Big Game - Tickets Still Available

[R-M-U-h-o-o-p-s-f-a-n]

Actually, he getting paid the big bucks more because he wascabke towin without bringing in the top notch players by shady means. A lot of people on these boards confuse winning on signing day with winning actual games. If our team doesn't win games, signing highly-rated recruits is totally meaningless.

ALL Pitt fans SHOULD understand that point because the classes immediately before and jncluding Steven Adams were the highest rated classes Pitt acquired since the Martin, Shorter, Miller, Matthews and Porter class. Yet the performance in games, where it really, you know, counts, was among the worst since Ralph Williard was let go.

College sports IS a big business. Pitt probably should not be participating in big time sports because it is really outside of our basic mission. I've discussed that point many times.

But, it takes money to fund ANY sports program. Either the money comes from TV and gate receipts, from donations or from deficit spending by the university. It takes a little digging to determine actual revenues and spending at Pitt becuse with our quasi-private status, we do not publish full disclosure of athletic budgets as many public universites do.

Nevertheless, it is possible to put a picture together from federally- required reports that consistently puts our sports revenues and exenditures in the bottom 5 schools in P-5. Our donations have consistently been near the bottom of whichever league we have been members of. Mostly, you get what you pay for.

Gallagher and Barnes have continued to subsidize the "Olympic" or non-profit sports at essentially the same level as Nordenberg, $7 to $10 million per year. They have taken the increased TV money from the ACC and rolled it back into the Athletic Department, both in upgrades to the minor sports and raising the ante in football. The question really is how long is that sustainable?

The hope is to make football sufficiently profitable to carry the non-profitable sports. The problem with that is our entire athletic budget is $100 MILLION less than the top spenders budget for football alone. The top 5 programs bring in more in donations than our total operating revenue.

At best, Barnes has acknowledged we are in the bottom third financially in the ACC. Some of USA Today's figures put us much worse, last or next to last.

I used to think that simply buying tickets fulfilled my duties as a Pitt fan. That is not the case today. If anyone wants real success, they have to pay extra for it.

If our fans are unwilling to do that, then we SHOULD drop to D-2 or D-3. Or be happy with 6-6 seasons in football and NIT bids in hoops.

-Dixon definitely can coach but he hasn't done very well recently on the recruiting side of things. Recruiting is half of the ball game. You could be the best coach in the world, but if you're under sized in the middle, and your players just aren't good enough to take over games and make shots in clutch moments, you'll lose to the good teams.

-If he could even recruit a 3 star center (about 6-11) this team would be better and could've competed with Purdue a lot better down low. (He probably is Redshirting Nix just to give him another year to find "any" big man at all.

-As to the money, people are more inclined to give if the program is doing well and making runs in the Tournament. How could you not agree with that?? Yes, some alum give $ no matter what. And ya... more alumni (probably) should be giving $ to the school and athletics. But, the way to entice them to do so is having success (runs in the Tournament) and having it of recent time.

Go Pitt...

 

[levance2]

-As to the money, people are more inclined to give if the program is doing well and making runs in the Tournament. How could you not agree with that?? Yes, some alum give $ no matter what. And ya... more alumni (probably) should be giving $ to the school and athletics. But, the way to entice them to do so is having success (runs in the Tournament) and having it of recent time.

This would be a fine argument if historic evidence didn't prove it is completely false. As Harve said, we have been at the bottom. We are at the bottom. We will continue to be at the bottom.

 

[levance2]

So you think Pitt should get out of big time athletics. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

I also take no issue with anyone holding this view. Personally, if they ever decide to proceed with the "let's pay NCAA athletes" aside from cost of attendance, I would 100% be in favor of dropping to D3.

 

[R-M-U-h-o-o-p-s-f-a-n]

This would be a fine argument if historic evidence didn't prove it is completely false. As Harve said, we have been at the bottom. We are at the bottom. We will continue to be at the bottom.

Stinks for the University.
But winning can't hurt anything tho...

 

[levance2]

I am continually amazed they let you post on here. You contribute less than nothing. Try the Trump message boards.

How's your glass house these days?

