JMI Sports... facility planning and financing

[Ghost of Pitt Stadium]

If the Pitt brass is really serious about conducting a feasibility study, I would think part of the analysis would focus on the purpose and functionality of the venue. This would include all potential options for usage and sources of revenues.

So I don't think one can discount the possibilities for retail, business, and hospitality. Moreover, I would think the design could accommodate more than one sports program.

Think about the venue being the new home to a future Pitt hockey team. A venue which could have hosted the NCAA wrestling tournament. A venue that could host concerts, US soccer exhibition/qualifying games, the NCAA basketball tournament, high school tournaments, etc.

I just think its easier to justify the cost of a multi-purpose venue than a football only facility on premium urban land.

 

[McKee Place]

There is a 0% chance college football ends. The UFC just signed a new contract with ESPN. People like to watch violent sports. Some just don’t want THEIR kids to play.

Football, maybe. Not as mainstream, but will likely survive.
College football, i'm far less sure. Colleges continue to move to the left. Politically, football is anathema to progressives. It'll become a big symbolic as well as financial target to eliminate. It may not seem possible today, and as i said il likely be dead, but i see the game getting marginalized, vilified, and eventually eliminated at the college level. It would check a lot of boxes for progressives.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

If these people were good and trustworthy, they would have stepped in before the previous stadium's location was used up. It's really too late now. SP and Nordy doomed Pitt football to mediocrity forever.

Which is a shame
Because the on campus stadium has us so above mediocre for a hundred years

 

[cbpitt2]

OK. Not to sound all Big Panther like. But.......Good people, Smart people, Trustworthy people are in serious examination and discussions about a right sized, on campus stadium (or at least near campus). I can't reveal sources but...

OK, in all seriousness, what I typed above is in fact occurring. I am not saying they are doing it, I am just saying due diligence is being performed.

You mean the posters on this board....;-)

Those people are only years behind the posters on here. We've discussed ideas and locations seemingly forever.

 

[pittchagg]

Football, maybe. Not as mainstream, but will likely survive.
College football, i'm far less sure. Colleges continue to move to the left. Politically, football is anathema to progressives. It'll become a big symbolic as well as financial target to eliminate. It may not seem possible today, and as i said il likely be dead, but i see the game getting marginalized, vilified, and eventually eliminated at the college level. It would check a lot of boxes for progressives.

C’mon man, this just isn’t rooted in reality. Enough with the liberal boogeymen.

The long-term future of football at the college level is going to be decided by finances - and in our system, that’s increasingly meant the television networks and the conference payouts. Liberal or conservative, college presidents aren’t going to do anything to jeopardize college football programs as long as the enterprise is still bringing in tens of millions in profit every year. If that dynamic changes and football starts being a revenue sink? Then all bets are off - but it’s not going to become a revenue sink because of anything that any college administrator could do.

 

[pittchagg]

You mean the posters on this board....;-)

Those people are only years behind the posters on here. We've discussed ideas and locations seemingly forever.

On a related note, I found a portion of this article in this weekend’s PG about the Riverhounds to be interesting and potentially relevant to Pitt football’s home venue: https://www.post-gazette.com/sports...hmark-stadium-pittsburgh/stories/201903200126

“Looking out toward five years, I think both the USL and the club would like to see a significant demand in support for that team that we are looking for a much bigger stadium somewhere in and around the city,” Edwards said. “And I think that will pay huge dividends for the city and the club. So I think [the goals are] success on the field, success in the stands and it’s working toward a bigger stadium down the road.”

 

[McKee Place]

C’mon man, this just isn’t rooted in reality. Enough with the liberal boogeymen.

The long-term future of football at the college level is going to be decided by finances - and in our system, that’s increasingly meant the television networks and the conference payouts. Liberal or conservative, college presidents aren’t going to do anything to jeopardize college football programs as long as the enterprise is still bringing in tens of millions in profit every year. If that dynamic changes and football starts being a revenue sink? Then all bets are off - but it’s not going to become a revenue sink because of anything that any college administrator could do.

