ADVERTISEMENT

Pitt trustee votes against funding for Pitt

Saboteur II said:
Having to guess about the amount of revenue you will get from the state each year is financial Russian roulette. Sooner or later a chamber will have a bullet.
Until it does it deprives Pitt from proper planning.
BUT….unless several someone’s step up and contribute billions of dollars, Pitt needs the state.
There’s the rub. It is better to want something than to need it but be unable to get it without help. If you need another to provide for you, you are beholden to them.
Click to expand...
If Pitt received billions of dollars from the state, we wouldn’t have any problems. Pitt gets just over $150M from the state to offset the in-state tuition discount (which covers about half of that discount; the rest is covered by Pitt), plus some variable additional amount of assistance for physical building projects and renovations.
 
CrazyPaco said:
Well let me try to walk you through it.

You stated "I'm from Clarion and that school shrinks every year to the point where rumors are constantly out there that it will close."

You also stated "Sure, the basic laws of economics say that lower costs will increase demand."

So Clarion is considered a low cost option in Pennsylvania. Low cost alone doesn't seem to be working to draw enough students. Or maybe, by 'basic laws of economics,' its price isn't low enough for what it is offering to its potential customers (the students). So to increase demand for its services, it either has to cut its price more or offer, say, more benefit or more amenities to attract additional customers. Obviously the current low demand for its services means lower revenues and not as much ability to invest in additional quality or amenities, but it also means there is little margin to offer further price cuts. Either way, Clarion is a fully state owned university and responsibility for the Clarion, as an institution, is ultimately in the hands of the state. And note, they've already slashed overhead by merging it with Edinboro and Cal.

You then seemed indignant with the suggestion that you'd be okay with Clarion closing even though you appear to be okay with Pennsylvania's level of support to Higher Ed, which has been pointed in nearly any methodology to be near the bottom of the nation.

Do you think PA should increase its funding to higher education to avoid schools like Clarion closing their doors? It's a simple question. I'm not saying there is a right answer, but each answer has the potential for substantial consequences, not just for students, but for the local communities in which these schools are based.
Click to expand...
I never implied that I would be happy with Clarion closing. I only stated that rumors to that effect were growing.

I never implied anything about PA's level of funding. Not a single word. I only argued against those who placed it last in the country when it factually is not the case.

I'm not a PA resident and have no dog in the funding fight.

Remember that this thread was all about whether a Representative's vote in Legislature should have caused her to be removed from the Board or whether she should have recused herself. Neither of those is required legally nor morally. Those issues have nothing to do with a general topic of PA funding of education.
 
Just throwing this out there.....maybe the state thinks student debt is going to get cancelled by the Feds.....so they figure let the students borrow more (instead of subsidizing higher education through state funds) because they won't have to pay it back?

It would be a genius move by the Commonwelath if it worked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USN_Panther
NCPitt said:
Your misinterpretations are insufferable.

Its core business hasn't varied. But it has added peripheral crap like DEI that detracts from its core business. I support Pitt shedding its peripheral crap and focusing on its core business.
Click to expand...
LMFAO @ "misinterpretations". I flat out directly quoted you (emphasis mine): "I want Pitt to return to the core business of a university - preparing young adults for a future in the real world,"

There is no other way to interpret that direct quote other than Pitt has left its core business. And you defined this "core business of a university" as the following (again a direct quote): "preparing young adults for a future in the real world." That, by the way, is more of the business of a trade school, not historically the business of a college or university.

But that point is now moot, as you have now done an about face, and I'll again quote your statement because it is diametrically opposed to your initial statement: "Its core business hasn't varied."

Maybe instead of flinging about wild hyperbole that actually undermine the credibility of whatever you are trying to convey, you should actually write what you mean.

Now, he next step would be to see how you actually define "peripheral crap." And then examine how this "peripheral crap," if eliminated, would both impact institutional cost savings that could reduce the cost of attendance and how its elimination would impact Pitt's ability to attract customers, faculty, funding, political support, or adhere to mandated compliance laws. You can't eliminate anything without having an effect one way or the other, and that is true no matter the side you are coming at this from. I've already posted two articles above considering the advent of univeristy "luxury amenities" and how they are unlikely to result in significant cost savings.

