Although I doubt we ever see an on campus stadium again due to the Bates street mess and parking issues, if we did I could support a minimum 55,000 capacity place. You could have your core 40-45,000 sideline chair back seating and the rest in retractable bench seating in one or both end zones. Make it oval without a track for maximum crowd noise impact. Heinz's major fault is having nosebleed seats to allow the nice view of downtown for tv and the casual fan (I.e., putting "pretty" over function). Also a new Pitt Stadium,should have no yellow seats--blue seating only.
If Colorado St
- Thread starter TD_istheman
- Start date
Although I doubt we ever see an on campus stadium again due to the Bates street mess and parking issues, if we did I could support a minimum 55,000 capacity place. You could have your core 40-45,000 sideline chair back seating and the rest in retractable bench seating in one or both end zones. Make it oval without a track for maximum crowd noise impact. Heinz's major fault is having nosebleed seats to allow the nice view of downtown for tv and the casual fan (I.e., putting "pretty" over function). Also a new Pitt Stadium,should have no yellow seats--blue seating only.
NORDY loved basketball first , so in reality , we tore down our football program for basketball, I said it then, I say it now, dumb dumb dumb
For the fun of it, if Pitt ever did get an on-campus stadium, which recently built stadium would you like to see it modeled after?
Sanford Stadium - Stanford - 50,424 (2006)
Spectrum Stadium - UCF - 44,206 (2007)
TCF Bank Stadium - Minnesota - 50,805 (2009)
McLane Stadium - Baylor - 45,140 (2014)
TDECU Stadium - Houston - 40,000 (2014)
Colorado State Stadium - Colorado State - 41,200 (2017)
Sanford Stadium - Stanford - 50,424 (2006)
Spectrum Stadium - UCF - 44,206 (2007)
TCF Bank Stadium - Minnesota - 50,805 (2009)
McLane Stadium - Baylor - 45,140 (2014)
TDECU Stadium - Houston - 40,000 (2014)
Colorado State Stadium - Colorado State - 41,200 (2017)
I always think it is interesting when people believe its the stadium that equals the atmosphere and not winning/big games. I remember that #8 Pitt team that played Notre Dame. What a great atmosphere for that one at Heinz Field. Same for the Cincy/Pitt game for the Big East Championship that Pitt lost. In the snow and was a great atmosphere. Its not the stadium, but rather Pitt hasnt really dont a lot of real winning to bring people in. We are in a professional football city and its very bandwagon. See even the Steelers when they had their lean years when there was a ton of empty seats and it was tough to give tickets away let along sell them for most non-rivalry/big name opponent games....and this is the Steelers we are talking about here.
I dont see fans tolerating a sub-NFL stadium either, which drives up the cost. The biggest cost is land acquisition in a place where there is not land of that size readily available minus tearing down other 10s/100s of million dollar infrastructure. Lacks parking infrastructure. State/Fed/Country would have to kick in 100s of millions in new road configurations for traffic (which anyone who has season basketball tickets knows how bad Oakland is for getting out with 8k fans).
If some billionaire I dont know about that has a soft spot for Pitt and is willing to toss $500 million plus commit arson on South Oakland, make it happen. But for now we have a top notch stadium by college stadium standard (although Heinz is very average by NF-standards) that makes fiscal sense. Pitt really should be focused on dumping money into coaches, staff, practice facilities, recruiting budget, etc far far far before any stadium. Do things that produce and generate wins..and no, 8 wins is not "winning" in college football. Bring in those bandwagon casual fans. Thats how you produce an atmosphere...not building a souped-up high school stadium which most colleges have.
I dont see fans tolerating a sub-NFL stadium either, which drives up the cost. The biggest cost is land acquisition in a place where there is not land of that size readily available minus tearing down other 10s/100s of million dollar infrastructure. Lacks parking infrastructure. State/Fed/Country would have to kick in 100s of millions in new road configurations for traffic (which anyone who has season basketball tickets knows how bad Oakland is for getting out with 8k fans).
If some billionaire I dont know about that has a soft spot for Pitt and is willing to toss $500 million plus commit arson on South Oakland, make it happen. But for now we have a top notch stadium by college stadium standard (although Heinz is very average by NF-standards) that makes fiscal sense. Pitt really should be focused on dumping money into coaches, staff, practice facilities, recruiting budget, etc far far far before any stadium. Do things that produce and generate wins..and no, 8 wins is not "winning" in college football. Bring in those bandwagon casual fans. Thats how you produce an atmosphere...not building a souped-up high school stadium which most colleges have.
All of those Northeast /East Coast Nerdy, Lefty, academics love the non contact sports and hate football. For many of them football is a necessary evil that they have to put up with!
