Heinz silently continues to haunt Pitt football
- Thread starter Panther Al
- Start date
No acre difference actually.
CMU has a campus....that’s the difference
You’re confused.
I just spent last Saturday sitting in a half empty on campus stadium in Chapel Hill. Just like I spent many Saturdays years ago sitting with 30,000 - 40,000 others in Pitt Stadium. Oakland = No parking, no freeway access, no thanks
Aside from a few kooks, nobody, even inside the disaster which is the historic Pitt Ath Dept, is dumb enough to build a football field in Oakland.
Even though bulldozing the South Oakland dump would be an eyesore upgrade....a FB field is NOT going there.
Somebody could drop half a bil$ on Pitt’s front door tonight, and they’d spend it on anything but an Oakland field.
For heavens sake how can anyone who is even remotely familiar with Pitt's deficiencies in being competitive ... which begins and ends with money for the best coaches, recruiting trips, amenities for recruits, and the unmentionable other 'costs' ... then turn around and say that Pitt should dump half a bill on a stadium? And it wouldn't even stop with the initial construction. Having Heinz HELPS this money situation. Flat minimal predictable fee (from all I've read). No mortgage, no facility and infrastructure upkeep, no employees needed.
The facility is fine, distance from Oakland is negligible, and the students are taken basically right to the gate. It's been shown time and again the students are happy to attend IF the team is good and we're playing important games (ie, that could lead to championships or at least post season). Exactly the same as the regular fans.
The poor team and lack of important games are the problems, not the venue or location.
The facility is fine, distance from Oakland is negligible, and the students are taken basically right to the gate. It's been shown time and again the students are happy to attend IF the team is good and we're playing important games (ie, that could lead to championships or at least post season). Exactly the same as the regular fans.
The poor team and lack of important games are the problems, not the venue or location.
Pitt was Alabama once, and it was when they had an on campus stadium and you could find tickets to pretty much any game. It has been discussed a thousand different times, a thousand different ways, Pitt football is limited in fanbase. It is not a big fanbase. It is not like there are 100,000 people sitting back, waiting for Pitt to be good, then jumping on the bandwagon.
I agree that Heinz Field is a detriment. It is just too big for Pitt. That being said, what are you going to do? That's the venue, unless you are moving to Cupples Stadium with tailgates at Brewski's, that's the answer.
So.....Pitt would likely be best served spending $10 million on a coach/staff than it would be trying to find $500 million and real estate to build a right sized, on campus stadium.
So.....Pitt would likely be best served spending $10 million on a coach/staff than it would be trying to find $500 million and real estate to build a right sized, on campus stadium.
You all still don't get it. Pitt isn't spending money on a stadium, nor are they going to spend a lot on a better coaching staff. They will spend just enough to keep most fans thinking they are trying, and then use the rest of the revenue to prop up other sports programs.
and it's funny the "front door" of the campus is actually across & down the street. More like the front door to Central Catholic.
That's exactly right. They were both given a stadium, and still won't invest to win. Good thing for Pitt fans that college football doesn't allow trades.
You know what would really enhance Pitt's campus? A beautiful wall surrounding it with an arch to allow entry.
The stadium is to blame for Pitt only being able to consistently out-recruit FCS schools? Are you sure you haven't thoroughly vetted the notion that the color of the helmets has something to do with it or the inability of the athletic department to squash the "tarp or no tarp" debate?
If we're going to lay out crazy stupid ideas, let's lay them all out.
If we're going to lay out crazy stupid ideas, let's lay them all out.
This also hasn't helped Pitt. Especially in a Pro town where the NFL team plays its games on Sunday afternoons, just hard for people to justify killing two afternoons every weekend.
This also hasn't helped Pitt. Especially in a Pro town where the NFL team plays its games on Sunday afternoons, just hard for people to justify killing two afternoons every weekend.
that's interesting and very telling
That would be one fargin Wall......
Tell that to Grant Street to cordon off about 20 owned city blocks and streets or however many....along with about a hundred or so non Pitt Properties...
That maybe a bigger dream weave plan than the kooks who want a FB Field.....in Oakland
Lmao
This also hasn't helped Pitt. Especially in a Pro town where the NFL team plays its games on Sunday afternoons, just hard for people to justify killing two afternoons every weekend.
What is it?
This is the obvious case, but what fun is that...