My guess is, and you will have to correct me if I'm wrong (but I'm trying to save time here), what you consider "peripheral crap" is present at every single peer and near peer or aspirational peer, if not all universities in general. Again, Pitt operates in a highly competitive industry, not in a vacuum. What Pitt's university leadership should realistically consider cutting or deemphasizing and the actual benefits and consequences of any such moves, would actually be an interesting discussion, but not one I've seen any evidence of such a discussion actually being able to transpire here.
 
Last edited:
NCPitt said:
I never implied that I would be happy with Clarion closing. I only stated that rumors to that effect were growing.

I never implied anything about PA's level of funding. Not a single word. I only argued against those who placed it last in the country when it factually is not the case.

I'm not a PA resident and have no dog in the funding fight.

Remember that this thread was all about whether a Representative's vote in Legislature should have caused her to be removed from the Board or whether she should have recused herself. Neither of those is required legally nor morally. Those issues have nothing to do with a general topic of PA funding of education.
Click to expand...

Being a resident of Pennsylvania is not a prerequisite to providing an opinion on state funding support for higher education. Clearly you have some sort of vested interest in it if you are from the Clarion area, cite rumors about the school, and have a state-related university's campus as your avatar on a board and thread devoted to the topic.

Should Pennsylvania increase funding for higher education to keep a school like Clarion operational?
 
Parkview57 said:
No. If it can't sustain itself close it and move on.
Click to expand...
What does “sustain itself” mean? No public funding at all? By that logic, we won’t have any public schools.

Costs and expenses go up. If the Commonwealth funded roads and bridges at the same level that it did in 1990, our roads and bridges would be in even worse shape than they are now. What was enough appropriation to rebuild a bridge in 1990 gets you a fraction of the way there today. The same is true for education.
 
pittchagg said:
What does “sustain itself” mean?
Click to expand...
Attract enough students to have class sizes per the norm and program/course of study/majors that hold enough undergrads (1-4) to supply faculty with work loads in line with the normative workload in the industry. (hope this makes sense)
 
CrazyPaco said:
LMFAO @ "misinterpretations". I flat out directly quoted you (emphasis mine): "I want Pitt to return to the core business of a university - preparing young adults for a future in the real world,"

There is no other way to interpret that direct quote other than Pitt has left its core business. And you defined this "core business of a university" as the following (again a direct quote): "preparing young adults for a future in the real world." That, by the way, is more of the business of a trade school, not historically the business of a college or university.

But that point is now moot, as you have now done an about face, and I'll again quote your statement because it is diametrically opposed to your initial statement: "Its core business hasn't varied."

Maybe instead of flinging about wild hyperbole that actually undermine the credibility of whatever you are trying to convey, you should actually write what you mean.

Now, he next step would be to see how you actually define "peripheral crap." And then examine how this "peripheral crap," if eliminated, would both impact institutional cost savings that could reduce the cost of attendance and how its elimination would impact Pitt's ability to attract customers, faculty, funding, political support, or adhere to mandated compliance laws. You can't eliminate anything without having an effect one way or the other, and that is true no matter the side you are coming at this from. I've already posted two articles above considering the advent of univeristy "luxury amenities" and how they are unlikely to result in significant cost savings.

My guess is, and you will have to correct me if I'm wrong (but I'm trying to save time here), what you consider "peripheral crap" is present at every single peer and near peer or aspirational peer, if not all universities in general. Again, Pitt operates in a highly competitive industry, not in a vacuum. What Pitt's university leadership should realistically consider cutting or deemphasizing and the actual benefits and consequences of any such moves, would actually be an interesting discussion, but not one I've seen any evidence of such a discussion actually being able to transpire here.
Click to expand...
I only read through your second paragraph because you lost me with nonsense. I never said that Pitt's core business went away. I said that it has added layers to the core that should be stripped away to "return to its core". That seems too complex for you to understand, though.
 
CrazyPaco said:
Being a resident of Pennsylvania is not a prerequisite to providing an opinion on state funding support for higher education. Clearly you have some sort of vested interest in it if you are from the Clarion area, cite rumors about the school, and have a state-related university's campus as your avatar on a board and thread devoted to the topic.

Should Pennsylvania increase funding for higher education to keep a school like Clarion operational?
Click to expand...
I have no opinion. It is meaningless to me and does not affect my life one iota.
 