I aactually agree on the finances, but that's precisely what will do it in. It's incremental for sure, but by relentless watering down of the game (nanny rules, excessive reviews and penalties, more and more commercials, etc) and competitively, the contraction of schools into smaller and smaller core of blue bloods that can truly compete for the championship, and yes, through political forces that will likely occur as socialism pervades and traditions get torn down, rabid interest in bourgeois football will wane. Attendance will continue to dwindle for all but the mega football factory schools.

Networks won't be able to keep paying huge tv deals, as ratings contract. Hell, the network structure itself is almost certain to disintegrate, not if but when.

Streaming content may well cause the whole concept of entertainment as we know it to devolve and decentralize, much like how recorded music became essentially free. That will be highly financial driven as well, though government regulation could also loom larger if political winds blow that way in the future.

But given how costly football programs (and maintaining stadiums!)are, dwindling revenues will do it in. Eventually the finances of the sport will be what gives the school admins the cover that they need to kill the sport. Because, you are right, the money is what matters as long as it outs, but when money no longer is there, ideologies will take over.

Again, I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, and God willing i have at least 30 some years left.

 

[pittdan77]

If...and that's a huge "if"...Pitt is looking at a stadium on/near campus, it's only as a backup plan for when Heinz is replaced and only then, if Pitt isn't a realistic tenant at the new venue.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Football, maybe. Not as mainstream, but will likely survive.
College football, i'm far less sure. Colleges continue to move to the left. Politically, football is anathema to progressives. It'll become a big symbolic as well as financial target to eliminate. It may not seem possible today, and as i said il likely be dead, but i see the game getting marginalized, vilified, and eventually eliminated at the college level. It would check a lot of boxes for progressives.

Everything about this is wrong. I don’t think any of these statements are true.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

C’mon man, this just isn’t rooted in reality. Enough with the liberal boogeymen.

The long-term future of football at the college level is going to be decided by finances - and in our system, that’s increasingly meant the television networks and the conference payouts. Liberal or conservative, college presidents aren’t going to do anything to jeopardize college football programs as long as the enterprise is still bringing in tens of millions in profit every year. If that dynamic changes and football starts being a revenue sink? Then all bets are off - but it’s not going to become a revenue sink because of anything that any college administrator could do.

This is way more rooted in reality.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I aactually agree on the finances, but that's precisely what will do it in. It's incremental for sure, but by relentless watering down of the game (nanny rules, excessive reviews and penalties, more and more commercials, etc) and competitively, the contraction of schools into smaller and smaller core of blue bloods that can truly compete for the championship, and yes, through political forces that will likely occur as socialism pervades and traditions get torn down, rabid interest in bourgeois football will wane. Attendance will continue to dwindle for all but the mega football factory schools.

Networks won't be able to keep paying huge tv deals, as ratings contract. Hell, the network structure itself is almost certain to disintegrate, not if but when.

Streaming content may well cause the whole concept of entertainment as we know it to devolve and decentralize, much like how recorded music became essentially free. That will be highly financial driven as well, though government regulation could also loom larger if political winds blow that way in the future.

But given how costly football programs (and maintaining stadiums!)are, dwindling revenues will do it in. Eventually the finances of the sport will be what gives the school admins the cover that they need to kill the sport. Because, you are right, the money is what matters as long as it outs, but when money no longer is there, ideologies will take over.

Again, I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, and God willing i have at least 30 some years left.

Well, I suppose anything is possible. Your doomsday “Beyond ThunderDome” prediction may well come true one day.

History has shown that no country or sport can stay on top forever. Cultures change, attitudes change and morays change. That is all undeniably true.

Personally, I don’t see it happening in any of our lifetimes, whether you are 16 years-old or 76 years-old, because football is not only the most popular sport in America, it’s the most popular cultural phenomenon in America. In many ways, it has come to define what it means to be an American.

I know that sounds like hyperbole, but I genuinely don’t think you can possibly overstate just how central that sport is to our cultural identity. It’s genuinely impossible to imagine one without the other. As far as college football is concerned, particularly in the Southeast, the health of the football program is FAR more important to the vast majority of the people who live there than the health of the actual universities they represent.

