ADVERTISEMENT

Did anyone notice that Bobby Dodd stadium was only 2/3 full?

UPitt '89

Board of Trustee
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2002
29,039
21,333
113
I thought an on-campus stadium meant big crowds?

Bobby Dodd holds 55,000.... and there were less than 40,000 there.

They have a right-sized stadium, on campus, and get the same crowds we get.


In other words... the location of the stadium means diddly-squat. Urban schools like Pitt, GT, Miami, UCLA, etc. are going to always have trouble selling tickets.

Just the way it is.
 
I thought an on-campus stadium meant big crowds?

Bobby Dodd holds 55,000.... and there were less than 40,000 there.

They have a right-sized stadium, on campus, and get the same crowds we get.


In other words... the location of the stadium means diddly-squat. Urban schools like Pitt, GT, Miami, UCLA, etc. are going to always have trouble selling tickets.

Just the way it is.

We arent going to attract many more on campus. Its the size of the stadium that matters. 40K looked pretty good for them and with the bleacher seating (not that I recommend it), the lower level looked pretty full
 
GT has never..ever.. packed BDS on a regular basis. The time of day... quality of opponent...all have a lot to do with the total draw. Even with a quality opponent we lean heavily on the visiting team's fans ability to travel. It is what it's always been. Even in ATL GT plays second string to UGa! All the best for the rest of the season!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnnyGossamer
GT has never..ever.. packed BDS on a regular basis. The time of day... quality of opponent...all have a lot to do with the total draw. Even with a quality opponent we lean heavily on the visiting team's fans ability to travel. It is what it's always been. Even in ATL GT plays second string to UGa! All the best for the rest of the season!

Pitt has never..ever.. packed Heinz Field on a regular basis. The time of day... quality of opponent...all have a lot to do with the total draw. Even with a quality opponent we lean heavily on the visiting team's fans ability to travel. It is what it's always been. Even in Pittsburgh Pitt plays second string to Penn State! All the best for the rest of the season!

:)
 
Are the people in Atlanta known for their passionate love of football like Western Pennsylvanians?
 
Are the people in Atlanta known for their passionate love of football like Western Pennsylvanians?


Western Pa mystic.... Overrated ! Clap ! Clap ! Clap !

do not seem to ever recall Western PA's passionate love of Pitt football...
 
Great venue to watch a game. Very friendly and classy fan base. Great college atmosphere

Having said the entire ensure was empty and the upper decks were half full at best. Doubt it was even 2/3 full. Not having bright yellow seats helps to hide empty seats
 
Pitt has never..ever.. packed Heinz Field on a regular basis. The time of day... quality of opponent...all have a lot to do with the total draw. Even with a quality opponent we lean heavily on the visiting team's fans ability to travel. It is what it's always been. Even in Pittsburgh Pitt plays second string to Penn State! All the best for the rest of the season!

:)
Pitt never packed Pitt Stadium either.I attended a game at Pitt against Southern Cal in either Dorsett's
freshman or sophomore year, and pitt was playing pretty good football and the stadium was about two thirds full, . We lost. but a very good game and USC at the time was pretty darn good. Attendance problems go back a long way.
 
I thought an on-campus stadium meant big crowds?

Bobby Dodd holds 55,000.... and there were less than 40,000 there.

They have a right-sized stadium, on campus, and get the same crowds we get.


In other words... the location of the stadium means diddly-squat. Urban schools like Pitt, GT, Miami, UCLA, etc. are going to always have trouble selling tickets.

Just the way it is.


You obviously don't understand the argument. An on campus stadium that is right-sized for the fan base produces a great college football atmosphere. Bobby Dodd is older than Pitt Stadium was, and it was just a great place to see a game. GT invested in this ancient facility, and it is precisely the kind of place Pitt needs, but will never have. That kind of atmosphere helps recruiting, reinforces all the reasons a University wants to have football to help sell itself, and fundraising. An on campus stadium does not necessarily equal better attendance in all cases. Hail to Pitt!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cbpitt2
Someone rightly said on here, 40,000 in a 45,000-seat stadium looks better and is an improved atmosphere than 40,000 in a 70,000-seat stadium. Without question that's spot on but it should be on-campus.

The North Shore is not on campus. It's cold, sterile and devoid of any collegiate feel on a college football Saturday in fall. There's no on-campus nostalgia whatsoever that is developed for generations with alumni and their families at Heinz Field instead of walking around campus in Oakland.
 
Here we go again...comparing urban to rural college football attendance figures is stupid and some of u r just that.
 
Last edited:
Not one PITT bar on the North Shore. Time for Jerome to move his establishment to his home in Atlanta and have #13 take over the property.
 
40k in a 50k stadium looks full.
40k in a 70k stadium looks empty.
Its not the not of fans but the number of seats that looks so sad.
 
Pitt never packed Pitt Stadium either.I attended a game at Pitt against Southern Cal in either Dorsett's
freshman or sophomore year, and pitt was playing pretty good football and the stadium was about two thirds full, . We lost. but a very good game and USC at the time was pretty darn good. Attendance problems go back a long way.

I too was at that game. It was Dorsett's sophomore year, and the big running back for USC was Anthony Davis. The game was billed as AD East vs AD West. And yeah, it was not a sell-out, but it was respectable. It was a different era back then, that cannot be stressed enough. People didn't freak out over attendance numbers like they do now.
 
James Franklin was wrong. Akron
Someone rightly said on here, 40,000 in a 45,000-seat stadium looks better and is an improved atmosphere than 40,000 in a 70,000-seat stadium. Without question that's spot on but it should be on-campus.