NCPitt said:
I only read through your second paragraph because you lost me with nonsense. I never said that Pitt's core business went away. I said that it has added layers to the core that should be stripped away to "return to its core". That seems too complex for you to understand, though.
Click to expand...
I made the mistake of thinking you might want to have a deeper conversation on these fairly important issues at more than a shallow slogan level, such as your use of vapid statements like "cut fat," that offered no real insight or consideration of either what "fat" is or the consequence of what cutting it could mean. Seeing as you haven't bothered to provide any information of substance, your dismissiveness and unwillingness to address actual information presented, and the logic-bending hoop jumping that you engage in to justify your backpedaling, I'm going to go with it is just not worth engaging further.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pittdan77 and Slick Manager of Champs
CrazyPaco said:
I made the mistake of thinking you might want to have a deeper conversation on these fairly important issues at more than a shallow slogan level, such as your use of vapid statements like "cut fat," that offered no real insight or consideration of either what "fat" is or the consequence of what cutting it could mean. Seeing as you haven't bothered to provide any information of substance, your dismissiveness and unwillingness to address actual information presented, and the logic-bending hoop jumping that you engage in to justify your backpedaling, I'm going to go with it is just not worth engaging further.
Click to expand...
I would love to get into a deeper discussion. But you've proven that you can't be trusted because you misstate my posts on a regular basis.

This post is just one example. I offered a specific example - DEI - as an example of fat. Yet you claim that I "offered no real insight or consideration of either what "fat" is".
 
NCPitt said:
I would love to get into a deeper discussion. But you've proven that you can't be trusted because you misstate my posts on a regular basis.

This post is just one example. I offered a specific example - DEI - as an example of fat. Yet you claim that I "offered no real insight or consideration of either what "fat" is".
Click to expand...
Great, I missed mention of DEI as the fat to be cut.

So you are aware, the Pitt's Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion office is also responsible for ADA compliance, Title IX compliance, civil rights (including religious accommodations), and veterans programs (Pitt has been designated as a Military Friendly School).

Consider the following questions regarding cutting DEI initiatives:

1) how much would cutting DEI initiatives save. And since this is a thread on tuition cost, specifically, how much would it reduce tuition for all students (graduate and undergrad).
2) What are the legal issues and costs (see Title IX and ADA, etc) as Pitt's office covers legally required programs and reporting
3) how will that affect positively or negatively on the university from a local and national publicity point of view
4) how will that affect positively or negatively on peer perception of the university (which directly impacts many rankings including US News & World Report)
5) how will it impact the recruitment of new students and faculty, also considering #4
6) how will current students and faculty react and what costs will these reactions incur
7) Since faculty at Pitt are now unionized, and staff are attempting to organize, how will these layoffs be managed and how will this impact union organization and ongoing faculty union negotiations.
8) Considering the above, what are the real costs of dealing with #2-7 in comparison with the costs savings in #1

Here's the list of the 23 staff members of Pitt's EDI office.

People | Office for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion | University of Pittsburgh | University of Pittsburgh

The University of Pittsburgh is among the nation's most distinguished comprehensive universities, with a wide variety of high-quality programs in both the arts and sciences and professional fields.
www.diversity.pitt.edu

I will throw in one other university wide position outside of the office, the Vice Provost for Faculty and Diversity Development.

Note I do not think the regional campuses have dedicated staff for DEI programs or compliance, rather they have individuals who cover these areas as part of their responsibilities...consider 1 to <2 equivalent positions at each of the three regional campuses (Bradford now oversees the training hub at Titusville). Individual schools, like medicine and law, also have a few diversity employees, usually 1-4 depending on size. Quick googling, it doesn't look like all schools have these position themselves...and I've eliminated some that don't have them to get down to about 10, but I'm not checking all remaining 10. So let's go with 10 different schools within the university have maybe average 2 faculty/staff of their own dedicated to DEI initiatives as well. So let's add 20 more employees for the individual schools and 6 for the regionals plus Vice Provost and all 23 positions in Pitt's EDI office to get to about 40 individuals across the university.