It's much easier to talk basketball with their friends over a wine spritzer instead of having to discuss the "brutish" mud and grass stained football players.
The most practical thing they can do to improve the atmosphere is to reduce capacity of the stadium. When you pack people in tight, the atmosphere naturally becomes better. When you have people spread out, they're more likely to be passive fans. You pack them in tight and you have something good going. It would tick off a lot of season-ticket holders to make this type of move, but it is one of the easiest moves they could do to improve the game day atmosphere.
Colorado State stadium looks incredible. Only $220M? I take that design with no open end zone. Capacity should be just over/under 50K.
I don't like the Houston stadium. Best two for me are easily Minnesota and CSU.
The issue isnt ticket sales though, its attendance and using of those tickets. Our current prices are not at a level that really make reselling worth peoples time and end up just eating the tickets for the games they cant make. So what Pitt would be doing is possibly also reducing stadium seating capacity, reducing sales (as some people who buy upper endzone may not be able to purchase the other seating areas (even though Pitt tickets are pretty cheap all around, even for club levels).
To make this work, you would need to also implement a first-come-first-serve general admission one price policy. Meaning who ever enters the stadium first, gets their dibs on where to seat. This would probably anger a lot of long time fans who sit between the 40s, potentially not having those people invest in tickets.
So the "spread out" isnt caused by the stadium being too big, its caused by no shows. Two completely different things.
Go all in.......SMF-like
Sell everything to UPMC.
Everything.
Go back to the original name of Western and dump the Pittsburgh name altogether and get the hell out of Oakland.....Which other than the buildings of Pitt, the Hospitals and Museums is a slum.
Get 2 billion, raise another or two and do like Wake Forest......
Move it.
Start over Somewhere anywhere but Oakland. Not just a new on-campus stadium, a new campus.
Take it private make it smaller and all you need are the uniforms and colors.
Sell everything to UPMC.
Everything.
Go back to the original name of Western and dump the Pittsburgh name altogether and get the hell out of Oakland.....Which other than the buildings of Pitt, the Hospitals and Museums is a slum.
Get 2 billion, raise another or two and do like Wake Forest......
Move it.
Start over Somewhere anywhere but Oakland. Not just a new on-campus stadium, a new campus.
Take it private make it smaller and all you need are the uniforms and colors.
Angering the people who are some of your highest donors is a really, really stupid idea.
Agree. Which is what would happen if this is what was proposed with the tarp. Just introducing a tarp would jam more people in....you likely would just lose those people from buying tickets (unless you added a FCFS policy and a GA policy).
The people who sit in the sections that would be most likely to be tarped are not the highest donors, and in many cases are not donors at all. And there aren't very many of them, so tarping really wouldn't affect donations at all and it would have, at most, a very, very small impact on ticket sales.
On the other hand, the people that sit in the 40-50 yard line sections donate (relative to Pitt) lots of money to sit in those seats. Making them first come, first served means that there is no reason for those people to donate money to get the best seats, because they wouldn't be getting the best seats. If you start telling people that they can stop donating $100 per seat for the best non-club seat and that they aren't going to get a guaranteed seat whether they donate money or not then people are going to stop donating money, and in some cases, a lot more than there are people that sit in the upper deck end zone, people are going to stop coming all together.
Yeah -- this conversation thread brings out the .... folks detached from reality for sure lol.
Everyone could throw out "dream-world" hypothetical scenarios all day, and all night -- this is silly.
Someone already said above so I am "borrowing" here --- but someone already said essentially: "Instead of all this talk about a stadium and the IMMENSE amount of money $$ and resources it would take (just to even initiate anything) ---> Just invest money into #1: the coaching staff, then logistics and faciliites."
All this Crazy-Talk of an Stadium --- well, instead of talking of a Billion Dollar dream, right now if Pitt just pours-in a few tens of millions into the Head Coach + Staff it will lead to Pitt being a percieved as an Elite Level Program. That would be wonderful for Right Now....which down the road might also help with this stadium pipe dream if the opportunity arises. But Pitt is in a great position to become Elite right now --- THAT is the Vision.
Who knows, maybe in 5 years sentient Super-Rats take over South Oakland and every single tenant evacuates ---- Humans have to burn down all of South Oakland to end the Rat Revolution, and then Pitt decides to just buy-out the scorched Earth that is now perfect for a Stadium and parking......Honestly that scenario is no more unlikely than any other "How Pitt gets an on-campus stadium" comments I've read so far
lol.
Pitt now, and for the first time in Pitt Sporting History, must COMMIT to Pay absolute top-going, Power-5 rates to our Football Staff while also contining to improve facilities and logistics as they have been the last couple years.
Energy and resources focused-in on the right place, also which will lead to Pitt competing for ACC Championships!