The North Shore is not on campus. It's cold, sterile and devoid of any collegiate feel on a college football Saturday in fall. There's no on-campus nostalgia whatsoever that is developed for generations with alumni and their families at Heinz Field instead of walking around campus in Oakland.

Correct.

But, Heinz Field has a bunch of new amenities like ice cream on a paper plate.
 
I too was at that game. It was Dorsett's sophomore year, and the big running back for USC was Anthony Davis. The game was billed as AD East vs AD West. And yeah, it was not a sell-out, but it was respectable. It was a different era back then, that cannot be stressed enough. People didn't freak out over attendance numbers like they do now.
they might have had Pitt stadium had 15,000 more seats at that time and they were all bright yellow....
 
I too was at that game. It was Dorsett's sophomore year, and the big running back for USC was Anthony Davis. The game was billed as AD East vs AD West. And yeah, it was not a sell-out, but it was respectable. It was a different era back then, that cannot be stressed enough. People didn't freak out over attendance numbers like they do now.

It was a near sellout with 53,000 fans... more people then at 90% of Pitt's games at Heinz Field... 40+ years later.
 
That number was a bit inflated. If official capacity by then was only around 57,000 ( I think), there might have been 48,000 or so, but it was still a good crowd. Nobody complained that I recall, or was shocked that it wasn't a complete sell-out. It was a beautiful afternoon.
 
Western Pa mystic.... Overrated ! Clap ! Clap ! Clap !

do not seem to ever recall Western PA's passionate love of Pitt football...

Because it is not this regions love affair with Pitt football it is the regions love affair with football. Between HS football and the Steelers, this is a football mad region. The problem for Pitt is that, PSU/WVU/ND have a lot of fans in the area that dilutes the fan interest too much for Pitt to have a large fan base. Then Ohio St fan base starts right at the border which is only 20 some miles away does not allow the Pitt footprint to grow. That is Pitt's attendance problem. But like other said it is putting 40-45,000 fan in a 70,000 seat stadium that is the main problem.
 
IMO we have to worry about our house Heinz " The Mustard Palace" and not be concerned about other U's problems.
If we focus on other U's attendance issues we'll think its the new normal, its ok, and it will become new normal!
 
40k in a 50k stadium looks full.
40k in a 70k stadium looks empty.
Its not the not of fans but the number of seats that looks so sad.
So the shcool and the PA residents (taxpayers) should drop $600,000,000 so our 40,000 people looks a little better on TV than it does at Heinz Field? That is what is wrong with people today. Jeesh.
 
So the shcool and the PA residents (taxpayers) should drop $600,000,000 so our 40,000 people looks a little better on TV than it does at Heinz Field? That is what is wrong with people today. Jeesh.

That number is way too high, but what to do now is one argument and what happened in the past is a separate one. Steve completely screwed the program, so now it would be extremely expensive and difficult to make happen. He deserves every single bit of ridicule that comes his way for putting the program in a no win situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cbpitt2
Just reinforces the fact that the Pitt Administration (AD) needs to seriously consider tarping of Heinz Field for Pitt games to reduce capacity.

An attendance of 40,000 at the GT stadium looks fine whereas 40,000 at Heinz Field looks horrible.

Old Pitt Stadium only had a capacity of 56,000 and was not sold out for most home games.

The Pitt administration has a hard time accepting reality.

Right Size Heinz Field for Pitt football games.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
I thought an on-campus stadium meant big crowds?

Bobby Dodd holds 55,000.... and there were less than 40,000 there.

They have a right-sized stadium, on campus, and get the same crowds we get.


In other words... the location of the stadium means diddly-squat. Urban schools like Pitt, GT, Miami, UCLA, etc. are going to always have trouble selling tickets.

Just the way it is.

Yours is a strange take, IMO.

If anything, I think the scene at BDS on Saturday very effectively MADE the case for the smaller, on campus stadium advocates.

You are right, they had the same crowd that Pitt would’ve had for that game. However, it didn’t look nearly as bad as it does when we do it in a stadium that has 15,000 more seeds, most of which are bright yellow.

Now, just imagine that same crowd in a 45,000 seat stadium, instead of a 55,000 seat stadium. It would look even better.

Stadium location definitely matters but the bigger problem is the sheer size of the stadium. It’s just waaaaaaay too big for our needs and history teaches us that will always be true and a challenge we will never be able to solve.

I hate to say that but reality is reality.
 
I thought an on-campus stadium meant big crowds?

Bobby Dodd holds 55,000.... and there were less than 40,000 there.

They have a right-sized stadium, on campus, and get the same crowds we get.


In other words... the location of the stadium means diddly-squat. Urban schools like Pitt, GT, Miami, UCLA, etc. are going to always have trouble selling tickets.

Just the way it is.
GT has 4 major pro teams to contend with in football, baseball, basketball and hockey
 
  • Like
Reactions: cbpitt2
Yours is a strange take, IMO.

If anything, I think the scene at BDS on Saturday very effectively MADE the case for the smaller, on campus stadium advocates.

You are right, they had the same crowd that Pitt would’ve had for that game. However, it didn’t look nearly as bad as it does when we do it in a stadium that has 15,000 more seeds, most of which are bright yellow.

Now, just imagine that same crowd in a 45,000 seat stadium, instead of a 55,000 seat stadium. It would look even better.

Stadium location definitely matters but the bigger problem is the sheer size of the stadium. It’s just waaaaaaay too big for our needs and history teaches us that will always be true and a challenge we will never be able to solve.

I hate to say that but reality is reality.
Actually, I made the case for tarping.
 
ADVERTISEMENT