For those that like Heinz over on campus-Don't complain about scheduling
- Thread starter Panther Al
- Start date
What events would you see at 45K New Pitt Stadium that wouldn't go to Heinz or PNC first? I'm thinking we would get about 3-5 extra events a year.
But it will suck if there is no space for tailgating! In the '90s and before, I remember tailgating on the streets in Oakland, or in Calico's parking lot, would they allow that now? I don't want to just see a game, I want an all day event that includes tailgating, or I'd rather watch on TV. I'm good with an on campus stadium as long as they allow Oakland's street to be a drunken brawl on game days like it was in the '80s. But I've already made it clear, I'll quit going to all football games, Steelers or Pitt if tailgating is ever banned.
Parking is inevitably disappearing so prepare to either cozy up to a wealthy alum who can rate a pass to Gold One (ultimately to be the Only One) or remodel your man cave.
I'm guessing it would get 0 to 2... and they'd be smallish events. Maybe you could convince the WPIALs to move.
I don't buy you argument, but the solution to enhanced downtown presence is just to buy some billboard space or some ad slots on local tv. It's a lot cheaper than renting or buying unneeded real estate downtown.
I do have an acquaintance with a tailgate spot directly in front of the stadium, first row, So I can bring a few six packs, put it in his cooler and hang out any time I want.
Not just Pitt but Steelers, I think they'd be insane to threaten tailgate culture. I think a large % of fans would absolutely quit coming to games and buying season tickets if their tailgating was ended.
I know nothing about Point Park, just it seemed they'd carved out a nice niche geographically, and if offering specialties that Pitt didn't, could have synergy to merge. But the other alternative of Pitt finding its own space is certainly fine too
All fine and well, except we can't come to a consensus on that either. They tried closing the upper deck end zone and all of the ham and eggers complained that their God-given right to dirt cheap seats with God awful view were being removed. People scream "put up tarps! But don't tarp MY seats! I like MY seats! Tarp THEIRS!"
Right. Alabama's stadium is in a rotation to hold their HS championships every few years. Otherwise the stadium is never used for anything, except Alabama football or private parties/alumni events.
@cbpitt2 brought up the massive stadium/dorm/student union structures, but Pitt would struggle to find room to build a decent sized stadium, so they definitely aren't turning that into a huge multi-purpose facility anywhere in Oakland.
Last edited:
What would you prefer? Washington? Not much going on in Husky Stadium.
Cincinnati? Nippert Stadium hosts the Cincinnati United Soccer League team, which is the same league as the Riverhounds, who happen to play in one of the smallest venues in the league. Think they might want something bigger for their 20 some home games each year?
I'd prefer some common sense, or at least some experience visiting other schools' campuses and stadia, by those continually putting forth absolutely ridiculous propositions.
None of these schools are building new stadiums.
Do I think the Riverhounds want to move? No.
Depends on who you ask. Some say that people are lucky it didn't fall down. Others complained about the state of the bathrooms, as if those could never have been renovated.
I'm pretty sure that the Riverhounds have higher aspirations than their current venue.
Well their crowds have to reflect that first. And Highmark was built to expand.
Let me ask you this, do you think Pitt would use turf or grass?
Highmark can expand to 5,000. The Hounds want to get into MLS someday.
I'd assume that if hosting a soccer team they would do the same as Nippert.
http://athleticturf.net/university-of-cincinnati-unveils-new-field-turf-for-2016-season/
I would like to think we would use some common sense and put in turf so men's and women's soccer could use it.
I'm sure they do.
Is nippert's turf FIFA certified like Highmark's is?
Highmark is actually expandable to 18K.
Yep. Tarping the bleachers and corners of the visitors side is clearly the best solution.
People also act like tarps are permanent. The best part about a tarping solution.....is that we can change it if we ever get good.
It's actually amazing this hasn't been tried out yet before.
it was? Interesting comment Paco, I was thinking about this. I guess you could do a second tier, cant touch the river side, leave that open. maybe do something on the end?
Yes, you win the argument. Pitt can put non-FIFA certified turf in a new, on-campus stadium to attract the Riverhounds because they're dying to move into facility in Oakland that would be more than twice as big as the MLS average soccer-specific stadium! Just like Cincinnati, a school and program we clearly should emulate. That clearly makes issuing a half billion in debt worth it, and clearly the best use of resources for a school with a $34K in-state CoA price tag and an athletic department which hasn't yet shown in can keep up with competing salary offers for its football staff and has one of the lowest in P5 revenue streams.
Sir, you don't even have a football. There will be no on-campus football stadium. Period.
Last edited:
Absolutely NAILED IT!! This hits on EVERY point and PITT is playing at HEINZ till 2030(lease). I HOPE the O.P. is YOUNG. I don't see it happening THEN EITHER, though!!
I'd actually personally prefer to attend games on-campus.
However, I know that isn't happening in my lifetime and I know resources are better placed elsewhere for the foreseeable future..
I liked it there. I didn't care about the bench seats, troughs or concessions.
I like it at Heinz too.
