Breaking News...

[CrazyPaco]

How do you reconcile all of his efforts with the fact that the non-revenue sports were completely unprepared for competition in the ACC?

As I touched on in my post, within budgetary constraints you have to put what money you have in your revenue sports first. Football, and to a lesser extend basketball, keep you in power conference circles. And that is what happened. Part of that was also the decisions of athletic directors in prioritizing budgets. But Nordenburg was sort of fiscally conservative for an academic. He appeared to believe in investing in what could help pay for itself first. University debt burden was reduced under him and hit helped pull Pitt out of the financial issues of the 90s.

Now, Pitt athletics has much more flexibility to invest in Olympic sports because of ACC money that didn't exist 10 years ago.

That said, the Pete freed up significant olympic sports space, there were significant upgrades at the Fitz, and the Petersen Sport Complex land was secured (a decade long fight) and built under Nordenberg.

 

[kxk811]

Many programs have been hurt academically under Gallagher, especially some respected graduate level programs. His undergraduate vision is far too left, woke and politically correct for the tastes of most.

Which graduate programs?

 

[CrazyPaco]

It does, though. You wrote that Pitt has implemented a vision that is “too far left, woke, and politically correct for the tastes of most.” My point is if that was true, then Pitt wouldn’t receive record levels of applications each year, and the credentials of the incoming undergraduate classes wouldn’t be improving every year. If Pitt’s culture was as unpopular as you make it seem, wouldn’t we be seeing the opposite?

Pitt's politics are fairly on par for the course in academia these days, unless you are talking about a few southern schools like maybe Texas A&M.

And like it or not, a very vocal portion of the student and faculty body is very much going to push their positions on these issues. If you don't like the political climate, I wouldn't expect it to improve with the next selection.

Academically, things have generally trended in a positive direction, although I wouldn't say there were as great of leaps as under Nordenberg. For instance, Pitt is +300 over the national SAT average for this past fall's freshman class (Nordenberg last year was +260), despite there being over 1,000 more freshman in this past freshman class than Nordenberg's last year. Increasing student quality, comparatively, while having a 20% larger, and more ethnically and geographically diverse freshman class is a pretty positive indicator (and larger freshman classes are generally good for revenue and good for athletics as well). And retention and graduation rates are up.

 

[DT_PITT]

The thought of a "Tulsa game and other dribbles" on a random tuesday night in February makes my churn

Lol

 

[Eastern Eight]

Pitt's politics are fairly on par for the course in academia these days, unless you are talking about a few southern schools like maybe Texas A&M.

And like it or not, a very vocal portion of the student and faculty body is very much going to push their positions on these issues. If you don't like the political climate, I wouldn't expect it to improve with the next selection.

Academically, things have generally trended in a positive direction, although I wouldn't say there were as great of leaps as under Nordenberg. For instance, Pitt is +300 over the national SAT average for this past fall's freshman class (Nordenberg last year was +260), despite there being over 1,000 more freshman in this past freshman class than Nordenberg's last year. Increasing student quality, comparatively, while having a 20% larger, and more ethnically and geographically diverse freshman class is a pretty positive indicator (and larger freshman classes are generally good for revenue and good for athletics as well). And retention and graduation rates are up.

One thing that this conversation reminds me is that being President or Chancellor of a power 5 school is an extremely unique position with an incredibly unique set of demands. Trying to keep faculty and staff satisfied while continuing to keep the best and brightest applying while maintaining a large research grant base would be difficult enough. Then you throw what is essentially a professional sports department on top of it all. It’s actually kind of wild.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

How do you reconcile all of his efforts with the fact that the non-revenue sports were completely unprepared for competition in the ACC?

He actually did that right there in his post.

 

[DT_PITT]

As I touched on in my post, within budgetary constraints you have to put what money you have in your revenue sports first. Football, and to a lesser extend basketball, keep you in power conference circles. And that is what happened. Part of that was also the decisions of athletic directors in prioritizing budgets. But Nordenburg was sort of fiscally conservative for an academic. He appeared to believe in investing in what could help pay for itself first. University debt burden was reduced under him and hit helped pull Pitt out of the financial issues of the 90s.

