Miami wants out of pro stadium...
- Thread starter CCHS-74
- Start date
If they are able to pull this off, this would be a game changer for the University of Miami. I cannot overemphasize the value of a right-sized stadium. It creates demand, which in turn creates leverage. Classic supply and demand principles.
This is what I'm talking about with Pitt. Why else do you think all of these other urban schools are reducing their stadium capacity or building new, smaller stadia? It is not a coincidence that Minnesota left the larger Metrodome for a smaller on campus facility. Tulane, Houston, SMU, and UCF did the same. Washington, Stanford and Cal reduced their stadium capacity. Arizona State is strongly considering doing the same. Even Temple is considering building a smaller, on campus facility to right-size it for their needs.
I am not saying that Pitt absolutely must build a smaller, new on campus facility. I just don't think the money is there to do it and neither is there an opportunity available to us like there is in Miami with the Beckham group. However, Pitt does need to create some demand for its tickets and Heinz Field is too big to achieve that, IMHO. As such, we need to right-size it in some way or we risk becoming an outlier in a way that would be very, very damaging to our recruiting and future health of the program.
What I don't get on the Miami situation is why the Beckham group would be willing to do this? Building a 44,000-seat stadium in Little Havana - which is where this stadium would be built - the other locations will not work for the U - would be way too big for MLS soccer. Maybe they can hide that with tarps - perhaps along the same lines, but in reverse, of what the Hurricanes are planning with Sun Life Stadium?
Here is what I do know: for this to get out publicly, that tells me that these two sides are pretty far along in their discussions and this has a very good chance of happening. That doesn't mean that it is guaranteed but it does mean that it is likely going to happen.
This is what I'm talking about with Pitt. Why else do you think all of these other urban schools are reducing their stadium capacity or building new, smaller stadia? It is not a coincidence that Minnesota left the larger Metrodome for a smaller on campus facility. Tulane, Houston, SMU, and UCF did the same. Washington, Stanford and Cal reduced their stadium capacity. Arizona State is strongly considering doing the same. Even Temple is considering building a smaller, on campus facility to right-size it for their needs.
I am not saying that Pitt absolutely must build a smaller, new on campus facility. I just don't think the money is there to do it and neither is there an opportunity available to us like there is in Miami with the Beckham group. However, Pitt does need to create some demand for its tickets and Heinz Field is too big to achieve that, IMHO. As such, we need to right-size it in some way or we risk becoming an outlier in a way that would be very, very damaging to our recruiting and future health of the program.
What I don't get on the Miami situation is why the Beckham group would be willing to do this? Building a 44,000-seat stadium in Little Havana - which is where this stadium would be built - the other locations will not work for the U - would be way too big for MLS soccer. Maybe they can hide that with tarps - perhaps along the same lines, but in reverse, of what the Hurricanes are planning with Sun Life Stadium?
Here is what I do know: for this to get out publicly, that tells me that these two sides are pretty far along in their discussions and this has a very good chance of happening. That doesn't mean that it is guaranteed but it does mean that it is likely going to happen.
Probably political help too.
I think this is almost a done deal. They will build a 40K seat stadium next to the Marlins' ballpark and that will be that. Excellent deal for the U, IMHO. For the MLS team, they had better build this stadium very carefully to allow them to remove or tastefully cover up thousands of seats or it is going to look terrible for all concerned.
I would LOVE for Pitt to build a similar sized stadium closer to its campus. However, that is a debate for a different day.
I think this is almost a done deal. They will build a 40K seat stadium next to the Marlins' ballpark and that will be that. Excellent deal for the U, IMHO. For the MLS team, they had better build this stadium very carefully to allow them to remove or tastefully cover up thousands of seats or it is going to look terrible for all concerned.
I would LOVE for Pitt to build a similar sized stadium closer to its campus. However, that is a debate for a different day.
Aren't there already several MLS teams that play in large NFL stadiums? I assume that they will just tarp off the extra seats so it actually looks good when half filled (earth to Pitt).
More proof that people listen to SMF. I posted on this board and the Miami board more than a year ago that this should happen. I was really surprised that my idea wasn't that well received on the Miami board but the SMF idea of a joint Miami MLS/Miami Hurricane stadium is so obvious, I cant believe I was the first to think of it.
Miami is probably the worst sports town in America stemming largely from the fact that it probably has the fewest number of residents who are actually "from" there as compared to other pro sports cities. Its such a terrible sports town that the historically dominant, nationally popular Miami Hurricanes play in an empty stadium in front of bright orange empty seats even while tarping off large parts of the upper deck (what, the U tarps?, yes they do).