 

[Harve74]

-Dixon definitely can coach but he hasn't done very well recently on the recruiting side of things. Recruiting is half of the ball game. You could be the best coach in the world, but if you're under sized in the middle, and your players just aren't good enough to take over games and make shots in clutch moments, you'll lose to the good teams.

-If he could even recruit a 3 star center (about 6-11) this team would be better and could've competed with Purdue a lot better down low. (He probably is Redshirting Nix just to give him another year to find "any" big man at all.

-As to the money, people are more inclined to give if the program is doing well and making runs in the Tournament. How could you not agree with that?? Yes, some alum give $ no matter what. And ya... more alumni (probably) should be giving $ to the school and athletics. But, the way to entice them to do so is having success (runs in the Tournament) and having it of recent time.

Go Pitt...

The financial point is that even when Pitt was a consistent Top 25 team and playing in Big East finals and getting #1 seeds, fans donated like we were Robert Morris, not a national power. The problem goes back decades, not just the past 3 or 4 years. We just don't donate like a P-5 school. We probably don't belong in P-5 but we still have delusions of past granduer.

Regarding recruiting, I will say it again and slowly so you understand.

WINNING GAMES IN DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN SIGNING GUYS WITH LOTS OF STARS BESIDE THEIR NAMES. Our fans really don't understand that at all.

From 2009 to 2012 we signed THREE 5-star centers in four classes. NONE became an impact player. Back under Evans we signed a class with two McDonald's All-Americans. Those two guys played on teams which won only TWO NCAAT games in 4 years, and one of them was with Smith, Lane and Gore carrying the load.

Having talent is nice. Winning games is better. Having talent and losing games really sucks.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Quick correction, Levance:

1. Even if Pitt does not have separate bank accounts for the different sports, they have different budgets so the money is differentiated. In fact, you could designate that your donation go to a certain sport. As a PC Member (but not a real fan), I know this. The fact you didnt raises questions....

2. Pitt does not load up on cupcakes to make revenue for the ath. Dept. That was a line fed to you by SP and Jamie. The OOC cupcakes are part of the RPI/NCAAT formula. Nothing more, nothing less. As I've said a billion times, most of these games have little to no value to the season ticket package and very few individual tickets get sold. For example, the cost of turning the lights on, staffing the Pete and paying UCA to come in on Sunday is more than the increase in season ticket price from the scheduling of that game. We both know that if they eliminated that game entirely, they would not have sold one less ticket package.

Pitt is not the only program that says they need these games for revenue. A lot of programs say that and most are lying. No money is made off these games. The money is made during conference play. These are free "throw-ins."

 

[NTOP]

I am continually amazed they let you post on here. You contribute less than nothing. Try the Trump message boards.

You can't handle the truth.

 

[NTOP]

Quick correction, Levance:

1. Even if Pitt does not have separate bank accounts for the different sports, they have different budgets so the money is differentiated. In fact, you could designate that your donation go to a certain sport. As a PC Member (but not a real fan), I know this. The fact you didnt raises questions....

2. Pitt does not load up on cupcakes to make revenue for the ath. Dept. That was a line fed to you by SP and Jamie. The OOC cupcakes are part of the RPI/NCAAT formula. Nothing more, nothing less. As I've said a billion times, most of these games have little to no value to the season ticket package and very few individual tickets get sold. For example, the cost of turning the lights on, staffing the Pete and paying UCA to come in on Sunday is more than the increase in season ticket price from the scheduling of that game. We both know that if they eliminated that game entirely, they would not have sold one less ticket package.

Pitt is not the only program that says they need these games for revenue. A lot of programs say that and most are lying. No money is made off these games. The money is made during conference play. These are free "throw-ins."

Gee, maybe we should just eliminate the OOC schedule?? That'd likely increase the season tix pkg., on a per-game basis, making Stubhub even more of a bargain.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Gee, maybe we should just eliminate the OOC schedule?? That'd likely increase the season tix pkg., on a per-game basis, making Stubhub even more of a bargain.

