schedule, while Pitt is constantly left off.
Again, I don't mind that they don't want to play...just wish they'd come clean about it.