It's like i just posted in another thread, what's duz have to be afraid of ... lose this job, he'll get paid big and likely get a better job, his rep won't be tarnished Everyone knows the score with us.
Someone usually about now tends to post that Pitt spends a lot of money. To the head coaches, i think they spend ok. But it's the head of the snake if you will.
First, I think others downplay or disguise what they truly spend, especially state universities (to avoid do-gooder protests or government scrutiny). Especially for the "cheating" kind of expenses. Makes our spending look higher as a result.
Plus a lot of our reported spending likely includes payments to coaching and AD ghosts/mistakes of the past. That massive payoff to Pederson for example, possibly being amortized... and of course, Stallings now (the latter likely would show under basketball spending... but who really knows?).
Or else others hit boosters much harder than we're willing to for such things, because they're willing to give the influence that Pitt won't. Phantom money that shows nowhere.
If not willing to believe that, that then the claim has to be Pitt leadership is generally incompetent in how it manages the program, vs others. For example if we truly spend close to Clemson, but come nowhere near them in success in W-L, conference champions, and national championships (no, one fluke win against them doesn't makeup for that), then if they aren't spending more under the table and cheating better than we do, what else can that mean? The conclusion is clear.
From experience, that latter claim tends to get posters put on the "ignore" lists of some ... or requested to be banned by others. I have fun on here. So I stay away now from claims like that.
Pitt found space for the new soccer and baseball complex. They are looking for space for a new track. If they wanted to build a stadium in Oakland, they could have done it. But, like I said... they have ZERO interest in doing the difficult work. Easier to play at Heinz and fool the fans every year, then use the money earned from the ACC on other things.
Pitt needs to expand the footprint of its campus. Not necessarily for the purpose of building a stadium, but for the overall improvement and advancement of the University.
This is the obvious case, but what fun is that...
It's like i just posted in another thread, what's duz have to be afraid of ... lose this job, he'll get paid big and likely get a better job, his rep won't be tarnished Everyone knows the score with us.
Someone usually about now tends to post that Pitt spends a lot of money. To the head coaches, i think they spend ok. But it's the head of the snake if you will.
First, I think others downplay or disguise what they truly spend, especially state universities (to avoid do-gooder protests or government scrutiny). Especially for the "cheating" kind of expenses. Makes our spending look higher as a result.
Plus a lot of our reported spending likely includes payments to coaching and AD ghosts/mistakes of the past. That massive payoff to Pederson for example, possibly being amortized... and of course, Stallings now (the latter likely would show under basketball spending... but who really knows?).
Or else others hit boosters much harder than we're willing to for such things, because they're willing to give the influence that Pitt won't. Phantom money that shows nowhere.
If not willing to believe that, that then the claim has to be Pitt leadership is generally incompetent in how it manages the program, vs others. For example if we truly spend close to Clemson, but come nowhere near them in success in W-L, conference champions, and national championships (no, one fluke win against them doesn't makeup for that), then if they aren't spending more under the table and cheating better than we do, what else can that mean? The conclusion is clear.
From experience, that latter claim tends to get posters put on the "ignore" lists of some ... or requested to be banned by others. I have fun on here. So I stay away now from claims like that.
Don't forget, they also got (I believe) buy out money for TG and PC. Not sure how that gets accounted in their finances.
But yes... generally they have shown to be incompetent, over and over and over again. It's a shame because Lyke seems better than the past dipshits, but there isn't much she can do except build the other sports up with the ACC money, and fix the screwup (see Pitt, decisions) with the basketball program.
Indeed, it's often been said it's the University of Pittsburgh, not Oakland. Originally begun downtown, then north side, before Oakland. Still have the observatory on that side of the river. I took KGSB classes downtown last decade.
Use some of Heinz Fields office space to offer classes. Even if token few. It would allow some PR. Create a clip of the classes there and provide the footage to the tv network to show ... "Heinz Field is more than just the football home of the Panthers, here is their Sports Management 110 course being taught, it featured guest lectures from Kevin Colbert" blah blah
They often have chances, and blow it (see Schenley High School and Pittsburgh Athletic Club).
Lol, got it. No hospitals and hotels in Oakland. It’s all a lie.
Someone let the internet know this please, they keep identifying Oakland as the healthcare center of Pittsburgh. Someone call the internet up and tell them to stop spreading these lies.