The following information comes from the latest Pitt fact book and audited financial reports for FY 2022:
Total students all campuses: 33,632
Total employees all campuses: 14,699
FY22 audited total salaries+compensation: $1,563,566,000

If you cut the approximately (and likely overestimate) 40 jobs related to DEI at Pitt's main and regional campuses (not just salaries but costs of the entire benefits package), going by the mean cost of an employee salary and benefit package for employees of the university ($106,372.27, which is also likely overestimated considering that non-faculty staff make and most of the positions), I'd calculate that you'd save roughly $4,254,890.81. Just dividing by total students, if all savings went to tuition discounts and not, say, faculty recruitment or retention, that means you'd save each student: $126.51. This is very rough, but likely in the ballpark.

So there is a rough estimate to question #1: $126.51, but I would guess that is likely an overestimation. And of course you couldn't cut all those positions in the EDI office because you'd run afoul of all sorts of legal requirements and end up getting all sorts of fines from the Fed, if not risk losing nearly $1 billion a year in federally sponsored research.

So one has to ask, does cutting that "fat" make sense as a solution to cost of attendance issues considering questions 2-7?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panthergrowl13 and TempleBAPittMPA
CrazyPaco said:
Great, I missed mention of DEI as the fat to be cut.

So you are aware, the Pitt's Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion office is also responsible for ADA compliance, Title IX compliance, civil rights (including religious accommodations), and veterans programs (Pitt has been designated as a Military Friendly School).

Consider the following questions regarding cutting DEI initiatives:

1) how much would cutting DEI initiatives save. And since this is a thread on tuition cost, specifically, how much would it reduce tuition for all students (graduate and undergrad).
2) What are the legal issues and costs (see Title IX and ADA, etc) as Pitt's office covers legally required programs and reporting
3) how will that affect positively or negatively on the university from a local and national publicity point of view
4) how will that affect positively or negatively on peer perception of the university (which directly impacts many rankings including US News & World Report)
5) how will it impact the recruitment of new students and faculty, also considering #4
6) how will current students and faculty react and what costs will these reactions incur
7) Since faculty at Pitt are now unionized, and staff are attempting to organize, how will these layoffs be managed and how will this impact union organization and ongoing faculty union negotiations.
8) Considering the above, what are the real costs of dealing with #2-7 in comparison with the costs savings in #1

Here's the list of the 23 staff members of Pitt's EDI office.

People | Office for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion | University of Pittsburgh | University of Pittsburgh

The University of Pittsburgh is among the nation's most distinguished comprehensive universities, with a wide variety of high-quality programs in both the arts and sciences and professional fields.
www.diversity.pitt.edu

I will throw in one other university wide position outside of the office, the Vice Provost for Faculty and Diversity Development.

Note I do not think the regional campuses have dedicated staff for DEI programs or compliance, rather they have individuals who cover these areas as part of their responsibilities...consider 1 to <2 equivalent positions at each of the three regional campuses (Bradford now oversees the training hub at Titusville). Individual schools, like medicine and law, also have a few diversity employees, usually 1-4 depending on size. Quick googling, it doesn't look like all schools have these position themselves...and I've eliminated some that don't have them to get down to about 10, but I'm not checking all remaining 10. So let's go with 10 different schools within the university have maybe average 2 faculty/staff of their own dedicated to DEI initiatives as well. So let's add 20 more employees for the individual schools and 6 for the regionals plus Vice Provost and all 23 positions in Pitt's EDI office to get to about 40 individuals across the university.

The following information comes from the latest Pitt fact book and audited financial reports for FY 2022:
Total students all campuses: 33,632
Total employees all campuses: 14,699
FY22 audited total salaries+compensation: $1,563,566,000

If you cut the approximately (and likely overestimate) 40 jobs related to DEI at Pitt's main and regional campuses (not just salaries but costs of the entire benefits package), going by the mean cost of an employee salary and benefit package for employees of the university ($106,372.27, which is also likely overestimated considering that non-faculty staff make and most of the positions), I'd calculate that you'd save roughly $4,254,890.81. Just dividing by total students, if all savings went to tuition discounts and not, say, faculty recruitment or retention, that means you'd save each student: $126.51. This is very rough, but likely in the ballpark.

So there is a rough estimate to question #1: $126.51, but I would guess that is likely an overestimation. And of course you couldn't cut all those positions in the EDI office because you'd run afoul of all sorts of legal requirements and end up getting all sorts of fines from the Fed, if not risk losing nearly $1 billion a year in federally sponsored research.