So, why is Beckham trying to bring an MLS team to Miami? Well, he got a sweetheart deal as part of his MLS contract but there are clearly many other cities where soccer would be more well received. Consider, the Miami Fusion were one of the only 3 MLS teams to be contracted. People in Miami don't like sports very much and they certainly don't like MLS soccer. They cite the large number of Hispanics as proof that soccer will be popular but they have the "wrong" Hispanics in a sense. The majority are Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and Cubans but they are not soccer fans. Sure, there are Mexicans and Central Americans but not as many. Beckham will be far better off going somewhere like St. Louis, San Antonio, Sacramento, etc but he doesnt want to live in those places. He's David Beckham and he and Posh want to live the Miami life, doesnt matter if there MLS team will be an epic failure. At least they're finally getting the stadium idea right.
By the way, I've also proposed a joint Pitt/MLS stadium numerous times. MLS is growing like a wildfire and while I dont think Pittsburgh would ever be awarded an MLS franchise, it can't hurt to try. The #1 problem with stadiums like Heinz Field is the capacity, not the fact that its not on-campus. Being on-campus would be nice but if we could get a 45,000 seat stadium SOMEWHERE near campus, the atmosphere would be a billion times better. Part of MLS's rapid growth has been the electric atmosphere created by their smaller stadiums. People enjoy sporting events more when the place is full whether its 80,000 in an 80,000 seat stadium or 25,000 in a 25,000 seat stadium. Atmosphere matters.
A bit misleading on that headline. A MSL Stadium is pro, too, right?? And they want a 40-45K place??? Lo, how the mighty have fallen. Will they argue for Script Miami at centerfield??
I've been following the Beckham/MLS stuff closely. Here's what I can tell you: Beckham needs land and some public funding. Miami isn't giving him either.......not even the land which is usually easier to come by than the money. Miami simply doesn't care about this project. They threatened to take their project to the county where the Florida Panthers play (even though MLS said they would not allow a suburban Miami stadium) and Miami didn't care. Bottom line, nothing is going to happen for Beckham in Miami without a lot of help. Bringing in the Canes on a joint project is such a no-brainer of an idea (see my other post). I don't think they are as far along as you think they are but if Beckham the The U agree to marry, it'll happen, guaranteed. Both sides will have to give something up though. Beckham is going to have to share money for international friendlies, concerts, bowl game, and other events that take place there and they're going to have to find a way to make the stadium a whole lot cozier for MLS games (Youtube the Atlanta MLS team's downsizing technology, pretty awesome). The U is going to have to pay a ton of money to break their lease with the Dolphins. If I had to make a prediction, though, I think it'll happen.
If the Riverhounds ever make the jump to MLS, their plan is to just expand Highmark Stadium. They claim it has the capability to be expanded to 20,000. Parking would be a nightmare though.
That would mean they would most likely build stands on the river side, elinating the view of the skyline and the openness to the river. A shame because to me, that is its best feature.
The REAL question is the cost vs benefit of the cost of the "right sized" stadium.
Can the perceived increase price of admission due to less capacity (and increased demand) out weigh the capital costs of buidling the facility.
I'll be blunt: No.
With the Heinz expansion, only Fla St, Clem and Miami have larger capacity than Pitt.
Nothing is in stone (although 30 years of mediocrity is close to that). Like any other sport or business (one and the same in this case), long stretches of sustained success, unlikely as it seems now due to lax commitment, would yield a juicy cycle of revenue (capital) and popularity (political capital) that could eventually make it possible for Pitt.
Hitting that sweet stride of reciprocating success happened for the Steelers, it happened for the Penguins, and it looked possible for Pitt basketball (unfortunately we've seemed to squander it, but it was there earlier in the decade). It was also possible for Pitt football in the late 70's, but the administration squandered it then, too. They just make lip service commitment now, hence the Groundhog Day we are now in (how many years in a row of 6-6 has it been now?).
But if lightning would happen to miraculously strike with Narduzzi, and the current regime differed from the past and actually capitalized and grew it, rather than sit on it or even erode it (as what happened with the 70's and with Pitt hoops the last couple years) ... and the success begin to repeat itself ... someday, Pitt could be in position money-wise and politically to have its own place. In fact, it would almost be certain it would. Slap all the high def scoreboards on the sides you want, but Heinz is a crappy erector set and probably has 20 more years at best. So the question WILL come up.