People always talk about how the Super Bowl is the most watched television program during every year. That’s why the advertisements are so expensive. However, what’s not talked about as much is that the next 20 most watched television shows throughout the course of the year are almost all football games as well. The highest rated shows of all-time are a few legendary comedies and the rest are ALL football games — not sporting events, football games.

Obviously, with the information coming out about the hazards of the sport – particularly as it pertains to brain health – the relationship between the sport and the public is bound to change.

I just think it is far more likely that the nature of football will change than it is that it will all just suddenly go away. I think that’s beyond unlikely, to be honest. There’s just way, way too much money on the table to allow it to ever go away. However, you never know?

 

[HailtoPitt]

Which is a shame
Because the on campus stadium has us so above mediocre for a hundred years

Averaged a national title every 10 years. How many have we averaged at HF?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Averaged a national title every 10 years. How many have we averaged at HF?

That’s some fun with math!
Stay on the coach

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

But it's a better utilization of space and space is at a premium in Oakland. Plus, it's an easier sell to the public. No one builds just a stadium just for the sport any more. Heinz Field has held soccer games, concerts, weddings, has offices, meeting rooms and suites that are used for functions and events. As has PNC Park.

A better utilization of the space in Oakland would do all the other stuff and leave the football stadium out. It would be easier and cheaper too. Adding all this other stuff onto a stadium that can be done better without a stadium is just a way to try to dupe people into thinking that the stadium would be a good use of premium space.

 

[Saboteur]

If the Pitt brass is really serious about conducting a feasibility study, I would think part of the analysis would focus on the purpose and functionality of the venue. This would include all potential options for usage and sources of revenues.

So I don't think one can discount the possibilities for retail, business, and hospitality. Moreover, I would think the design could accommodate more than one sports program.
Don't discount dorm rooms either. That way, at least those students couldn't gripe about access to games.
Think about the venue being the new home to a future Pitt hockey team. A venue which could have hosted the NCAA wrestling tournament. A venue that could host concerts, US soccer exhibition/qualifying games, the NCAA basketball tournament, high school tournaments, etc.

I just think its easier to justify the cost of a multi-purpose venue than a football only facility on premium urban land.

 

[Panther Parrothead]

The only thing that’s ridiculous are the dunderheads who continuously downplay the importance of an on campus stadium. Keep your head in the sand. You think you’re smarter than 99% of the universities in the US who all have their own stadiums. You’re a dinosaur in the 21st century!5

In fairness, I think that the great majority of Pitt fans recognize the importance of an on-campus facility.

What brings-out the doubters is the subject of feasibility. If Pitt would put together an impressive presentation that answered the question of “where”, along with solving the infrastructure and parking issues - and describing the funding of all of the above - you’ll see a lot of people on board for an on-campus stadium.

 

[HailtoPitt]

In fairness, I think that the great majority of Pitt fans recognize the importance of an on-campus facility.

What brings-out the doubters is the subject of feasibility. If Pitt would put together an impressive presentation that answered the question of “where”, along with solving the infrastructure and parking issues - and describing the funding of all of the above - you’ll see a lot of people on board for an on-campus stadium.

Pitt could do this if they wanted. They could have been strategically buying land over the past 20 years... but Nordy. Now, they are pretty much starting at square one, which makes it very difficult unless they can creatively make things work with land they already own. However, they don't want to do it.

 

[Delpanther]

In fairness, I think that the great majority of Pitt fans recognize the importance of an on-campus facility.

What brings-out the doubters is the subject of feasibility. If Pitt would put together an impressive presentation that answered the question of “where”, along with solving the infrastructure and parking issues - and describing the funding of all of the above - you’ll see a lot of people on board for an on-campus stadium.

I get that but some reject the notion out of some high handed attitude that "they know best" and that their values should dictate everyone else's views on what is an acceptable use of resources. There is one nimrod in particular who thinks he and he alone knows what's in Pitt's best interests. Disgusting.....self righteous nonsense to the nth degree.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

In fairness, I think that the great majority of Pitt fans recognize the importance of an on-campus facility.