I liked both better when the teams were good and were playing for something relevant.
We could have a dup of Jerry Jones palace in Oakland being fed by high speed maglev from free tailgate lots in every suburb staffed by Hooter girls, and our crowds would stink...if our teams stink.
Likewise we have shown we can pack both a old dump like Pitt stadium, or a new dump like Heinz, and the traffic and parking hassles associated with both ... when we have a hot team and relevant game happening.
At this point MLS would have to expand to about 40 teams before Pittsburgh would ever be considered. And that's not happening, not now, not ever. Pittsburgh's best chance to get an MLS franchise is almost certainly when they are done expanding for some team to leave their current city and move here.
MLS is currently at 22 teams. The second LA team will be back next year, and some day David Beckham will probably get the whole Miami thing figured out (maybe). That gets you to 24. They are talking about going to 26 at some point, and they already have an official list of potential cities to expand to. There are 12 cities on that list, and none of them are named Pittsburgh. In short, it's just not happening here.
to quote an orator with much greater people skills than I....."I don't want to just see a game, I want an all day event that includes tailgating, or I'd rather watch on TV. I'm good with an on campus stadium as long as they allow Oakland's street to be a drunken brawl on game days like it was in the '80s."
Beats the hell out of the sterile north shore.
Colorado State is a poor example. First, because they don't play their home games at the Denver Broncos' stadium. The school is in Fort Collins, which is about 90 miles north of Denver. Colorado State plays their home games in Fort Collins. CSU and Colorado do play their annual rivalry game at the Broncos' stadium, which may be the reason you were confused.
The biggest problem I see with the Panthers going back on-campus is that everybody agrees that a new stadium in Oakland would be smaller (about 50K fans?). That's not the way you want to go to compete in the ACC: Clemson and Florida State both have 80K+ seat stadiums. Miami is playing in a 70K pro stadium. Virginia Tech's stadium is about 67K. Louisville's expanded stadium will be 65K when it opens in 2018. North Carolina's, Virginia's and NC State's are all about 60K, and Georgia Tech's is 55K. It's not much of a coincidence that the bottom teams in the conference all have the smaller stadiums.
A 50K on-campus stadium would be an outstanding place for Pitt to play if they were competing in the American Athletic Conference (like USF) or the Mountain West (like CSU), but it's not a good choice for Pitt trying to succeed in the ACC.
Last edited:
Caleco's parking lot? Last time I was at that bar, I was 19.. im 41 now. how bout we just tailgate at The Decade
I'm not even going to read the entire thread because any on-campus stadium talk is a waste of time and nonsense. When Pitt was at the top of the college football world back in the mid-70's to early 80's, we hardly sold out a much smaller Pitt Stadium. We had games in that time where there were 35,000 or 40,000 fans in attendance. We would only get into the 50,000 range when we played a PSU, WVU or possibly a national power, like a O$U or Oklahoma. Even then, it was a struggle to get Pitt fans to fill Pitt Stadium.
Nothing suggests it would be any different now. The only option I can see, if we can magically overcome all of the logistics obstacles, is to build a 35,000 - 40,000 seat stadium. It would be small enough to not take up a lot of valuable real estate in Oakland and might cause some demand for tickets. With a small stadium, parking problems may be alleviated a little. When you get above 45,000 for Pitt, it's hit or miss. Mostly miss.
But an on-campus stadium is not happening in any of our lifetimes. If it does, someone in power suddenly became very stupid and had a huge brain fart.
Nothing suggests it would be any different now. The only option I can see, if we can magically overcome all of the logistics obstacles, is to build a 35,000 - 40,000 seat stadium. It would be small enough to not take up a lot of valuable real estate in Oakland and might cause some demand for tickets. With a small stadium, parking problems may be alleviated a little. When you get above 45,000 for Pitt, it's hit or miss. Mostly miss.
But an on-campus stadium is not happening in any of our lifetimes. If it does, someone in power suddenly became very stupid and had a huge brain fart.
PushupMan, you're absolutely right, and I've made a similar point several times before. The idea of Pitt building a pretty, 45k seat stadium, whether its on-campus, in Hazelwood, or on the moon, is a totally out-dated idea. Its exactly what Pitt needed to build in the mid-80s.
But of course, that never happened. People forget how much things have changed for the better. Pitt went from being an independent to being in a fledgling, then dying second rate football conference. Then, we were rescued from near oblivion (see UConn.) We are now in a top conference (tops in 2016), with big-time revenue; a new chancellor committed to success for the program and willing to financially support it; a HC that couldn't be a better fit -- and I can't imagine anyone else with a better chance of delivering real success; nice new facilities, etc.; nice level of success in the new coach's second year; very good recruiting classes, etc.
The gist is, today, Pitt is better positioned for success in many, many important ways than we've been for more than 3 decades, and the chance for better attendance going forward is tangible. So building a stadium today that meets the needs of Pitt in 1985 is utterly senseless.
Good point. To add, nobody's kids had a soccer game to use as an excuse / legitimate reason to miss a game back then.