So one has to ask, does cutting that "fat" make sense as a solution to cost of attendance issues considering questions 2-7?
Click to expand...
Yes. Most of those titles seem unrelated to the issues you listed. But I don't speak "academian" so what do I know.

I'm pretty sure that DEI isn't the only fat at Pitt. Regardless, your answer is typically of those who like to spend other peoples' money. "Its just a drop in the bucket." Well, lots of drops start to add up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FireballZ
NCPitt said:
Yes. Most of those titles seem unrelated to the issues you listed. But I don't speak "academian" so what do I know.

I'm pretty sure that DEI isn't the only fat at Pitt. Regardless, your answer is typically of those who like to spend other peoples' money. "It’s just a drop in the bucket." Well, lots of drops start to add up.
Click to expand...
Why do I get the feeling that you might not really know what DEI is outside of whatever your media source of choice telling you that you should be very mad about it.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 303vND, FireballZ and TempleBAPittMPA
NCPitt said:
Yes. Most of those titles seem unrelated to the issues you listed. But I don't speak "academian" so what do I know.

I'm pretty sure that DEI isn't the only fat at Pitt. Regardless, your answer is typically of those who like to spend other peoples' money. "Its just a drop in the bucket." Well, lots of drops start to add up.
Click to expand...
Well the luxury amenity issue has been covered in two prior articles I posted, which, if you read them, does not seem to be a significant part of higher education cost inflation..and I've seen similar analysis in other publications as well. Whether DEI or luxury student amenities are necessary or even right...honestly...is besides the point when considering the operations of a single university. Making a university a martyr for a ideological or political bent will kill that university because it has to operate in the current ecosystem. The change has to be made across the entire higher education ecosystem, at a higher level. And in no way am I saying these things are necessary or good. I'm only talking about how to deal with cost at one university and one university only, because that has been the entire topic of this posst.

Everyone wants a scapegoat that is dislikable and easy to use as rallying cry, but why higher education inflation outstrips CPI inflation isn't that difficult to decipher. CPI is measured by price of widgets. Those prices have been artificially deflated for decades by outsourcing their production to cheap labor oversees. That is why the cost of anything with real human labor in the US, any service-intensive industry, is much higher than the price of parts, goods, and materials in general. You have to pay competitive salaries that make sense for the US labor market. Now consider that most university labor has advanced and terminal degrees in their field, and are individuals often considered to be the thought leaders in their entire field, and then you have to make an offer that has to be competitive with outside industry and your peer institution competitors. Labor costs for auto mechanics and plumbers aren't cheap, and guess what, neither are professors with PhDs and years of internships and post-doctoral fellowships on top of that.

That said, their salaries in higher education are generally still low for their amount of training and experience and yes, actual hours faculty have to work. In 2020, the mean salary for a newly hired tenure-track assistant professor in the natural sciences (bio, chem, physics, neuroscience, etc) in Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences (5-6 years grad school with PhD with probably at least 4-5 years of post-doc training and usually some existing grant funding to cover part of your own salary): $84,290. If you make tenure after 5 years of busting your hump, it goes up to $95,057 (need to prove you have a national reputation and are productive and bring in grant money and you are likely covering most of your salary with grants). Five more years, maybe you make full professor at $139,429 (at that point, you have to prove yourself to have an international reputation in your field to make full professor). Frankly, most people that work at universities do so for the love of the learning environment and freedom to explore and create new knowledge, and frankly, because the apprentice system in higher education is a bit of a ponzi scheme that suckers people to stay in academia. They don't stay at universities for money or some astounding work-life balance.

The whole point of all of the above...it is just not that simple where you can pick a couple of things and place the cause of cost issues on those.

I'm not sure where spending other people's money comes from. Pitt sells a service, is fully transparent of the cost, encourages customers to come on its campus and look around before buying, and then its customers' decide buy that service. In fact, they are free to move to another service pretty much every couple of months (much better than your typical cell phone plan).

Pitt discounts the sticker price of their service to residents of the state. Taxpayer subsidies to Pitt do not cover the total of those discounts. I'm not sure where "spending other people's money" comes from because Pitt provides back way more discount for PA residents than the funding that it receives, not to mention the economic impact on its region.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panthergrowl13 and pittdan77
I'd argue that higher education today has become much more like 'creating widgets' then in the past, except they want to keep creating widgets while keeping the price high. We don't need employes who are thought leaders in their field or who have terminal degrees to be teaching basic courses. 90% of things to learn in college can be easily obtained with a cheap or free online course or by simply visiting most libraries.
 