Now, Pitt athletics has much more flexibility to invest in Olympic sports because of ACC money that didn't exist 10 years ago.

That said, the Pete freed up significant olympic sports space, there were significant upgrades at the Fitz, and the Petersen Sport Complex land was secured (a decade long fight) and built under Nordenberg.

I am looking forward to the selection of the next Chancellor. I have no issues with Gallagher who more or less maintained the vision implemented by Nordenberg. Although Gallagher’s tenure was not unusually short, it also wasn’t quite long enough to make much of a personal imprint. I am hopeful that the next Chancellor is one with vision to move Pitt even higher. And improving athletics can certainly be part of this vision.

 

[HailToPitt725]

My understanding from those who I speak to is that Gallagher is fairly ambivalent towards basketball and football. Because of the ACC, athletics is more solvent than it was when we were in the Big East is the former Chancellor had to consistently mandate athletic subsidies.

Here's another tidbit for you all. Heather would like to look further into an on-campus stadium. But she's been discouraged not to do it by guess who.

Here's another quote directly to someone I know who shared it with me: "I'm not sure where people got the impression I'm all in on athletics."

This is a pretty significant post. You’re essentially implying that the next chancellor hire could more-or-less determine the future of football in Oakland…. ooooooo baby!

 

[DT_PITT]

This is a pretty significant post. You’re essentially implying that the next chancellor hire could more-or-less determine the future of football in Oakland…. ooooooo baby!

Actually, I wasn’t implying that in the slightest.

In fact, what I was saying is that we had a very athletics friendly Chancellor in Mark Nordenberg. There are very real facts to support this despite those who didn’t see it that way. And many of the same contingent were under the false assumption that Gallagher would “finally” be the Chancellor to emphasize athletics.

My understanding, as I indicated, was that Gallagher was not by any means athletics unfriendly, but by no indication was anywhere close to pushing an athletics agenda like some thought or hoped he would.

My belief is that an athletics agenda will be very far down the list on the criteria for selecting a new Chancellor.

By all indicators, Pitt is an esteemed institution just outside the top 50 or so worldwide. I believe the next Chancellor will be selected completely upon their vision to take Pitt to that next tier. I have a hard time seeing how athletics is a significant part of that agenda.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Actually, I wasn’t implying that in the slightest.

In fact, what I was saying is that we had a very athletics friendly Chancellor in Mark Nordenberg. There are very real facts to support this despite those who didn’t see it that way. And many of the same contingent were under the false assumption that Gallagher would “finally” be the Chancellor to emphasize athletics.

My understanding, as I indicated, was that Gallagher was not by any means athletics unfriendly, but by no indication was anywhere close to pushing an athletics agenda like some thought or hoped he would.

My belief is that an athletics agenda will be very far down the list on the criteria for selecting a new Chancellor.

By all indicators, Pitt is an esteemed institution just outside the top 50 or so worldwide. I believe the next Chancellor will be selected completely upon their vision to take Pitt to that next tier. I have a hard time seeing how athletics is a significant part of that agenda.

I know, I know. I was just reading what I wanted to read.

 

[DT_PITT]

I know, I know. I was just reading what I wanted to read.

Lol!

 

[Parkview57]

I have a hard time seeing how athletics is a significant part of that agenda.

And here in lies the problem. There was a time when people believed in doing well at everything. If you are going to have an engineering school, the goal is to be he best school of engineering if the country. If you are going to have a Theater department, make it the best in the country, using every thing the city may be able to offer as a backdrop. If you are going to field a football team, strive for excellence. In today's world, giving your best in everything, regardless of who gets the credit is nowhere to be found. It has been replaced by jealousy , envy, all the thing we come to see as an elitist attitude toward other's views and interests.