Not what I'm saying. The cupcakes are important because they serve one purpose and one purpose only. They are supposed to be scheduled so your team can improve, build cohesion, and get confidence. They are absolutely NOT there to make money. That's a complete lie. Major college teams only need maybe 3-4 cupcakes. The rest should be games that fans want to see.

For all those complaining about attendance last night, there were about 9K there for a dreadful 9PM midweeker. That's double any crowd we've had so far. The overflow upper deck student section was almost full. The atmosphere was really good. A couple more of those would be a lot more fun that UCA and UMES. And......we might actually win those games. We have a good team.

 

[levance2]

Quick correction, Levance:

1. Even if Pitt does not have separate bank accounts for the different sports, they have different budgets so the money is differentiated. In fact, you could designate that your donation go to a certain sport. As a PC Member (but not a real fan), I know this. The fact you didnt raises questions....

You can split it up however you want, but it all flows from the same place. Pitt gets $xM in donations, they get $yM in ACC/NCAA money, and they get $zM from the general fund. If I divert my donation for 2016 to only serve the basketball team, some other money flows in to compensate everywhere else.

My point was that football and basketball are not zero-sum balances at the end of the year. If basketball makes an extra $100k, it may go back into basketball. It may go into football. It may go into women's tennis. It may go into facilities. It really doesn't matter where it goes. If Pitt "can't afford" higher costs for recruiting travel, it is because it is spending money any number of different places.

My gas bill, my electric bill, and my water bill are all logically separate, but they're all being paid collectively from the same place. There's no reason I would say I spent $5 less in gas this month, but cannot pay an extra $5 in electric. It is one pool of income and all one pool of expenses.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

I'm not advocating exiting big time college athletics I'm just questioning that $ is the reason Pitt can't compete with the elite programs in bb & Fb ( yes I don't really care about the other sports ...shot me ) . To compete you have to recruit the elite athletes and in both sports WPa is not what it used to be so how do you accomplish this ? Is the answer just $$$? I don't think so , Pitt is unwilling to go to the dark side of recruiting so I have no solutions on how to convince an elite prospect to come to Pitt instead of a Duke or Kentucky . I'm just questioning the notion that $ is what's lacking . I just saw Kentucky play in Fl and their fans were amazing , the enthusiasm for a game similar to one of our lackluster OOC opponents was off the charts. Having never experienced that type of environment (and they all traveled to this game ) made me realize that schools like Pitt have no chance competing against programs like this except in rare occasions . Maybe this is as good as it gets with an occasional sweet 16 team and no matter how much $ you throw at the program the elite player is not coming to Pitt. Without good coaches like JD it's not hard to envision Willard type years returning to Pitt.

 

[Harve74]

I'm not advocating exiting big time college athletics I'm just questioning that $ is the reason Pitt can't compete with the elite programs in bb & Fb ( yes I don't really care about the other sports ...shot me ) . To compete you have to recruit the elite athletes and in both sports WPa is not what it used to be so how do you accomplish this ? Is the answer just $$$? I don't think so , Pitt is unwilling to go to the dark side of recruiting so I have no solutions on how to convince an elite prospect to come to Pitt instead of a Duke or Kentucky . I'm just questioning the notion that $ is what's lacking . I just saw Kentucky play in Fl and their fans were amazing , the enthusiasm for a game similar to one of our lackluster OOC opponents was off the charts. Having never experienced that type of environment (and they all traveled to this game ) made me realize that schools like Pitt have no chance competing against programs like this except in rare occasions . Maybe this is as good as it gets with an occasional sweet 16 team and no matter how much $ you throw at the program the elite player is not coming to Pitt. Without good coaches like JD it's not hard to envision Willard type years returning to Pitt.

Actually, Williard recruited some pretty good kids, on paper. He just couldn't control or instill discipline in his players, on or off the court. His class with Cummings, Blount, Hawkins, Howard and Gill was not that much inferior to the fabled Martin, Shorter, Miller, Mathews, Porter class. Kelli Taylor, Atilla Cosby, Seabrooks and even Fred Primus were very skilled players but with incredibly bad off-court behavior and problems. .

Under Howland and continuing under Dixon, we found a niche, recruiting a certain kind of kid as much as type of player. A tough, maybe undersized or under-skilled, but over-achieving kid with a chip on his shoulder.

