ADVERTISEMENT

ACC Financial Standing

Cause gets more people at their hoops games than football games, literally
 
So this is for the ’13/’14 season. When did we receive a full ACC cut? 11.3 M infusion seems high and explains Barnes as the new AD. We will bridge this gap over the next few seasons.
 
Noticed that 4 of the 5 teams with no athletic profit are teams with pro sports teams located in their cities.
Only exception was Wake Forest. BC,Miami, GT and Pitt all had pro teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: braveskg08
Well, this relates to the debate on football or basketball focus, doesn't it? The argument that football automatically has the bigger "upside" absolutely has to come with the caveat that Pitt FIRST establishes the program as a consistent winner (and one in the 9-3 and above variety ... nearly every season too ... not the occasional 7-6 we have now).

Those who complain that the fans should sell out and pack the stadium merely for love of dear old Pittsburgh and the glory of the game, are simply delusional. Football CAN have a tremendous upside but Pitt has to provide the product first.

It's funny that so many refuse to acknowledge this, or more so that others believe it will change without this happening.

I get that many among us get chafed by the mere idea that Pitt should the throw more investment into winning football, it violates the cause of the university mission and all that. Well, this is one of the flip side effects. Anemic revenue.

It's not that basketball will be profitable either without success. Just that Pitt already HAD success in hoops this past decade. Sustaining it is easier than getting it. Yet Pitt is squandering that too, with its dime store assistants.

I
Noticed that 4 of the 5 teams with no athletic profit are teams with pro sports teams located in their cities.
Only exception was Wake Forest. BC,Miami, GT and Pitt all had pro teams.
Well, what do we think will dramatically improve our revenues?

It is obvious of course. Winning. But some seem puzzled. The poster noted the pro team connection as if it's the pro teams to blame. All it shows though, is the challenge to provide a more competitive product in those places. Can't just roll the ball out there. It's fun (and ironic, for us) to point out Miami crowds sometimes, and they typically never will be Big-House strong. But when they were MIAMI for that brief stretch, they were very hot in that town. For various reasons (unfathomable IMO, given the huge natural advantages there), they squandered their tremendous success and never got it back. I enjoyed our win there last year but face it, they shouldn't have ever lost such a game to us. Just like how we should have never lost that game to Akron. Neither had anything to do with the fans who weren't there, or the Dolphins or Steelers, and all to do with inept leadership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjb32812
Noticed that 4 of the 5 teams with no athletic profit are teams with pro sports teams located in their cities.
Only exception was Wake Forest. BC,Miami, GT and Pitt all had pro teams.

Purely coincidental.
 
Well, this relates to the debate on football or basketball focus, doesn't it? The argument that football automatically has the bigger "upside" absolutely has to come with the caveat that Pitt FIRST establishes the program as a consistent winner (and one in the 9-3 and above variety ... nearly every season too ... not the occasional 7-6 we have now).

Those who complain that the fans should sell out and pack the stadium merely for love of dear old Pittsburgh and the glory of the game, are simply delusional. Football CAN have a tremendous upside but Pitt has to provide the product first.

It's funny that so many refuse to acknowledge this, or more so that others believe it will change without this happening.

I get that many among us get chafed by the mere idea that Pitt should the throw more investment into winning football, it violates the cause of the university mission and all that. Well, this is one of the flip side effects. Anemic revenue.

It's not that basketball will be profitable either without success. Just that Pitt already HAD success in hoops this past decade. Sustaining it is easier than getting it. Yet Pitt is squandering that too, with its dime store assistants.

I

Well, what do we think will dramatically improve our revenues?

It is obvious of course. Winning. But some seem puzzled. The poster noted the pro team connection as if it's the pro teams to blame. All it shows though, is the challenge to provide a more competitive product in those places. Can't just roll the ball out there. It's fun (and ironic, for us) to point out Miami crowds sometimes, and they typically never will be Big-House strong. But when they were MIAMI for that brief stretch, they were very hot in that town. For various reasons (unfathomable IMO, given the huge natural advantages there), they squandered their tremendous success and never got it back. I enjoyed our win there last year but face it, they shouldn't have ever lost such a game to us. Just like how we should have never lost that game to Akron. Neither had anything to do with the fans who weren't there, or the Dolphins or Steelers, and all to do with inept leadership.

I actually view it as the opposite. Syracuse, NC State, UNC, do not put much of a product out there and are making double of Pitt.

Having the pro sports mentality is why we won't be a football power anytime soon.

That said, I'm actually surprised Pitt had $66M. That's better than what I thought.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT