Still a loooooong way to go on the track, IMO. Lack of facilities obviously hurt quite a bit.
Team right now is extremely top-heavy; nearly all of the points from the ACC meet came from seniors. Depth also looks to be extremely weak -- no respectable school should have a kid go to the conference meet and run a 4:15 mile or a 14:54 5k. That's D3 shit.
What I haven't seen is an articulated strategy for what the team wants to be. Track, like most Olympic sports, has limited scholarships so you have to be choosy about where you want to devote your resources. Teams like Oregon go after mid-distance and distance; the Big 12 and SEC schools mostly focus on the sprints, and you've even got teams like VT (mostly PV) and UGA (multis) who focus on the field.
My view is that you want athletes, usually sprinters -- because a good sprinter can not only get you points in their main event, but also relays and potentially also the jumps. You get more bang for your buck than you would with a distance guy. But with that said, if you're in a conference where other teams are doing the same, then there's less advantage tit-for-tat for doing so.
I actually think for being a cold-weather state, PA's high school track scene is pretty solid. The state churns out 10-15 legitimate D1 scholarship athletes per year and while I can't blame us for losing to PSU, there is absolutely no way we should get beat by the Lehighs of the world for in-state talent. But again it maps back to facilities and strategy.
An interesting strategy that I've seen a few teams do is poach from D2/D3 -- Miami imported a kid who was a 2x national champion at WashU and GT did the same with a kid who was running at Emory. Given that Pitt sits in the middle of a pretty rich area for D2/D3, they could easily start to pad their depth.