Last edited:
nah....just being facetious. Pretty good idea who you are.
The only thing wrong with HF is that it's half (>) empty . Whose fault is that ? It's certainly not the product is it !
PSU gets over 100,000 per game , how many of those people travel great distances to see the games ? Is Beaver Stadium that great or is it the event ?
Stop making excuses for Pitt the product they put out there yr after yr is why HF is spacious !
PSU gets over 100,000 per game , how many of those people travel great distances to see the games ? Is Beaver Stadium that great or is it the event ?
Stop making excuses for Pitt the product they put out there yr after yr is why HF is spacious !
I share the same mindset as many on here. The school needs to fight for every inch of real estate in Oakland. We lose space yearly to those pesky tax generating commercial entities and I feel like this will continue with no end in sight.
I don’t think HF is an asset but not the detriment many make it out to be. I’d love an on campus stadium but I recognize the obstacles that stand in the way.
So in short, I’m sanely in the middle of this debate. Both extremes are idiotic. People that say HF is the main reason are just as naive as those that believe HF is great stadium that recruits want to play at.
With this said, you have to admit you can’t swing a dead cat by it’s tail anywhere in Oakland without hitting two hospitals and a chain hotel.
well this is a little more reasoned, but having hospitals in Oakland is a bad thing? I would disagree. And I am also on the middle of the Heinz debate, but am leaning more towards it is hindrance rather than asset. The yellow seats are just to stunning a visual and we will never get 60K per week that is needed to hide the yellow unless we are competing year in and year out for the Coastal.
Exactly! Add more buildings and classrooms in the North Shore/Downtown area, or any other area in the city that provides an opportunity.
I don’t know if it’s a bad thing overall, I mean if I’m sick and in the area, I’d probably be grateful. In the sense of a nice college campus, well I have yet to meet a student who looks to go to a college with multiple hospitals on the campus. Isn’t exactly an attraction from a traditional college student perspective.
It’s like a methadone rehab clinic or needle exchange facility. It’s needed, you just don’t want to see it everyday. If I work for pitt and I’m giving tours to prospective students, Presby, Magee, montefiore, and the VA aren’t part of that tour. If anything, I’m going the long way to avoid those landmarks for this tour.
Regarding Heinz, I’m slowly seeing the tarp crowd as having a valid point.
Last edited:
This is the obvious case, but what fun is that...
It's like i just posted in another thread, what's duz have to be afraid of ... lose this job, he'll get paid big and likely get a better job, his rep won't be tarnished Everyone knows the score with us.
Someone usually about now tends to post that Pitt spends a lot of money. To the head coaches, i think they spend ok. But it's the head of the snake if you will.
First, I think others downplay or disguise what they truly spend, especially state universities (to avoid do-gooder protests or government scrutiny). Especially for the "cheating" kind of expenses. Makes our spending look higher as a result.
Plus a lot of our reported spending likely includes payments to coaching and AD ghosts/mistakes of the past. That massive payoff to Pederson for example, possibly being amortized... and of course, Stallings now (the latter likely would show under basketball spending... but who really knows?).
Or else others hit boosters much harder than we're willing to for such things, because they're willing to give the influence that Pitt won't. Phantom money that shows nowhere.
If not willing to believe that, that then the claim has to be Pitt leadership is generally incompetent in how it manages the program, vs others. For example if we truly spend close to Clemson, but come nowhere near them in success in W-L, conference champions, and national championships (no, one fluke win against them doesn't makeup for that), then if they aren't spending more under the table and cheating better than we do, what else can that mean? The conclusion is clear.
From experience, that latter claim tends to get posters put on the "ignore" lists of some ... or requested to be banned by others. I have fun on here. So I stay away now from claims like that.
Pitt subsidizes its athletic department, meaning it pays for things out of its general institutional operational funds, at an annual amount that is higher than Clemson and most all of its athletic peers not named Rutgers. Pitt annually subsidizes at an amount that is millions more than other power conference universities.
That does not mean that Pitt's athletic department budget, revenues, or donations match peers. Pitt athletics just do not generate as much gate, sponsorship, and donation revenue, and all of that difference will not, and cannot, be made up out of the universities general operations without sacrificing its core missions of teaching and research, particularly when it has among the highest in-state tuition rates in the nation among universities classified as publics and receives one of the lowest public subsidies in the nation.