What brings-out the doubters is the subject of feasibility. If Pitt would put together an impressive presentation that answered the question of “where”, along with solving the infrastructure and parking issues - and describing the funding of all of the above - you’ll see a lot of people on board for an on-campus stadium.

That is certainly where I am on the issue. I have just never seen or heard a plan that made any real sense.

However, make no mistake, I also am not necessarily with the people who say it cannot be done or it would be a horrible idea. How could anyone possibly know that if we’ve never seen an actual plan?

Personally, I think it is a definitely plausible idea — at least in theory. However, it would take a lot of work on the part of a lot of entities and it would definitely be an expensive proposition.

 

[HailtoPitt]

That is certainly where I am on the issue. I have just never seen or heard a plan that made any real sense.

However, make no mistake, I also am not necessarily with the people who say it cannot be done or it would be a horrible idea. How could anyone possibly know that if we’ve never seen an actual plan?

Personally, I think it is a definitely plausible idea — at least in theory. However, it would take a lot of work on the part of a lot of entities and it would definitely be an expensive proposition.

It's just a shame. Pitt could have torn down and rebuilt Pitt Stadium for under $100 million. Now, it might cost more than that just to acquire the right contiguous land and prep the site. A damn shame.

 

[Las Panteras]

This is actually a terrific thread. Well done to all.

Allow me to put forth a theory that ties in with much of the discussion.

If we mostly agree that successful football programs have been whittled down to just a handful year in and year out,

Do you think that presidents of the leftovers look at Pitt with a bit of jealousy?

I mean, places like Wake and BC, Illinois and Vanderbilt or say Cal, very much like Pitt will never crack the upper echelon but cant walk away from the sport because it pays the bills.

Yet Pitt leases their stadium while these other schools with no chance burn cash to maintain their respective albatross(s)?

I wonder if some presidents look at Pitt with a bit of jealousy.

 

[McKee Place]

This is actually a terrific thread. Well done to all.

Allow me to put forth a theory that ties in with much of the discussion.

If we mostly agree that successful football programs have been whittled down to just a handful year in and year out,

Do you think that presidents of the leftovers look at Pitt with a bit of jealousy?

I mean, places like Wake and BC, Illinois and Vanderbilt or say Cal, very much like Pitt will never crack the upper echelon but cant walk away from the sport because it pays the bills.

Yet Pitt leases their stadium while these other schools with no chance burn cash to maintain their respective albatross(s)?

Exactly. Whether by happy accident or brilliance or in between, Pitt uniquely positioned itself well for a sport it hates to engage in that might not have a permanent existence, at least in current form. Pitt is able to dump it at any time.

 

[Mr. Monaca]

It's just a shame. Pitt could have torn down and rebuilt Pitt Stadium for under $100 million. Now, it might cost more than that just to acquire the right contiguous land and prep the site. A damn shame.

The ONLY solution: Expand the Pete and have a domed multi-purpose facility for all field sports including football. 40K seats. Could host high school tournaments in all field sports and any NCAA indoor event. Could be a venue for concerts, and the structure could possibly house academic support and classrooms and additional student space for exercise and fitness. And also it would be a place for the marching band to practice. (I think our marching band is greatly under-appreciated BTW.)

Administration could incorporate some unique transportation to the football games...like open-air trolley cars up and down cardiac hill. Something like that could become part of an overall game day experience. Force all ticket holders parking in Oakland to purchase lot or garage parking and make those prices reasonable (say $20 per game).

I'm not an architect but I don't see why something like this can't be done. It looks to me that there is still enough of a footprint remaining from Pitt Stadium to make an expansion possible.

For Pitt - it would make games (indoor) a very unique experience which is something I think would help attendance. It would be a differentiator between them and the Steelers. Also with Pitt being an urban campus it would fit with an urban centric strategy of being efficient and responsible with space utilization.

I won't even suggest it, but I will anyway...if you get all the right donors lined up (Tepper and UPMC) maybe there's even the chance of a partially retractable roof for good weather games.

