Building a stadium is a no brainer.
It will happen later than sooner.
From a cost analysis no company will invest $400 million in a facility that is used 7 days or 28 hours per year.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
How can we keep Matt Canada?
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Building a stadium is a no brainer.
It will happen later than sooner.
From a cost analysis no company will invest $400 million in a facility that is used 7 days or 28 hours per year.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Let me let you in on a little secret.
Universities have to be fiscally responsible.
When deciding on investing money in a new facility or enterprise the first thing that must be determined is what is the Return on Investment (ROI).
If there is none or marginal the enterprise is not undertaken.
That is how it is done in the real world.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Look, no one is irreplaceable. The value of a Pitt degree is not enhanced by what we pay our OC or even the performance of the football team. These amounts of money for football coaches is out of control. Jesus, get real.
Oh, is that how it's done in the real world? Thanks for letting me know.
You create a false choice by suggesting new stadium= fiscally irresponsible. It's just not so.
A new stadium can be built in a prudent and appropriate matter. Quite a few schools have done it-- Minnesota, Houston, Temple is in the process, etc. Were they all fiscally irresponsible or not living in the "real world"?
Finally, an ROI analysis is only as good as what you choose to measure. Is drawing alumni back to school, making them remember their days on campus, and thus leading to increased institutional support something that has value? How do you measure that?
I'll tell you this--you don't measure those types of things by confining yourself to a narrow and stilted view of seeing a stadium as being nothing more than a building used 28 hours a year.
People who make these kinds of decisions and do big things look beyond such a narrow focus. They do this --- wait for it -- in the REAL WORLD.
Paying Matt Canada is a good Return on Investment.
If it allows Pitt to continue to be a Top 25 football program with increased ticket sells.
Additionally, it is AD Barnes job then to parlay Pitt's newfound football success to go out and get additional sports funding by convincing the Panther Nation that the new Administration is committed to improving Pitt football.
Can be a great ROI.
AD Barnes get it done.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
If it allows Pitt to continue to be a Top 25 football program with increased ticket sells.
Additionally, it is AD Barnes job then to parlay Pitt's newfound football success to go out and get additional sports funding by convincing the Panther Nation that the new Administration is committed to improving Pitt football.
Can be a great ROI.
AD Barnes get it done.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
I realize you are a lawyer and not an engineer.
The real world base decisions on Return on Investment.
Spending $400 million on a 50,000 capacity stadium does nothing for improving Pitt athletics. However, making small investments (coach and staff salaries) to make Pitt a Top 25 Program does.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
This! Look we can bitch all we want about attendance and donations. The fact of the matter is its not going to change much until Pitt starts winning and winning consistently. A few more 8 or 9 win season's should allow Pitt to start capitalizing on PN tenure. But to do so the university is going to have to keep PN and keep the majority of the staff. If they don't then donations are not going to increase and attendance is not going to increase no matter how much on here some bitch about it. Its the classic chicken before the egg argument only this time we know the answer, at least with this program, Pitt needs to win before the donations come. I am not saying people shouldn't donate and attend games. I am just saying there isn't anything changing unless they keep winning and the best chance to do that is to pay what they need to keep the coaches. Eventually they should reap the rewards if not then they can go back to being cheap or drop down. If they aren't willing to put in the investment they might as well drop down and join the BE for BB.
I agree with you.
If you have found a successful coach and his assistants, it is in a schools best interest to pay what the market requires to keep them long term.
Consider how much money Pitt has squandered in paying for the carousal of coach we had to endure.
Currently Texas will have to pay Charlie Strong and his staff $19 million (buyout) in addition to the money they will have to pay to Tom Herman.
Oregon recently fired HC Mark Helfrich and will have to pay $10.5 million for his buy out.
Narduzzi needs the support of the administration so he can continue the job of improving Pitt Football.
I consider the OC and DC positions as vital cogs in helping him on his mission.
If Narduzzi tells the administration that this person (OC) is instrumental in helping him accomplish the task then they should support him in the retention of that person.
I consider spending a few hundred thousand a good return on investment so as to allow Pitt to return to ranks of the Top 25 (which they currently are).
Having said the above, it is now the job of AD Barnes to market the success of the Pitt Football Program into cash (again ROI).
He has to go out to the Panther Nation and request additional donations, increased ticket sales, contributions from corporate donors etc.
A new stadium is years or even decades away, so you have to give Narduzzi the tools he needs now (I consider a good OC a necessary component) to eventually elevate Pitt Football to a Top 10 Program.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
On the money! U's are an Enterprise.
If U's ran their affairs like a business ( which they don't), implemented a U version of Lean, Operations Excellence, etc, processes would be streamlined, costs would be reduced, and tuitions would be less.
Same for the local, state, and federal governments.
The reason they get away with this is:
- they get state and federal funds
- U's raise tuitions on a cost plus basis
- students are able to get huge college loans which aren't granted on the ability to pay the loan back
If student loan criteria were tighted up the supply of students going to college would be less forcing U's to reduce tuition.
Students would take advantage of lower cost options community colleges, trade schools, etc.
Last edited:
And who is paying that buyout? The Nike machine donations and the Texas oil billionaires donations.
Again, they are like the Yankees and Cubs. Have the money/resources to make these mistakes.