We got away from that trying to recruit elite athletes. I think we can get back to close to where we were if we concentrate on guys who fit us, not reaching for guys who never will.

Our budget and fan base are basically Georgia Tech/Wake Forest. Or maybe Boston College. Except GC and BC have better local recruiting. It is what it is. When they had good coaches, they had some very good years. We have a very good coach, as long as the idiots don't run him off. Dixon is all that separates us from those bottom-feeder schools.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

Actually, Williard recruited some pretty good kids, on paper. He just couldn't control or instill discipline in his players, on or off the court. His class with Cummings, Blount, Hawkins, Howard and Gill was not that much inferior to the fabled Martin, Shorter, Miller, Mathews, Porter class. Kelli Taylor, Atilla Cosby, Seabrooks and even Fred Primus were very skilled players but with incredibly bad off-court behavior and problems. .

Under Howland and continuing under Dixon, we found a niche, recruiting a certain kind of kid as much as type of player. A tough, maybe undersized or under-skilled, but over-achieving kid with a chip on his shoulder.

We got away from that trying to recruit elite athletes. I think we can get back to close to where we were if we concentrate on guys who fit us, not reaching for guys who never will.

Our budget and fan base are basically Georgia Tech/Wake Forest. Or maybe Boston College. Except GC and BC have better local recruiting. It is what it is. When they had good coaches, they had some very good years. We have a very good coach, as long as the idiots don't run him off. Dixon is all that separates us from those bottom-feeder schools.

I totally agree about JD importance to the continued success of the program.
I think that Pitt lost its way trying to recruit the more gifted elite offensive player to play in the more athletic ACC. Pitts strengths has been toughness ,defense and rebounding and in trying to get the more skilled offensive player got them away from this formula. Pitt needs to get back to developing their players over 5 years and no matter how well Luther is playing it surprised me he wasn't red shirted this year. Pitt needs to be a well disciplined ,mature ,physical team to try and combat the talent gap they face when playing the Dukes of the world.
Too many Pitt fans don't understand that no matter how much money they throw at facilities and recruiting budgets there's just so many more attractive places for these elite players to go.
I really wasn't talking talent ,but results in the Willard years, he did bring in some talent though just not enough wins.

 

[levance2]

Too many Pitt fans don't understand that no matter how much money they throw at facilities and recruiting budgets there's just so many more attractive places for these elite players to go.

Pitt is never going to beat Duke by outspending them, but Pitt needs to spend comparable amounts to teams of their own caliber (i.e., NCSt, Purdue, FSU, etc.). You need to stop talking about elite players. We aren't talking about elites, we are talking about Joe average college recruit. Pitt is at the absolute bottom of the revenue list, which is going to get them the absolute bottom of the recruit list if things don't change.

All else being equal, if Pitt's facilities, cost of attendance, academic resources, etc. are all worse than NCSt is offering, why is anyone ever going to pick Pitt instead?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Pitt is never going to beat Duke by outspending them, but Pitt needs to spend comparable amounts to teams of their own caliber (i.e., NCSt, Purdue, FSU, etc.). You need to stop talking about elite players. We aren't talking about elites, we are talking about Joe average college recruit. Pitt is at the absolute bottom of the revenue list, which is going to get them the absolute bottom of the recruit list if things don't change.

All else being equal, if Pitt's facilities, cost of attendance, academic resources, etc. are all worse than NCSt is offering, why is anyone ever going to pick Pitt instead?

Correction: Pitt was ranking in the Top 25 of bball revenue for a long time though I'm sure thats slipped a bit with the drop in ticket sales........and that was counting like every B10 school because they were attributing some BTN money as bball revenue. PSU made the list because of that, at least once.

Lets not confuse donations with bball revenue. Money is not even close to being a reason why we have had a down period.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

Pitt is never going to beat Duke by outspending them, but Pitt needs to spend comparable amounts to teams of their own caliber (i.e., NCSt, Purdue, FSU, etc.). You need to stop talking about elite players. We aren't talking about elites, we are talking about Joe average college recruit. Pitt is at the absolute bottom of the revenue list, which is going to get them the absolute bottom of the recruit list if things don't change.