So for in 2016, which is the latest actual numbers I can cull from various sources including the university's Synder Reports, USAToday's report, and the EADA website, the University of Pittsburgh spent approximately $4 million MORE subsiding its athletic department than did Clemson University. However, Pitt's total athletic budget was approximately $20 million LESS, as total athletic revenues were about $25 million LESS (not counting university subsidies). Pitt has put the majority of its budget into football (~44% of its entire athletic budget) and men's basketball (~11%). For comparison, Clemson budgets about 42% of its total athletic expenditures on football, and that amounts to $16 million more per year spent on football than Pitt. So a large chunk of that difference in actual athletic generated revenue at Clemson is going into their football program. The University of Pittsburgh, which subsidizes its athletics to a tune of about $9m a year, is in no way going to make up that additional $16-20m annual difference with Clemson by diverting millions more from its teaching, research, and community outreach programs. If someone is waiting for that to happen, then they should find another university to cheer for, because university can't and won't do it. Pitt athletics will have to narrow that gap itself by increasing athletic revenues, including doing a better job at fundraising. But Clemson is on the higher end of athletic revenue generation in the ACC, and Pitt's budget is more on par with Virginia Tech, NC State, and Georgia Tech, and Pitt spent several million more on football than all three of those schools in that particular FY.
So, after years and years of posting the actual data on this, over and over again, if people don't understand that Pitt, as an institution, spends more money than most power conference schools subsidizing its athletics, but is still way behind on its athletic budget compared to these larger athletic schools, mostly because Pitt generates so little comparative athletic revenue, then I don't know what to tell them.
As to the question of whether Pitt is incompetent in managing its athletic department? Well in the last 8 years Pitt has had 3 ADs, 5 football coaches, 3 men's basketball coaches, and 3 women's basketball coaches with results ranging from at best mediocre to just flat out historically embarrassing. Not to mention that Pitt has seen mostly terrible team performances across most Olympic sports that place the university at or near the bottom of overall athletic department performance rankings for power conference schools during that time. Regardless of financials, the answer is ABSOLUTELY YES, athletics has been mismanaged badly and there can be no other conclusion based on the actual results of the athletic programs that Pitt fields. Is that changing? I don't know. Let's hope so. The desire to field successful football and basketball has always been demonstrated, because the financial subsidy has been in the university's annual budget and it has generally been among the largest of power schools, but the inability to resist constant administrative tampering in athletic programs and poor personnel hiring choices is the true Pitt tradition.
Regarding ignore lists, I decided a while back not to waste my time on topics that make this board readable and cut down on the time wasted on posters that refuse to deal with reality.
Honestly we are lucky at this point the students and public haven't picketed up and down Fifth Avenue to demand that Pitt stops using tuition/tax money to subsidize mediocre athletics.
With the number of biologic and health sciences pre-professional and professional students in Oakland, the hospitals and research labs are very much an attraction. Pitt is not just a school for undergrads. You have six full-fledged health sciences schools in Oakland, and they all want to be next to the hospitals. There is a reason Pitt gave the land to those hospitals to build on, immediately adjacent to its medical school. The fruition of it after decades was the creation of UPMC, and that was arguably more impactful for Western Pennsylvania than perhaps anything else Pitt has done in the last 100 years.
If you are giving tours for Pitt, to undergrads, and you do not mention the proximity and ease of access to these state-of-the-art, top ranked medical and health science research facilities, then you would be a very poor tour guide unless you are touring a group made up of only future art history and english lit majors. These are a huge attraction to biologic sciences and pre-health professional students for undergrad research opportunities, physician shadowing, and volunteer/intern experience. The proximity of these facilities to the undergrad campus, unlike at many universities, greatly facilitates opportunities to partake in these experiences with minimal disruption to normal, daily undergraduate academic and social experiences. And it affords the opportunity for multiple and long-term participation in projects and research activities that can generate invaluable resume and application material such as professional academic presentations or authorships. You aren't getting real experiences like that unless you spend multiple semesters in the same lab on the same project, and that is very hard to do unless those opportunities are placed among or near the undergrad campus.
Last edited:
good points, but I look at it that the educational opportunities provided by having the hospitals right on campus are better than having a grassy knoll in it's place. City living isn't for everyone.
Latest posts
-
-
-
My guess as to why this site is STILL in 'no mans land' at the moment- Latest: Zeldas Open Roof
-