Again - something like this could be done. It's simply a matter of getting the financing. Would it cost $300 million? Might it cost $500 million? That's a lot of money, but that' not an impossible amount by any means.

 

[ThePanthers]

1: Come up with idea
2: Ask for money
3: ???????
4: State of the art on campus facility that will fix all problems!

 

[Delpanther]

This is actually a terrific thread. Well done to all.

Allow me to put forth a theory that ties in with much of the discussion.

If we mostly agree that successful football programs have been whittled down to just a handful year in and year out,

Do you think that presidents of the leftovers look at Pitt with a bit of jealousy?

I mean, places like Wake and BC, Illinois and Vanderbilt or say Cal, very much like Pitt will never crack the upper echelon but cant walk away from the sport because it pays the bills.

Yet Pitt leases their stadium while these other schools with no chance burn cash to maintain their respective albatross(s)?

I wonder if some presidents look at Pitt with a bit of jealousy.

Presidents? Perhaps...alumni of those schools? Not a chance. Pitt will never crack(or should we say re-crack given Pitt's history) the upper echelon?..the answer to that question rests with the Pitt administration and has nothing to do with inherent weaknesses of Pitt. Pitt was in the upper echelon of college FB until the administration exploded the FB program with one dumb decision after another that reflected one underlying theme...lack of commitment.

 

[Ghost of Pitt Stadium]

Feasibility
1. Is there a need?
Heinz lease expires in less than 10 years. The HOK architects said they built Heinz to last around 25 years. Heinz is too big for Pitt. Merits of playing on campus (branding opportunity, ways for fans to connect with campus, symbol of school pride, etc.). New homes for existing and future programs (e.g. Hockey).

2. Is there land?
Ideally on campus. What about the OC Lot and Cost Center footprint for a 45k venue? What about the Pete? Any other areas that Pitt already owns to avoid eminent domain and keep costs down?

3. What would be the cost?
The multi-purpose stadium in France, Stade Pierre Mauroy, cost $482M US Dollars. So the cost range is probably anywhere from $400 - $700M. Does Pitt own the land, what demo and site prep is required, road reconfiguration, parking, stadium design and materials, etc.

4. Can the funds be raised?
Funding would most likely be comprised of donations (private and public) and debt financing. Can fundraising (including naming rights) meet their goals in a 10 year time period? Is Pitt receptive to incurring debt and what is the ceiling?

5. What would be the return on investment?
The answer depends on the usage and functionality of the new venue. What are the projected revenue streams? Can the venue be the home to more than one sports program? How often is the facility utilized and for what athletic, academic, retail and business purposes? Make some assumptions and model out various financial scenarios.

At the very least, Pitt should be analyzing the feasibility and present its findings to the public.

 

[ThePanthers]

The thing is, they have done a comprehensive study of not only athletics (Victory Heights) but an overall campus study on how they want to update and transform the campus. They have determined what is feasible, their needs, and what can realistically be accomplished and put it out to the public.

And during the presser and on campus stadium was brought up, and Lyke answered that it's not in the cards now, but if someone(s) are willing to put up a strong financial commitment to get it done, on top of all the other upgrades campus wide they are planning, then it could come to fruition.

Me personally, and I feel many others including Pitt leadership feel in an ideal situation, an on campus stadium is the best route. However, there are a number of things that need completed, and while not impossible, it is not feasible right now to move forward. But there are some, just like the Mueller report, that will want studies continuously done and published until they hear the answer they want to hear.

https://www.campusplan.pitt.edu/

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

This is actually a terrific thread. Well done to all.

Allow me to put forth a theory that ties in with much of the discussion.

If we mostly agree that successful football programs have been whittled down to just a handful year in and year out,

Do you think that presidents of the leftovers look at Pitt with a bit of jealousy?

I mean, places like Wake and BC, Illinois and Vanderbilt or say Cal, very much like Pitt will never crack the upper echelon but cant walk away from the sport because it pays the bills.

Yet Pitt leases their stadium while these other schools with no chance burn cash to maintain their respective albatross(s)?