Everyone could throw out "dream-world" hypothetical scenarios all day, and all night -- this is silly.
Someone already said above so I am "borrowing" here --- but someone already said essentially: "Instead of all this talk about a stadium and the IMMENSE amount of money $$ and resources it would take (just to even initiate anything) ---> Just invest money into #1: the coaching staff, then logistics and faciliites."
All this Crazy-Talk of an Stadium --- well, instead of talking of a Billion Dollar dream, right now if Pitt just pours-in a few tens of millions into the Head Coach + Staff it will lead to Pitt being a percieved as an Elite Level Program. That would be wonderful for Right Now....which down the road might also help with this stadium pipe dream if the opportunity arises. But Pitt is in a great position to become Elite right now --- THAT is the Vision.
Who knows, maybe in 5 years sentient Super-Rats take over South Oakland and every single tenant evacuates ---- Humans have to burn down all of South Oakland to end the Rat Revolution, and then Pitt decides to just buy-out the scorched Earth that is now perfect for a Stadium and parking......Honestly that scenario is no more unlikely than any other "How Pitt gets an on-campus stadium" comments I've read so far
lol.Pitt now, and for the first time in Pitt Sporting History, must COMMIT to Pay absolute top-going, Power-5 rates to our Football Staff while also contining to improve facilities and logistics as they have been the last couple years.
Energy and resources focused-in on the right place, also which will lead to Pitt competing for ACC Championships!
Last edited:
Agree completely that it would piss a lot of people off. But the proposed plans in this thread are not going to create a better atmosphere by tarping. The whole lower bowl is essentially sold out every year. So every seat is paid for for every game. Then why the lack of filled seats during the games? Would you allow the people you have displaced from the upper level to any seat not filled with the hopes that the true seat holders dont show up?
So at the end of the day with tarping, all you are likely to do is probably stop people who have traditionally sat in those spots likely to not purchase tickets (considering those are the cheapest seats and dont require a donation). Now you have reduced capacity artificially, spent money on the tarp, likely lost revenue from at least a percentage of people who would be displaced, and still have empty seats in the lower bowl. Thats the impact of tarping realistically.
The new Colorado State stadium is very nice!
As I mentioned Mrs Buffett is a Colorado State ( CSU ) alum and sat in their original old (like PITT stadium) on campus stadium drinking and singing this bad fight song:
Fight on you stalwart Ram team
On to the goal!
Tear the (Opponent's Name) line asunder
As Down the field we thunder.
Knights of the Green and Gold
Fight with all your might!
Fight on you stalwart Rams
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Depending on the situation and what she's drinking Mrs Buffett from time to time breaks out in the CSU bad fight song and the best I can do is smile or suffer the consequences which could be unmeasurable!? If you know what I mean! She has more options than I do?
But the new stadium is very nice!
Mrs Buffett is a huge PITT fan in addition to CSU since the chances of them competing are slim and none!
Last edited:
I'm one of the few crazies that would love if Pitt played at PNC Park a la Cal at AT&T Park in 2011 or Marlins Stadium for various bowl games. But I'd just make it a permanent home until an on campus stadium is erected. Only houses about 40K but that would give Pitt a unique identity and it would pretty much always be full. Incredible ballpark too.
Last edited:
Would be terrible sight lines for football just like Pinstripe Bowl with Yankee Stadium. Club Sections are also not anywhere near as nice. Would probably not renew if they played at PNC in all honestly. Would be easier and better to watch from home.
Ticket sales is a pretty big issue. They set a record with about 54,000 season tickets last year and that is over 14,000 below capacity at Heinz Field. If there are even just 4,000 no shows and the stadium is going to feel like it's half full. As you said, it's easy not to show for a game because the tickets are so cheap. When you reduce capacity you can also change the seating prices to still accommodate those very cheap upper deck end zone seats. Instead, these would be on the ends of the upper deck sideline.
The first-come-first serve idea is good in theory, but in the end is the same principle as closing off sections of the stadium to seating. The difference is you don't screw over the donors when you close areas of the stadium like you would by having general admission seats--which the team would have to sell at a very low price point. Doing this still won't solve the problem when 35,000 show up in November, but it would focus what crowd shows up in a smaller area.
Due to the irregular shape of the outfield it is highly unlikely that a full sized football field fits at PNC.
There are three ways to fit a football field into a baseball stadium. It's only 320 feet to the right field wall, so there is no way it fits running it down the first base line. It's 325 feet to the left field wall so it won't fit down the third base line. And the problem with putting it with home plate at one end and center field at the other is that there is so relatively little foul ground behind home plate that you'd have to start the field further out than most places that do that start. For instance there is a lot more ground behind home plate at Yankee Stadium, so they can (barely) fit a field in going in that direction. If you did that at PNC you'd probably be OK on the left-center corner of the end zone but the right-center corner of the end zone is where you'd run out of room really quickly.
