ShareThis Page
Pitt may get Orange Bowl bid that ’63 “No Bowl” team missed |

Pitt may get Orange Bowl bid that ’63 “No Bowl” team missed

The Associated Press
| Friday, November 28, 2003 12:00 a.m

Forty years ago, Pitt had everything a college football team could want.

The Panthers had skilled playmakers on offense who doubled as smart, sturdy defenders during an era of one-platoon football. Linemen grew up in steelmaking towns where the players were expected to be as strong and tough as the I-beams that rolled out of the mills. Good coaching was strongly supported by a high-profile administration.

Everything a team could want — except a bowl bid.

The 1963 Panthers rolled through a rugged coast-to-coast schedule with a 9-1 record and a No. 4 ranking, beating Penn State, Notre Dame, UCLA, Washington, Miami, California, Syracuse, West Virginia and Army. Only a 24-12 loss at Navy during a time when the military academies had strong programs prevented Pitt from playing Texas for the national championship.

But in a remarkable convergence of tragedy, social circumstance, misfortune and bad timing, the Panthers not only didn’t play for the national title, they didn’t play in any bowl.

“It was the perfect storm,” said Beano Cook, the sharp-witted ESPN college football analyst who was Pitt’s sports information director at the time. “And it messed everything up.”

With No. 1 Texas and No. 2 Navy lined up for the Cotton Bowl, Pitt was set to play No. 6 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. But when the Penn State-Pitt game was pushed back to Dec. 7 by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy — Pitt already was scheduled to play Miami on Nov. 30 — the Orange Bowl organizers became antsy.

Fearful they might get stuck with a three-loss Pitt team if the Panthers lost their final two games, they changed their minds and invited No. 5 Auburn. The Sugar Bowl was set with No. 7 Mississippi and No. 8 Alabama and the Rose Bowl wasn’t an option because of its Big Ten-Pac-10 matchup, so Pitt was left without a New Year’s Day invitation.

School president Edward Litchfield and athletic director Frank Carver talked to the Gator Bowl, then the most prestigious non-New Year’s bowl. But fearful that its black alumni might not find adequate housing in Jacksonville — racial discrimination remained widespread at the time — Pitt opted to stay home.

There was a minor but brief uproar in the newspapers and among fans and alumni, but nothing on a scale that would occur today if a once-beaten No. 4 team somehow was ignored in the BCS process.

One reason was most of Pitt’s players were excellent students, and many welcomed having the extra time to spend on academics once the football season prematurely ended.

Of the 61 players, 58 graduated from Pitt or another school and more than half (34) earned master’s and/or doctorate degrees. Nearly one-quarter (15) became doctors; today, some major college programs don’t graduate one-quarter of their players.

“Not going to a bowl wasn’t something that was a big deal to us,” said fullback Rick Leeson, now a dentist in Monroeville, Pa. “Bowls were nice, but football wasn’t the main thing to us. We were there No. 1 as students.”

The academics were difficult, too, with no undergraduate courses then in business or teaching. No one on that Pitt team majored in residential property management, as 10 Virginia Tech upperclassmen do this season.

Among the players were All-American halfback-safety Paul Martha, who later became a lawyer and a 49ers and Penguins executive; San Diego Chargers coach Marty Schottenheimer, former National Steel president John Maczuzak, star tackle Ernie Borghetti, team captain Al Grigaliunas and quarterback Fred Mazurek, who married coach John Michelosen’s daughter and became a lawyer.

It was a homegrown team, too; Cook once calculated the starters grew up an average of 128 miles from campus.

After the season’s abrupt ending, Pitt recognized its highly ranked but unwanted team by giving each player a watch inscribed with “The No Bowl Team.”

Now, this 2003 Pitt team also finishes the regular season against Miami. Should the No. 20 Panthers (8-3) upset the No. 10 Hurricanes (9-2) on Saturday at Heinz Field, they are all but certain to claim the Big East’s automatic bid to a BCS bowl.

And, 40 years after being fearful it might end up with a three-loss Pitt team, that’s exactly what the Orange Bowl might be getting.

“It couldn’t get any better than that,” Pitt safety Corey Humphries said.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.