All else being equal, if Pitt's facilities, cost of attendance, academic resources, etc. are all worse than NCSt is offering, why is anyone ever going to pick Pitt instead?

Other than the steepness of the steps there's nothing wrong with Pitts physical facility for bb. The players are only affected if they have to run those steps. I truly wonder if academic resources is a thought to anyone that's being recruited by Pitt. These kids come here to play ball first . I'm thinking their thinking more about am I eligible . Not sure what the cost of attendance is ,the athlete ,fans,students? Ok so let's leave the elite player out of our conversation ,so now we're talking about the 50-150 rated player there's still nicer places to spend your college years than in the dark gloom of Pgh and dodging cars on Forbes and Fifth unless you want an urban campus dissected by major arteries located in the North . I don't think it's hopeless I just think it's a lot harder to recruit to Pitt than NCS, FSU ( Purdue has local recruiting talent ) etc(. regardless of money.)
Focus your recruiting on the top 50-150 guys and don't use them as a fall back option. Let them know that their your priority from day one and not after you lose out on your first choice . Look for the undersized kids who can play ,look for the kid who can shoot but is a half step slow and look internationally . Keep kids five years and develope. There's ways to get it done.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Not sure what the cost of attendance is ,the athlete ,fans,students?

The fact that you don't know speaks pretty well to your creditably on this topic.

 

[Delpanther]

Actually, Williard recruited some pretty good kids, on paper. He just couldn't control or instill discipline in his players, on or off the court. His class with Cummings, Blount, Hawkins, Howard and Gill was not that much inferior to the fabled Martin, Shorter, Miller, Mathews, Porter class. Kelli Taylor, Atilla Cosby, Seabrooks and even Fred Primus were very skilled players but with incredibly bad off-court behavior and problems. .

Under Howland and continuing under Dixon, we found a niche, recruiting a certain kind of kid as much as type of player. A tough, maybe undersized or under-skilled, but over-achieving kid with a chip on his shoulder.

We got away from that trying to recruit elite athletes. I think we can get back to close to where we were if we concentrate on guys who fit us, not reaching for guys who never will.

Our budget and fan base are basically Georgia Tech/Wake Forest. Or maybe Boston College. Except GC and BC have better local recruiting. It is what it is. When they had good coaches, they had some very good years. We have a very good coach, as long as the idiots don't run him off. Dixon is all that separates us from those bottom-feeder schools.

The only person who will runDixon off is Dixon which means he will have pi$$ed away everything he did during his first 10 years. With his contract being what it is, the bottom will have to fall out for Pitt to give him the heave ho. His roster is a mess, which is his doing.

 

[Delpanther]

I totally agree about JD importance to the continued success of the program.
I think that Pitt lost its way trying to recruit the more gifted elite offensive player to play in the more athletic ACC. Pitts strengths has been toughness ,defense and rebounding and in trying to get the more skilled offensive player got them away from this formula. Pitt needs to get back to developing their players over 5 years and no matter how well Luther is playing it surprised me he wasn't red shirted this year. Pitt needs to be a well disciplined ,mature ,physical team to try and combat the talent gap they face when playing the Dukes of the world.
Too many Pitt fans don't understand that no matter how much money they throw at facilities and recruiting budgets there's just so many more attractive places for these elite players to go.
I really wasn't talking talent ,but results in the Willard years, he did bring in some talent though just not enough wins.

More attractive places than Pittsburgh ? Like where? Syracuse, Wichita, Ames, Iowa? All shitholes. It's the coaching staff- they can't recruit. Quit offering up all the excuses under the sun for Pitt's recruiting problems and ignoring the obvious problem.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

More attractive places than Pittsburgh ? Like where? Syracuse, Wichita, Ames, Iowa? All shitholes. It's the coaching staff- they can't recruit. Quit offering up all the excuses under the sun for Pitt's recruiting problems and ignoring the obvious problem.

Can't argue with that point.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

The fact that you don't know speaks pretty well to your creditably on this topic.

What does that have anything to do with convincing a 6'8" power forward to attend Pitt ?