That Northwestern/Illinois game at Wrigley a few years back where they both had to use the same end zone ended up being pretty much an embarrassment.
I get that for big games, Heinz can fill up. However, I have talked with many students who do not go to games because of the bus trip and hassle. Yes, some of you will say that they are whiners, but really? You are not them. Think back if you would do that trip week in and week out. Especially for crappy or meaningless games. Hell, not sure I would do that trip every week back then. But I did when the stadium was on campus. Great memories. Which is why I go today. Which is why I donate. We have an old fan base and failing to replenish it. That is the biggest problem with not having an on campus stadium. At least imho.
In my day many wouldn't walk up cardiac hill either. Plus it was more commuter u and towers dorms were ghost towns on weekends. Even most dorm students were more connected to their hometown high school and Friday night lights than they were to Pitt athletics. Most of these folks developed no ties to Pitt football. I don't believe an on campus stadium would do much for attendance even now.
I completely disagree with that doomsday scenario. I think you have some reserved sections and some general admission sections – like they do at schools all over the country. It's not going stop people from coming in meaningful numbers.
And if it works and it does create a better atmosphere, and I think it would, it's actually going to attract more fans. Hopefully it attracts younger fans so that the atmosphere becomes more lively rather than the way it is currently – which is the single greatest recruiting challenge Pitt has as a program.
I just think it's the simple. Under the current arrangement the Pitt football program cannot ever be more than what it is right now. That's just reality. How we address that issue is anyone's guess.
However, we are not going to magically start filling this gigantic stadium on a consistent basis unless we are able to schedule Penn State, Notre Dame and West Virginia five and six times per season. It is not going to happen.
Basically, we have three choices:
1.) We can build a new right-sized on campus stadium.
2.) We can reduce the size of the current stadium through tarps.
3.) We can hope and pray that we start winning at a level we have not managed in 35 years and we start attracting more fans to our games than we've ever done in the program's 100+ year history.
Which of those three solutions seems the most likely to succeed to you guys?
Last edited:
We needed that person to be the Chancellor about 15 years ago, or 30 years ago, or 40 years ago. It's probably too late now, but they could have spent the last 15 years acquiring land for the stadium. Instead, we've been placed into an all of nothing scenario, and unfortunately, the ceiling isn't very high.
Well, again, its my opinion as yours is yours. Sadly we will never know. Though I would like to think that an on Campus Stadium would help with getting more students to the games. Not to mention, getting more people to campus and hopefully more nostalgia, converting to donating to the school. I think the off campus stadium alienates the ties to the university.
It's not a commuter school anymore, but you are right, Pitt has a smaller and less devotional fanbase because of it's past. Unfortunately, that isn't going to be fixed by busing the current students to Heinz. It will be fixed by getting those students into a stadium in Oakland, and then repeating that process for 20+ years.
Not Pitt related, but this is still a cool stadium transformation.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...ially-transformed-for-georgia-state-football/
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...ially-transformed-for-georgia-state-football/
It's all about winning. If Duzz builds a team that gets some preseason hype and is contending for the Acc Coastal and/or a playoff bid until the end then fans will show up. More 6-8 win teams with meaningless games down the stretch and even a 50k seat stadium wont be small enough to sell out.
Location is not. Capacity is... Minnesota, Stanford renovated or built new smaller stadiums. GT plays in 55K seat stadium. Even WVU plays in a stadium with 5K+ less capacity than Heinz.
This Colorado state stadium topic is so far out there, even for the pantherlair, it's beyond comprehension. yes, a college got a football stadium but col. state? Guys, the situation between pitt and csu is so insane, I cant even believe there is a thread on it. Geographically, conferences, I mean could you pick another school with less in common than pitt? is it possible?
Not at all. You just don't sell the tarped sections (upper end zones and corners, maybe even non camera upper) for games you obviously don't need them and then sell single game tickets for games like PSU, ND, WVU, etc. There would be absolutely no need for GA. By reducing the number of tickets available you would increase their value and people would be less likely to just trash them instead of selling on the secondary market. So you would physically create fewer empty areas and artificially create fewer empty areas, by increasing ticket values on the secondary market and making it less likely those seats are no shows. If the option is yellow seats or tarps, the answer is pretty clearly tarps.
Except the yellow seats would stay because of no-shows, which is Pitt's biggest problem.
But that won't be near as much of a problem because the number of tickets available for purchase in the first place will be reduced and that will drive demand to the secondary market beyond the 0 there is today. Pitt still has to start winning, but tarping will cause market and demand changes.