 

[DT_PITT]

And here in lies the problem. There was a time when people believed in doing well at everything. If you are going to have an engineering school, the goal is to be he best school of engineering if the country. If you are going to have a Theater department, make it the best in the country, using every thing the city may be able to offer as a backdrop. If you are going to field a football team, strive for excellence. In today's world, giving your best in everything, regardless of who gets the credit is nowhere to be found. It has been replaced by jealousy , envy, all the thing we come to see as an elitist attitude toward other's views and interests.

I'm not quite sure how this fits. We have a top 50-75 school in the world and a top 25-40 football program. So it seems to me we are pursuing excellence in both areas.

 

[pittchagg]

And here in lies the problem. There was a time when people believed in doing well at everything. If you are going to have an engineering school, the goal is to be he best school of engineering if the country. If you are going to have a Theater department, make it the best in the country, using every thing the city may be able to offer as a backdrop. If you are going to field a football team, strive for excellence. In today's world, giving your best in everything, regardless of who gets the credit is nowhere to be found. It has been replaced by jealousy , envy, all the thing we come to see as an elitist attitude toward other's views and interests.

Nobody’s saying that. The fact is that if you’re hiring a CEO, evaluating their ability to effectively manage and grow the $1B+ profit driver of your business (in Pitt’s case, its research operation) is going to be more important than evaluating the $100M part of your business that basically breaks even if you’re lucky (Pitt athletics). There’s value in Pitt athletics beyond the balance sheet, of course, but you have to think about a university president’s entire job description.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I am looking forward to the selection of the next Chancellor. I have no issues with Gallagher who more or less maintained the vision implemented by Nordenberg. Although Gallagher’s tenure was not unusually short, it also wasn’t quite long enough to make much of a personal imprint. I am hopeful that the next Chancellor is one with vision to move Pitt even higher. And improving athletics can certainly be part of this vision.

The average tenure of university presidents is ~6.5 years.

Stability is usually a good thing, just like in coaching.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Nobody’s saying that. The fact is that if you’re hiring a CEO, evaluating their ability to effectively manage and grow the $1B+ profit driver of your business (in Pitt’s case, its research operation) is going to be more important than evaluating the $100M part of your business that basically breaks even if you’re lucky (Pitt athletics). There’s value in Pitt athletics beyond the balance sheet, of course, but you have to think about a university president’s entire job description.

Athletic has an outsized emphasis at many schools; assured among the power 5. Revenue or not, the positive and negative publicity associated with athletics cannot be ignored.

For some college presidents, they embrace that and utilize it as their front porch. For others it is an annoying distraction that gets in the way. Certainly it helps with many things when you can win, but no athletic department is really contributing direct money to the overall operations of a university; usually just the opposite. You really have to think of it as being on the marketing side of things, IMO, but like US News, athletics is ignored by any university leadership's own peril.

 

[Parkview57]

We have a top 50-75 school in the world and a top 25-40 football program. So it seems to me we are pursuing excellence in both areas.

Certainly, I agree. But the latter part of the statements is for this moment in time and tends to have a much greater transient feeling to it than the former part of the statement, which I must admit is certainly only an opinion. (This is my 50th year as a Pitt fan)

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Athletic has an outsized emphasis at many schools; assured among the power 5. Revenue or not, the positive and negative publicity associated with athletics cannot be ignored.

For some college presidents, they embrace that and utilize it as their front porch. For others it is an annoying distraction that gets in the way. Certainly it helps with many things when you can win, but no athletic department is really contributing direct money to the overall operations of a university; usually just the opposite. You really have to think of it as being on the marketing side of things, IMO, but like US News, athletics is ignored by any university leadership's own peril.

Again as I posted above, things have changed tremendously with college athletics since we first hired Nordy who brought us out of a mess athletically, while raising academic standards. There is just so much money now. The Dr. Philip Barbay's of the world, who used to have decision making voices at schools like Pitt, now are either dying off or voiced over. Money talks.