And like the Steelers and Penguins showed, be successful and popular enough, the sweetest thing is you won't even have to pay for it. The government will give it to you. He*ll, as they showed, even if the citizens voted against it, the government would manipulate a way around it to give it to Pitt.
But again, it will never will be possible until that sustained success (and I would define that to be at least one championship run and a decade of Top 15).
So for now, piggybacking on the Steelers is by far the best situation.
Hitting that sweet stride of reciprocating success happened for the Steelers, it happened for the Penguins, and it looked possible for Pitt basketball (unfortunately we've seemed to squander it, but it was there earlier in the decade). It was also possible for Pitt football in the late 70's, but the administration squandered it then, too. They just make lip service commitment now, hence the Groundhog Day we are now in (how many years in a row of 6-6 has it been now?).
But if lightning would happen to miraculously strike with Narduzzi, and the current regime differed from the past and actually capitalized and grew it, rather than sit on it or even erode it (as what happened with the 70's and with Pitt hoops the last couple years) ... and the success begin to repeat itself ... someday, Pitt could be in position money-wise and politically to have its own place. In fact, it would almost be certain it would. Slap all the high def scoreboards on the sides you want, but Heinz is a crappy erector set and probably has 20 more years at best. So the question WILL come up.
And like the Steelers and Penguins showed, be successful and popular enough, the sweetest thing is you won't even have to pay for it. The government will give it to you. He*ll, as they showed, even if the citizens voted against it, the government would manipulate a way around it to give it to Pitt.
But again, it will never will be possible until that sustained success (and I would define that to be at least one championship run and a decade of Top 15).
So for now, piggybacking on the Steelers is by far the best situation.
I can tell you with 100% certainty there will never, ever, not in a million years be an MLS team that plays its home game at the site where Highmark Stadium currently sits. The thought of that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my entire life. People laugh at the idea of an on-campus stadium in Oakland but somehow some people actually gave credence to the Riverhounds owner saying they can expand to 20K by building bleachers OVERTOP of West Carson Street. Inotherwords, if you are driving on West Carson, you'd actually drive THROUGH a tunnel with Highmark's bleachers overtop of you. The city isn't going to go for that and certainly, MLS isn't. Not only that, there's no parking and only a 1 lane road on each side to get in and out. The traffic would be amongst the worst in the country for a pro sports team. Of course, the Riverhounds owner is going to say the stadium can be expanded. What do you want him to when a reporter asks him what they can do to meet MLS requirements if the MLS comes calling? Do you want him to day, "Well, we just built this new stadium, but if the MLS wants us, we're going to put a wrecking ball to this one and go buy land and build a new one somewhere else."
Pitt is not going to be playing at Heinz Field forever. That's a guarantee. Everybody's getting new college stadiums. Heck, Temple might even. Whether, its in 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years, its a sure thing that Pitt will not be playing at Heinz Field. The question is, will they be playing in their own stadium somewhere else or the new Steeler Stadium wherever that may be?
Google map the area where the Canes and Beckham want their stadium. Its a densely populated area. They'd have to buy up houses and land. But Pitt fans act like land acquisition is this impossible thing that has never been done.
Yep, that was the point. Pitt can shape it's own destiny in where it ends up. Commit and execute to be successful, it will reap major dividends in our sports-mad culture (I should say, sports-SUCCESS-mad culture), and Pitt can probably have it's own place anywhere it blessed wants. Keep the mediocre, half-assed, 6-6 approach that still brings in fair conference and network money but little else, and we can hope and pray we can move wherever the Steelers move to.
Gotta say, on the flip side (or really not, it's the same side) ... Temple no WAY deserves it's own facility, I think that's CRAZY. Why? They not only are less successful than Pitt, they almost have zero chance to even get to PITT'S level of success. But almost by miracle, Pitt DOES have the chance for great success. Pitt was incredibly blessed to get into a P5 conference. I don't know that people still realize it. ESPECIALLY the naysayers. It's almost a sin that Pitt got this fantastic luck, yet is willing to sit on it's ass and put up 6-6 records. Because it's been demonstrated time and AGAIN what sports success can reap for you in the WPA region. 10 years of football greatness, and Pitt (the university, not the program) could literally have anything it wants here.
Last edited:
How much revenue does Miami need to generate over expenses to make a new stadium viable?
Cue all those small minds that say, "but there's no land in Oakland!" If it's not water, then it's land. Think about it.