I wonder if some presidents look at Pitt with a bit of jealousy.

No, I doubt that’s true at all.

Most of those schools make more money than we do on football – largely because they keep all of the revenue they generate.

They also have far greater control over their game times and parking lots, vendors, what have you.

And that’s before we even get into the increased donations that are sure to come from people continually walking around their former campus waxing nostalgic about their glory days versus our people going to a pretty antiseptic area of the city several miles removed from where they spent their halcyon days and into a cold and perpetually half empty (at best) stadium.

That’s why the trend is for schools to build their respective stadia on campus rather than to move off campus.

 

[McKee Place]

No, I doubt that’s true at all.

Most of those schools make more money than we do on football – largely because they keep all of the revenue they generate.

They also have far greater control over their game times and parking lots, vendors, what have you.

And that’s before we even get into the increased donations that are sure to come from people continually walking around their former campus waxing nostalgic about their glory days versus our people going to a pretty antiseptic area of the city several miles removed from where they spent their halcyon days and into a cold and perpetually half empty (at best) stadium.

That’s why the trend is for schools to build their respective stadia on campus rather than to move off campus.

Your doubts give me doubts.

The revenue kept by the stadium school's (presumably by not having to pay rent) would be diminished by upkeep and (likely for many) payments on the debt for the structure.

Remember, the comparo is not with the Ohio state's or Alabama, but with fellow perennial doormats like us. Those that stink like we do. So they likely also have revenue struggles, for the same reason (the stinking). The rent vs upkeep and debt would differ school to school but owning the stadium vs not isn't gonna be a windfall to a.500 or worse team.

As far as control over game starting times, that elicited a hearty chuckle. All of these are dictated by the networks, as is regularly lamented here. You can have 1, 3, or 33 on campus stadiums of your own, but if ESPN's or the ACC network tell you you're playing Saturday at noon, that's when it will be.

If talking about more freedom to host other events there, and deciding those times, that's acknowledged. Pitt can't do that at Heinz. It can and does with the Pete, however... and likely more diverse events, given the manageable size and indoor setting. So may actually have the best of both worlds.

As for donations, the biggest factor in increased donations is winning. People like to donate to their school if it wins. They donate less if it loses alot. We lose alot. It doesn't matter if at Heinz or Pete or mythical Victory Heights field...or on the road (where half the games always occur).

Still, I dig the idea of a stadium, if someone would come along and pay for it and the city would magically go happily along with it (which would never happen, since we're despised...a convenient scapegoat... and largely permissible because our sports teams stink). But yeah, those things happen, sure, build away. And they'll come. For 1 or 2 years. But if the team still stinks? Honeymoon over.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

OK. Not to sound all Big Panther like. But.......Good people, Smart people, Trustworthy people are in serious examination and discussions about a right sized, on campus stadium (or at least near campus). I can't reveal sources but...

OK, in all seriousness, what I typed above is in fact occurring. I am not saying they are doing it, I am just saying due diligence is being performed.

lol, no it isn't.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

If these people were good and trustworthy, they would have stepped in before the previous stadium's location was used up. It's really too late now. SP and Nordy doomed Pitt football to mediocrity forever.

I've always said I didn't hate Steve as much as some did and thought he did more good than bad, but the move to Heinz is looking more like a program killer and may rank up there with Bozik's decision to not form an eastern conference and join the Big East for basketball. Some incredibly bad decisions that had no vision into the way things would play out in the future

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

It's just a shame. Pitt could have torn down and rebuilt Pitt Stadium for under $100 million. Now, it might cost more than that just to acquire the right contiguous land and prep the site. A damn shame.

Well, that’s true and that is exactly why I was against putting the Petersen Events Center there. I would have much rather they renovated and right-sized Pitt Stadium or, given the dilapidated condition of the venue at that time, more likely tore it down and built a new one in its footprint.

My reasoning then and now is that I knew the Penguins were not going to leave and that the Civic Arena would eventually be replaced. I thought we could play at the arena and eventually at what became PPG Paints Arena.