HailtoPitt said:
I'd argue that higher education today has become much more like 'creating widgets' then in the past, except they want to keep creating widgets while keeping the price high. We don't need employes who are thought leaders in their field or who have terminal degrees to be teaching basic courses. 90% of things to learn in college can be easily obtained with a cheap or free online course or by simply visiting most libraries.
Click to expand...
That has always been true but the quality, or at least the reputation of the institution for a given field of study, does matter.
 
NCPitt said:
Btw, you talk about my vote like it is an insult. I couldn't care less about a candidate's education. I would vote for a 6th-grade dropout if he had the right principles of governance.
Click to expand...

Correct. Intelligence and competence are not qualifiers for you. Just make taxes low for corporations and billionaires and protect our guns and you are good. You'd vote for a 6th grade dropout if they did that. Oh wait, you just actually said that.
 
Franb said:
This money is earmarked for one purpose, to enable Pitt to charge lower tuition to in-state students. It does nothing for Pitt, and essentially is passed through to these students. So they are the ones who will be effected if this money disappears. Do those Republicans who oppose this funding want to explain to their constituents that they will have to pay higher tuition to go to Pitt? That is going to go over very well.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Pitt spends too much?? Aren't they, with psu, the highest in-state tuition?? Pittsburgh is a relatively a low cost area. Is the BOT doing its job in cost control?
 
Franb said:
In this case, every vote against Pitt's funding is from Republicans. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Click to expand...
And Democrats want to dismiss any move to cut spending? How much was dumped into the woke blackmail?
 
I’m sure I’m going to regret asking this, but what is the “woke blackmail?”
 
pittchagg said:
Why do I get the feeling that you might not really know what DEI is outside of whatever your media source of choice telling you that you should be very mad about it.
Click to expand...
Because your feelings are never right?
 
NTOP said:
Perhaps Pitt spends too much?? Aren't they, with psu, the highest in-state tuition?? Pittsburgh is a relatively a low cost area. Is the BOT doing its job in cost control?
Click to expand...
As has been mentioned, PA ranks next to last in per capita spending on higher education, which is reflected in the tuition for in-state students. We spend $156 and the national average is $318. Higher state subsidy would mean lower in-state tuition.
 
NTOP said:
Perhaps Pitt spends too much?? Aren't they, with psu, the highest in-state tuition?? Pittsburgh is a relatively a low cost area. Is the BOT doing its job in cost control?
Click to expand...
More accurate to think of it this way: they offer the smallest in-state discount.

Compare Pitt's sticker price tuition (i.e. out-of-state tuition) to private universities or other public's out-of-state tuition costs.

$36K out-of-state for Pitt (Dietrich A&S); $25K out-of-state at UPJ

$64K for Boston Univ
$63K for Tulane
$61K for Syracuse
$59K for Northeastern
$58K for Miami
$55K for Michigan out-of-state
$52K for UVA out-of-state
$47K for Texas out-of-state
$42K for UCLA out-of-state
$40K for Indiana out-of-state
$39k for Wisconsin out-of-state
$38K for Clemson out-of-state
$37K for UNC out-of-state
$35K for Ohio State out-of-state
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris Peak

Breakdown: Pitt holds on against FSU with record-breaking night from Hinson

Replies
0
Views
677
Center Court at the Pete
Chris Peak
Chris Peak
Chris Peak

Breakdown: Pitt holds off late N.C. State surge to finish the regular season with a win

Replies
0
Views
1K
Center Court at the Pete
Chris Peak
Chris Peak
L

Pitt @ Clemson (+6.5) thoughts & predictions:

Replies
18
Views
1K
Center Court at the Pete
Allan McMurray
Allan McMurray
Chris Peak

Breakdown: Pitt uses second-half energy - and 50 points - to come back against Wake Forest

Replies
11
Views
978
Center Court at the Pete
HOF Coach
HOF Coach
W

PITT VS NC STATE FRIDAY NIGHT @FITZ

Replies
53
Views
3K
The Field House
pafootballguy
P
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back