I can tell you that I rooting hard for Temple to get their own on-campus stadium. I think that'll put at least some pressure on the Pitt brass to get the ball rolling and get enough people to think "if Temple can build one, surely we can." In a perfect world, Miami, Temple, and maybe even USF will get new stadiums. Say what you want, but in my heart I believe that Gallagher's long-term goal, his legacy, if you will is to get a stadium on-campus. He's shown he's committed to athletics and not afraid to make big moves.
Look at the tarping of O.co stadium for the Oakland A's. Looks very professionally done. If we would tarp the North endzone upper deck and the upper deck on the east side, we would have our 45,000 seat stadium. I cringe thinking about how many PSU fans are going to purchase season tickets next year for 1 game. If we tarped the upper decks we would not have to worry about empty seats or the seats being sold to another fanbase.
Last edited:
Pitt really needs to join forces with Temple to push for some State money for this.When you consider the disproportionate amount of money PSU received from the state compared to these two schools...it would be hard to argue the state doesn't owe us.
Depends how much of the construction the university has to foot, as supposed to their boosters.
Their most recent capital campaign generated over a billion more than Pitt's in a MUCH shorter time frame..so, perhaps..it's less cost-prohibitive for them?
I believe lowering the cost of tuition to our in state universities should be the state's primary responsibility; not building more stadiums...
A PSU friend of mine told me he heard or read on a PSU blog that PSU fans were buying season tickets THIS year for Pitt in the lower level and selling the Notre Dame game just to guarantee them lower level tickets for next year. I dont know any more details on this, just thought it was funny that it was out there somewhere advising PSU fans to do this.
Look at the tarping of O.co stadium for the Oakland A's. Looks very professionally done. If we would tarp the North endzone upper deck and the upper deck on the east side, we would have our 45,000 seat stadium. I cringe thinking about how many PSU fans are going to purchase season tickets next year for 1 game. If we tarped the upper decks we would not have to worry about empty seats or the seats being sold to another fanbase.
We should stay at Heinz field.
What we NEED to do, is leverage the fact that the Steelers are very accessible. Being able to talk to and get tips from PRO players should help with high end recruits who are serious about FB at the next level.
We need to better leverage this unique situation
What we NEED to do, is leverage the fact that the Steelers are very accessible. Being able to talk to and get tips from PRO players should help with high end recruits who are serious about FB at the next level.
We need to better leverage this unique situation
I'm not disagreeing. However, that isn't what is being discussed. If your main objective is getting a stadium. I'd do what I'm suggesting.
If Doc G' s goal , his legacy, is to build an on cAmpus football stadium they should fire him tonight
I wasn't even alive the last time Pitt did anything worth a shit. Slow your roll with this 'deserve' garbage.
By the way, you need to brush up on your it's/its badly.
Again, your point was to get state funding for the stadiums. It just is not realistic
That's how we got the Pete? That's how we got Heinz? That's how we got Lincoln Field? I know it isn't popular...but most major projects like this don't happen without tax money. Again, I know there are thousands of better uses for tax money...but when has tax money ever been spent wisely?
Well you have a Democrat in as governor. You still have many of the same political players in place. An example of how it will be sold is "Building trades looking for jobs! " You sell it as a job creator as oppossed to a spending bill. I'll agree the political will isn't there now. However, if the right players get involved, it can happen. Is it the best use of public money...no. However you house research facilities under the stadium, raise enough booster money and hit the State for the rest....it could happen. Especially, when the political players on the Eastern end of the State want the same thing for Temple.
Is this any shock to anyone? Nordy was warned that it was a stupid idea and nothing about Heinz Field has been good for Pitt. Miami, unfortunately, never had their own stadium. The Orange Bowl was built in 1937 and the U was the original and only occupant until the Dolphins were created. Pitt was in a much better position but Nordy screwed football because he thought hoops gave us a better bang for the buck. Remind me again which sport is more popular on TV, gets more revenue from TV and generates more money nationally for universities?
He blew it and it's our mess to fix. There are a couple options but none are cheap and easy. I have to think that the powers that be, appearing so focused and intelligent, understand that Heinz Field is short term solution.
He blew it and it's our mess to fix. There are a couple options but none are cheap and easy. I have to think that the powers that be, appearing so focused and intelligent, understand that Heinz Field is short term solution.