I didn’t think it took a ton of foresight to see how that was eventually very likely to work out. I also thought/think that it is a lot less difficult for teams to play their basketball games off-campus then their football games, because there is a totally different culture to attending each sport. Football games are played on Saturday as intended be there long affairs. Basketball games are played on weeknights as often as they are on weekend days and tend to be more transient.

Unfortunately, at the time, due to severe mismanagement by several consecutive administrations, Pitt didn’t have the money to do that.

Naturally, because it is Pitt, they failed to cultivate the types of donors you need in your hip pocket if you want to make decisions like that. They had the owner of Erie Insurance and very little else. Instead, they got involved in an imbroglio with the state that caused very hard feelings for a long time between the state legislature and the school.

The cover story was that they needed it for university-wide events like commencements. I guess Soldiers & Sailors or the arena wouldn’t have worked for whatever goofy reason.

Whatever their motivations, they clearly forever changed the face of collegiate athletics in Pittsburgh.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

However, it also gives Pitt and opportunity to redefine the paradigm.

There’s no law that says they have to put a new stadium up by the rest of the athletic facilities on the upper campus. Obviously, with the right changes, that would make sense, but it doesn’t have to be there.

For me, infrastructure has be the number one consideration. Can people easily get in and out of the area without being engulfed in a massively frustrating traffic jam?

Also, can they park within a reasonable distance of the stadium and walk to the game. Is it at least reasonably convenient?

They could not do that at old Pitt Stadium and that’s because the stadium was built before anyone had any idea how central cars would become to the entire game day experience.

No matter how much they renovated Pitt Stadium, or built a new one in its place, those severe problems would have remained and they would have depressed attendance.

I don’t think any stadium anywhere in Oakland works without some significant infrastructural changes and that’s why I see it as being such a longshot to happen in any of our lifetimes.

However, if they can work out some sort of interchange off of Bigelow Boulevard to the upper campus, maybe that changes things? Or, maybe they could build a stadium in South Oakland near where the Boulevard of the Allies and 885 meet? Those would be game changers. Even down by where 885 and Second Ave. meet might work down by the river.

Whatever they decide to do, I think that needs to be at the top of their thought process: how do we get current students as well as alumni and regular fans in and out of these games as quickly and painlessly as possible?

 

[pittdan77]

This is actually a terrific thread. Well done to all.

Allow me to put forth a theory that ties in with much of the discussion.

If we mostly agree that successful football programs have been whittled down to just a handful year in and year out,

Do you think that presidents of the leftovers look at Pitt with a bit of jealousy?

I mean, places like Wake and BC, Illinois and Vanderbilt or say Cal, very much like Pitt will never crack the upper echelon but cant walk away from the sport because it pays the bills.

Yet Pitt leases their stadium while these other schools with no chance burn cash to maintain their respective albatross(s)?

I wonder if some presidents look at Pitt with a bit of jealousy.

Way to go and ruin the narrative with logic.

We're all pretty selfish. Many of us remember trudging up Cardiac Hill on Saturday morning and miss having the stadium. But realistically, does the university grow because of football or because of the medical program? That question is insanely silly but a lot of posters ask it constantly.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Heinz, it's Pitt's home for football and whatever comes next for the Steelers will need to be good for Pitt as well. Time and energy for studying where the football program plays should be spent figuring out how to make that better. Not shoehorning something into Oakland that probably won't add anything to the University or the football program.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Way to go and ruin the narrative with logic.

We're all pretty selfish. Many of us remember trudging up Cardiac Hill on Saturday morning and miss having the stadium. But realistically, does the university grow because of football or because of the medical program? That question is insanely silly but a lot of posters ask it constantly.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Heinz, it's Pitt's home for football and whatever comes next for the Steelers will need to be good for Pitt as well. Time and energy for studying where the football program plays should be spent figuring out how to make that better. Not shoehorning something into Oakland that probably won't add anything to the University or the football program.