 

[Fsgolfdr]

More attractive places than Pittsburgh ? Like where? Syracuse, Wichita, Ames, Iowa? All shitholes. It's the coaching staff- they can't recruit. Quit offering up all the excuses under the sun for Pitt's recruiting problems and ignoring the obvious problem.

You need to be comparing programs on equal grounds , these programs skirt or break the rules and of course they have an advantage. Now I'm assuming that Pitt is running a clean program otherwise they're really bad at it!

 

[Delpanther]

You need to be comparing programs on equal grounds , these programs skirt or break the rules and of course they have an advantage. Now I'm assuming that Pitt is running a clean program otherwise they're really bad at it!

I don't buy the argument that we are the only program that plays by the rules-that's just a convenient excuse. I do believe, however, that Dixon may be too naive to understand that the ncaa doesn't require slavish adherence to every rule.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

How many schools suspend a player they desperately needed that wasn't required by the NCAA?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

What does that have anything to do with convincing a 6'8" power forward to attend Pitt ?

The fact that you don't know about how cost of attendance can affect recruiting is another thing that speaks to your credibility on this topic. Seriously, that you don't know and don't understand these things and apparently have never even heard of them is a sure sign that you have no idea what you are talking about. So maybe it's time to give it a rest.

But probably not.

 

[Delpanther]

How many schools suspend a player they desperately needed that wasn't required by the NCAA?

How many schools suspend a player they desperately needed that wasn't required by the NCAA?

That had nothing to do with ncaa rules but everything to do with a moronic AD and and even dumber puritanical chancellor who could have cared less about athletics. Pit's problems recruiting are rooted in the staff- it's that simple. JD''s defenders search for reasons to exculpatie him from responsibility. He's largely the problem.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

The fact that you don't know speaks pretty well to your creditably on this topic.

After this I'm done on this subject , I googled it and as I expected it's the cost of attending a college ,but other than transportation what does cost of attendance have anything to with recruiting for men's basketball or football. For a non schloarship student it matters,for someone on a free ride there's no correlation. Do you think Rowan and Heron said I'm not going to Pitt because the tuition was too high or the text books cost too much in Econ 101 ?Maybe you live and die with every university sponsored team I don't and most Pitt hoops and football fans don't either. It also doesn't cost the university 15k per athlete for tuition on a scholarship I know there's a cost in room and board ins, books etc but these kids bring way more to the university than it cost to have them there. Their ( bb and Fb players ) getting a bad deal when their coaches make millions as does the university from their efforts.( another subject ). You want bb and football to pay for every sports team , then you know what will bring in more money WIN in the sports that count and just maybe by spending more for top assistants they might get those new bathing suits for the swim team.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Once again you show that you have absolutely no idea what it means, even after you googled it. I wonder if you realize how pathetic that is?

You should have been done with this conversation a long time ago.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

Once again you show that you have absolutely no idea what it means, even after you googled it. I wonder if you realize how pathetic that is?

You should have been done with this conversation a long time ago.

Then why don't you explain it and explain to everyone how that has any bearing on recruiting. Not a soul would have complained about recruiting and budgets had Rowan and Heron honored their commitments.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Then why don't you explain it and explain to everyone how that has any bearing on recruiting.

How many articles do you suppose need to be written about it before you figure it out? The people who care, or at least all of them except for you apparently, know what is going on with cost of attendance and how cost of attendance is starting to affect recruiting. There have been all sorts of threads about it here, more so on the football board but plenty of threads here as well.

Maybe next time you take a strong stand on an issue at least know what the basic facts are beforehand. Nah, what's the fun in that? As I said before, I fully support your right to not donate if you don't want to but at least know that folks who think like you are and always have been a part of Pitt's problem.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

How many articles do you suppose need to be written about it before you figure it out? The people who care, or at least all of them except for you apparently, know what is going on with cost of attendance and how cost of attendance is starting to affect recruiting. There have been all sorts of threads about it here, more so on the football board but plenty of threads here as well.

Maybe next time you take a strong stand on an issue at least know what the basic facts are beforehand. Nah, what's the fun in that? As I said before, I fully support your right to not donate if you don't want to but at least know that folks who think like you are and always have been a part of Pitt's problem.