We got HF & PNC because Smurphy back-doored the citizens, who voted 2-1 to NOT build new stadiums. So we get a gem (PNC) and a hot mess (HF). The Pete was a nice addition, for sure, but it wasn't all state funding. It's one thing to fund stadiums for pro teams, quite another to fund a college stadium. PA has shorted the state-related schools for years, resulting in embarrassingly high tuition rates for public universities.. Temple can't justify a new FB stadium, and neither can Pitt. Sad, but true. Pitt's willingness to raze Pitt Stadium was conditioned on the Rooneys renting the Southside facility. HF sux, but we'll survive.
Spot on Sean Miller Fan. Central Florida's stadium is certainly putting pressure on USF and you can make the same argument if low level Temple gets a new building, Pitt will be under major pressure. The bottom line is off campus stadiums don't work as it clearly doesn't excite the top recruits. As I've said forever, if you can't get 8 to 10 four or five players a year, you can't compete for championships. Pitt gets on average 2 or 3 a year which isn't not enough to compete with the top schools. I can't think of any major football schools who would consider moving from on campus to off campus. Thanks Steve and Nordy who are two of the dumbest idiots and wrecked Pitt football. The good news is we excellent personnel in place who we can finally trust across the board.
the push for an on campus stadium wouldn't be so big from pitt fans if Heinz field didn't suck so bad.. Amazing how incredible PNC park is and what an abortion Heinz field is.. Who was responsible for the design of this? It cant be the same that is responsible for PNC.
"By the way," you might want to actually utilize proper grammar when scolding someone on punctuation.
Having properly muted you, I will patiently underscore my original point (which seemed to escape you, not surprisingly) that Pitt most definitely has not done anything to deserve it's own facility. It's true. But that Pitt, unlike Temple, is in the fortuitous position where it COULD become a great success, in terms of a championship contender, with the proper commitment.
Temple could build 5 stadiums. It would still be where it is, on the outside looking in. A great season equating to "others receiving votes," if lucky. Pitt, more by luck than anything, could still definitely be a viable championship contender. But there would have to be significant more commitment from its administration. In sports-mad WPA, Pitt is leaving a ton of money and political capital on the table by doing so.
Read closely, or find someone who can: The following scenario is HYPOTHETICAL. If ... IF ... Pitt did the proper diligence, and put together a serious football program, something along the lines of Michigan State, where it made several top 10 runs, flirted with the championship playoff once or twice .. revenue and political capital would soar. Keep the success sustained (a couple decades), and ultimately Pitt could indeed name it's place and price for its own stadium, if it so wanted. By happy coincidence, this would probably be about the time frame when Heinz would no longer be viable.
For those horrified at this suggestion of a sports-centric strategy for the university ("Assets spent on a STADIUM! Gasp!), the success would pave the way for whatever else the school would want to do, too. Light rail to Oakland (not silly "fast buses")? True urban renewal and Pitt expansion in South Oakland? Slumlord reform? Pitt would suddenly find what has historically been impossible, all very possible. But only IF Pitt football were to become Steeler-like. And it's not like Pitt would have to win it all every year. The Steelers won championships a piddling 6 times in a half century, and got a half-billion dollar subway built for free to their back door.
That's how big a deal major sports are in WPA. Do I think it's a good thing? No. But to deny it is stupid. And costly.
(Feel I also have to disclose, with Pitt's current state, I am not a delusional "On Campus stadium" crusader. In current state, Pitt doesn't deserve it, doesn't warrant it, and it's crazy to consider it. I think sharing with the Steelers is a damn fortunate situation that has some unique advantages to it, and if Pitt never has the intention to upgrade its program, it should remain shackled to the Steelers for as long as possible, wherever they go.)
Last edited:
What do you think they have been doing for the past 13 years? They have pushing that angle for years. Recruits know passing by an NFL player occasionally in the hallway is not going to make you a better player. Seriously what magical tip do they have that coaches don't know? NCAA rules limit what you are able to do and why do you assume the Steelers are interested? You can't force them to work with Pitt players. These guys have their own busy schedules.
The point is, the case for what school A should do is properly based on an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses--NOT smugly and arrogantly knocking school B (which is assessing its own strengths and weaknesses, from its own perspective, and taking the initiative accordingly). If some supporters of school A are EMBARRASSED by school B's initiatives, then so be it.
The two situations actually aren't comparable. Temple actually CAN justify its own stadium because it has been faced, from the day the ribbon was cut at Lincoln Financial, with a far more adver$arial relationship with the Eagles over the use of that stadium than does Pitt with the Steelers re Heinz. Temple has now had enough. Contrary to previous administrations that simply LET things happen (perfect example: the Big East saga), there now is in place a regime committed to MAKING things happen.
Similar threads