There is not one "not for profit" entity who doesn't want to increase revenue streams. LOL. But seriously, when we see schools, excellent schools like Michigan, Texas, USC, etc...can fully commit to athletics while maintaining their academic standards, then Pitt should also. Pitt had alot of "Dr. Barbay's" in its trustees and Administration that felt more about being University of Chicago than say, Ga Tech. I suspect they are dying off and being replaced by folks more in line with current times.

 

[PittPharm2002]

My understanding is that Nordenberg was a much, much greater friend to athletics.

Absolutely

 

[PittPharm2002]

That was an extremely difficult decision under extremely difficult budgetary conditions after multiple failed attempts at fundraising and a terrible set of cards left behind by the prior administration.

Ideally, you don't tear it down. But even now, I'm not sure we are in a power conference if we hadn't because of the timing of conference realignment and the financial issues then being faced by the university.

It was a financial albatross .
The revenue boost from Heinz was undoubtedly the right move

 

[HailToPitt725]

Circa 1995-96, some at Pitt were pushing a "Villanova model" where we drop to D1AA football. Any notion of that stopped with Nordenberg.

Wannstedt doesn't come to Pitt without Nordenberg.

Nordenberg was the defacto commissioner of the Big East football schools during and following the original ACC raid of Miami. The Big East doesn't survive as a BCS autobid conference without him. It also would have split, with football schools forming something like the American without any pretense of power conference status. And even without any of that having happened, Pitt likely ends up in the American, not the ACC, if Nordenberg, or someone not similarly dispositioned towards athletics, isn't leading the university. Nordenberg was very active in making sure Pitt remained in the top echelon of athletics. More active than any chancellor should have to be, but it was a extremely tumultuous period.

He significantly increased athletics funding (subsidy), including football, within the existing severe budgetary constraints of the university that existed in the late 90s and earlier 2000s...those conditions don't exist now. True this was done at the expense of long neglected Olympic sports, but he recognized you have to take care of revenue-generating programs first. Everything for athletics was plowed into football and basketball. Pitt was an absolutely institutional mess circa 1996...wasn't even filling its beds, faculty was greatly discontented, athletics stuck in a 1960s-like nadir, general malaise among students and staff. Pitt couldn't even upgrade the score board at Pitt Stadium without a major uproar of misplaced resources. Pulling out of that quagmire required the right person at the right time to provide leadership. The easy solution would have been the Villanova model.

He made multiple mistakes too. Gave Pederson too much leeway. Then rehiring him. But Nordenberg was not a micromanager and let the people he hired do their job and wasn't keen on undercutting them.

Great post Paco, as always. May you expand a bit further on your first paragraph regarding football dropping to 1-AA? I had heard speculation about this in the past but never knew it was a legitimate discussion.

 

[HailtoPitt]

That was an extremely difficult decision under extremely difficult budgetary conditions after multiple failed attempts at fundraising and a terrible set of cards left behind by the prior administration.

Ideally, you don't tear it down. But even now, I'm not sure we are in a power conference if we hadn't because of the timing of conference realignment and the financial issues then being faced by the university.

If Cincinnati could afford to keep their stadium on campus, Pitt should have been able to as well.

 

[PittPharm2002]

If Cincinnati could afford to keep their stadium on campus, Pitt should have been able to as well.

Your couch and rolled Pennies wasn’t paying the bills

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

If Cincinnati could afford to keep their stadium on campus, Pitt should have been able to as well.

If Pitt was going to keep the stadium, they would have needed to keep the outer shell but totally gut the interior and basically build a new stadium inside Pitt Stadium, removing the track.

At the time, I didn't think it was a bad short/medium term solution. We either had to tear it down or build a new stadium inside it and went cheap. Ok. But we are going to hit 30 years without a stadium and may be the last FBS team with UCLA who doesn't have one. Its time for Pitt to buy land, knock down stuff and build. They can spend half a billion without breaking a sweat.

 

[HailtoPitt]

If Pitt was going to keep the stadium, they would have needed to keep the outer shell but totally gut the interior and basically build a new stadium inside Pitt Stadium, removing the track.