You still haven't explained how it effects recruiting you just go no and on about how people like myself are the problem. Take 3 minutes and explain yourself. Now I'll even add this , a school like Duquense or Robert Moriss I can totally understand were donations play a hugh determinant in their ability to compete. Pitt however starts out every year with millions of ACC dollars plus they have a bb program that generates income ,not sure were the Fb program stands ( but I'm not talking Fb nor do I read the Fb boards very often ). Money only directed at Rowan's father would have keep him a Pitt recruit and I'm sure somehow that money was involved in Herons decision to go to Auburn. Money does matter ,but not if all your offering is an education( plus all the other cost of attendance items )and an opportunity to play ball to a lot of these kids who have no business going to college in the first place. Please enlighten me.

 

[Harve74]

You still haven't explained how it effects recruiting you just go no and on about how people like myself are the problem. Take 3 minutes and explain yourself. Now I'll even add this , a school like Duquense or Robert Moriss I can totally understand were donations play a hugh determinant in their ability to compete. Pitt however starts out every year with millions of ACC dollars plus they have a bb program that generates income ,not sure were the Fb program stands ( but I'm not talking Fb nor do I read the Fb boards very often ). Money only directed at Rowan's father would have keep him a Pitt recruit and I'm sure somehow that money was involved in Herons decision to go to Auburn. Money does matter ,but not if all your offering is an education( plus all the other cost of attendance items )and an opportunity to play ball to a lot of these kids who have no business going to college in the first place. Please enlighten me.

I'll be kind here and explain the cost of attendence relative to recruitng.Everyone agrees that the so-called full scholarship does not coversll of the incidental expenses any student faces. A year or so bsck, the NCAA agreed that schools should be able to make a supplimental payment to cover the codts snd live a normal student experience.

The NCAA being the NCAA, they set up with a formula which few really understand to determine just how much each particular school is allowed to pay. Some schools are being allowed to pay thousands more than others, but essentially, EVERY school is now allowed to pay roughly $1500 to $3500 per scholarship player per year. As a rough guess, I think we give out something like 450,scholarships. I don't know whether non-revenue kids get the stipend or not, but a CBS table I'm looking at estimstes a new cost of $800,000. PSU is paying $1.75M. There are now rumors some schools are gaming the system to help their recruiting.
If a school choses NOT to pay this cost of attendence suppliment or stipend, they are at a disadvantage in recruiting. Ony one of the 65 P-5 schools has declined. This is a big part of the 9% "inflation " that AD Barnes mentioned in asking Pitt fans to increase their donation. It's just another added expense that HAS to be met.

And, some of our competiton can LEGALLY pay a recruit 1000-2500 dollars more than us. Somehow, rural , or at least small town PSU got calculated as higher.

So, yeah, it is another area where donations and funding affects recruiting.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

I'll be kind here and explain the cost of attendence relative to recruitng.Everyone agrees that the so-called full scholarship does not coversll of the incidental expenses any student faces. A year or so bsck, the NCAA agreed that schools should be able to make a supplimental payment to cover the codts snd live a normal student experience.

The NCAA being the NCAA, they set up with a formula which few really understand to determine just how much each particular school is allowed to pay. Some schools are being allowed to pay thousands more than others, but essentially, EVERY school is now allowed to pay roughly $1500 to $3500 per scholarship player per year. As a rough guess, I think we give out something like 450,scholarships. I don't know whether non-revenue kids get the stipend or not, but a CBS table I'm looking at estimstes a new cost of $800,000. PSU is paying $1.75M. There are now rumors some schools are gaming the system to help their recruiting.
If a school choses NOT to pay this cost of attendence suppliment or stipend, they are at a disadvantage in recruiting. Ony one of the 65 P-5 schools has declined. This is a big part of the 9% "inflation " that AD Barnes mentioned in asking Pitt fans to increase their donation. It's just another added expense that HAS to be met.

And, some of our competiton can LEGALLY pay a recruit 1000-2500 dollars more than us. Somehow, rural , or at least small town PSU got calculated as higher.

So, yeah, it is another area where donations and funding affects recruiting.

Thanks for the explanation I couldn't see including non revenue athletes in the payouts unless their was an excess of money lying around. If my child was on a swimming scholarship I'd be tickled pink to get room and board and tuition. 85 and 13 means that they must be offering something to everyone. Winning is the quickest way to increase donations

 

[Harve74]

Thanks for the explanation I couldn't see including non revenue athletes in the payouts unless their was an excess of money lying around. If my child was on a swimming scholarship I'd be tickled pink to get room and board and tuition. 85 and 13 means that they must be offering something to everyone. Winning is the quickest way to increase donations

Well, as mentioned above, winning in football in the 70's and 80's ad 8n basetball in the last 15 years did NOT raise donations significantly.

I think I saw $3500 as our allowed stipend. If we're allotting $800K to the stipends, as per CBS, that would mean we're paying stipends to about 228 scholarhips. That's probably EVERYONE on a full scholarship. (There are a lot of "Olympic" sports where usually ony partial scholarships are given. )

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I am almost positive that if a school pays the cost of attendance stipends to athletes that they are not allowed to pick and chose who gets them. You either pay them to everyone or you don't pay them to anyone. It's another expense that the schools that are paying the money, like Pitt and the other P5 schools, have to pay if they want to compete. Just like if Pitt wants to compete in football they have to fund a similar number of scholarships for women's sports that they do for football. You might not care and you might not like it, but it is the law of the land and ignoring the law sets a school up for all sorts of consequences.

Pitt is paying something like an extra $3500 per year to athletes because of the cost of attendance rules. That's an advantage over schools that are paying less, or in some cases are paying nothing. That is a disadvantage against schools (as Harve mentions, Penn State happens to be one of them) that are paying more. And you can bet your bottom dollar that schools are making the kids that they are recruiting aware of these things, especially when it plays to their advantage.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Harve, just a guess on my part but if you have a baseball player or a soccer player who is getting a half a scholarship they are probably also getting half of the full stipend. If not then there would be very few athletes other than football players and men's and women's basketball players who would be getting the money, because most Olympic sports give out very few full scholarships.

 

[Harve74]

Harve, just a guess on my part but if you have a baseball player or a soccer player who is getting a half a scholarship they are probably also getting half of the full stipend. If not then there would be very few athletes other than football players and men's and women's basketball players who would be getting the money, because most Olympic sports give out very few full scholarships.

You're probably right, ( you generally are) but somewhere I thought I saw we gave out 450 scholarships. It may have been another university.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

There is a PG story from the beginning of this year that says that Pitt was setting aside $1.1 million for stipends and the stipend was $3,296 for undergraduates and $5,922 for people in graduate school. If we assumed that all the scholarships went to undergraduates (obviously not true) that would mean 334 athletes.

But we already know that there are no where close to 334 athletes on full scholarship. For instance in baseball the whole team only gets 11.7 scholarships. They have to split those up between around 30 players. I seriously doubt there are many, if any, college baseball players that are getting anything close to a full scholarship. Women's soccer gets 14 full scholarships and men's gets 9.9. Those teams will have probably 25-30 players on them, so again very few if any players are on a full scholarship. And so on.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

Well, as mentioned above, winning in football in the 70's and 80's ad 8n basetball in the last 15 years did NOT raise donations significantly.

I think I saw $3500 as our allowed stipend. If we're allotting $800K to the stipends, as per CBS, that would mean we're paying stipends to about 228 scholarhips. That's probably EVERYONE on a full scholarship. (There are a lot of "Olympic" sports where usually ony partial scholarships are given. )

Pitt ranks 25th in the nation in a far greater area than bb or Fb rankings and that's in endowment funds with a paltry sum of 3.49 billion. I understand there's restrictions on how some if not most of funds can be used ,but we're not talking about a university with no assets. While 1.1 mil or 800,000 is a lot money to most indivuals it's not a deal breaker for the university. They can fund the athletic department any way they want and I'm sure they'd rather use someone else's money to do it. If they really wanted to be a national power in bb and Fb they'd have found a way to get it done.