At the time, I didn't think it was a bad short/medium term solution. We either had to tear it down or build a new stadium inside it and went cheap. Ok. But we are going to hit 30 years without a stadium and may be the last FBS team with UCLA who doesn't have one. Its time for Pitt to buy land, knock down stuff and build. They can spend half a billion without breaking a sweat.

Stanford tore down and built a new stadium for $90 million 6 years after Pitt Stadium came down. It's ridiculous that Pitt pretended that they couldn't afford to do something similar. Most people don't remember the so called fundraising efforts, which should tell you all that is necessary about how serious they were. Typically, you would enter a multi year campaign, not "make some calls" like the dolts at Pitt said they did.

Because of that shirt sighted decision making, now it will probably cost $100 million just to aquire the land. Idiots.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

Stanford tore down and built a new stadium for $90 million 6 years after Pitt Stadium came down. It's ridiculous that Pitt pretended that they couldn't afford to do something similar. Most people don't remember the so called fundraising efforts, which should tell you all that is necessary about how serious they were. Typically, you would enter a multi year campaign, not "make some calls" like the dolts at Pitt said they did.

Because of that shirt sighted decision making, now it will probably cost $100 million just to aquire the land. Idiots.

Pitt athletics is in a far better position today financially now than its ever been because of ACC money and they cannot afford to buyout an underperforming bb coach so in what universe did Pitt have the money to redo Pitt stadium or build a new facility .

Those longing for an on campus stadium forget how horrible the traffic was and that even though the number 1 team in the country played there with all time greats like TD , Marino , Hugh Green ,Rickie Jackson, Bill Fralic to name a few they couldn’t fill the stadium unless they played PSU or ND .

 

[HailtoPitt]

Pitt athletics is in a far better position today financially now than its ever been because of ACC money and they cannot afford to buyout an underperforming bb coach so in what universe did Pitt have the money to redo Pitt stadium or build a new facility .

Those longing for an on campus stadium forget how horrible the traffic was and that even though the number 1 team in the country played there with all time greats like TD , Marino , Hugh Green ,Rickie Jackson, Bill Fralic to name a few they couldn’t fill the stadium unless they played PSU or ND .

Pitt's attendance was still good for the time. You forget that many schools have grown their attendance since then, unlike Pitt.

 

[DT_PITT]

Pitt athletics is in a far better position today financially now than its ever been because of ACC money and they cannot afford to buyout an underperforming bb coach so in what universe did Pitt have the money to redo Pitt stadium or build a new facility .

Those longing for an on campus stadium forget how horrible the traffic was and that even though the number 1 team in the country played there with all time greats like TD , Marino , Hugh Green ,Rickie Jackson, Bill Fralic to name a few they couldn’t fill the stadium unless they played PSU or ND .

I think the other thing that’s often overlooked is there no evidence that the on campus stadium is “the thing” holding back the program.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

Pitt's attendance was still good for the time. You forget that many schools have grown their attendance since then, unlike Pitt.

You grow your attendance by having a program that sustains excellence. That description doesn’t fit Pitt Fb .

 

[Fsgolfdr]

I think the other thing that’s often overlooked is there no evidence that the on campus stadium is “the thing” holding back the program.

Plus it’s only a burden on the students to get to HF and Oaklands merchants . HF is far more centrally located with far better parking .

Maybe the aesthetics of a fuller stadium looks better on tv , but 30k paying customers is still bringing in only 30k worth of revenue .

Building and maintaining a stadium for 6 or 7 games when you can rent seems foolish .

 

[HailtoPitt]

Plus it’s only a burden on the students to get to HF and Oaklands merchants . HF is far more centrally located with far better parking .

Maybe the aesthetics of a fuller stadium looks better on tv , but 30k paying customers is still bringing in only 30k worth of revenue .

Building and maintaining a stadium for 6 or 7 games when you can rent seems foolish .

By that measure, any stadium is foolish.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

By that measure, any stadium is foolish.

Pretty much !