This unfortunately is the reality. But it could still work. We have separate locker rooms, the stadium doesn't feel like a rented Steeler stadium on Saturdays. But the busing of students is a big problem. I've said that Pitt should do everything they can to connect Oakland to the T. That way the North Shore feels more a part of campus on non-gameday weekends. Kids would be in the habit of going there. And the transportation would be a lot easier rather than relying on school buses on jam-packed streets. Plus alum could hop easily into Oakland after the game.

If current students have happy memories of game-day, they become alumni season ticket holders.

But also as has been stated many times the problem with Heinz can easily be corrected by stringing some successful seasons together. This was proven in 2002-2003 when attendance was very good. Yinzer love a playoff chase. If we are in the hunt for the Coastal (not limping in with a 7-5 record but maybe an 11-1 type season) the place would magically fill up. This constant 7-5, 6-6, etc, will guarantee fan apathy.

 

[pittdan77]

This unfortunately is the reality. But it could still work. We have separate locker rooms, the stadium doesn't feel like a rented Steeler stadium on Saturdays. But the busing of students is a big problem. I've said that Pitt should do everything they can to connect Oakland to the T. That way the North Shore feels more a part of campus on non-gameday weekends. Kids would be in the habit of going there. And the transportation would be a lot easier rather than relying on school buses on jam-packed streets. Plus alum could hop easily into Oakland after the game.

If current students have happy memories of game-day, they become alumni season ticket holders.

But also as has been stated many times the problem with Heinz can easily be corrected by stringing some successful seasons together. This was proven in 2002-2003 when attendance was very good. Yinzer love a playoff chase. If we are in the hunt for the Coastal (not limping in with a 7-5 record but maybe an 11-1 type season) the place would magically fill up. This constant 7-5, 6-6, etc, will guarantee fan apathy.

Yeah, winning sure as heck wouldn't hurt.

 

[pittchagg]

If we’re thinking pie-in-the-sky type of big, here’s a fun idea.

There’s a plot of land in the East End bounded by Bakery Square and the Port Authority Garage on the corner of Fifth and Penn, right across from Mellon Park. There are four properties in this plot: CMU and Chatham own buildings that they use for various auxiliary and classroom purposes, a light industrial facility, and a self-storage place. Combined, the four tax parcels make up an acreage roughly the same size as Heinz Field (~12.5 acres). It’s centrally located in the city, it’s functionally adjacent to the East Busway (which was always designed to be capable of a light rail conversion, and is already being expanded via BRT), and it’s right down Fifth Avenue about a mile from the Cathedral of Learning. The current structures don’t appear to be the highest-quality uses for the site, and it’s located in a popular part of the city for both students and young professionals to live, work, and recreate.

Would it take at least a decade to cobble together good enough offers to purchase the four tax parcels comprising the site? Probably; but the time and patience it would take to take ownership would run us up towards the end of Heinz Field’s estimated lifespan.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

A better utilization of the space in Oakland would do all the other stuff and leave the football stadium out. It would be easier and cheaper too. Adding all this other stuff onto a stadium that can be done better without a stadium is just a way to try to dupe people into thinking that the stadium would be a good use of premium space.

Simply put, you are either in the football business or you are not. There is no in between.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Simply put, you are either in the football business or you are not. There is no in between.

True. And right now we are in the football business.

We just aren't very good at it.

And I don't see how tacking a few classrooms or a Pitt Shop onto a stadium changes that.

 

[Ghost of Pitt Stadium]

To be financially good at the football business, you need the revenues from ticket sales, licensing, naming rights, merchandise sales, concessions and parking. Does Pitt receive 100% of the revenues at Heinz?

One way to improve attendance is by winning, but even in Pitt's glory days, the average attendance never exceeded 53,000. So I think a smaller and more intimate venue would be more appropriate for Pitt's fan base.

A retractable roof stadium would also improve the fan experience since a sizable segment of Yinzers find any weather related excuse to miss a game. And you can probably do more with lighting, sound and technology in an enclosed stadium as well...those bells and whistles that attract the casual couch fan.

Design it multi-purpose and it can be home to more than just the football program.

The Pete is getting up there in age. Pitt will probably begin thinking replacement in another 10-15 years. Sports facilities aren't designed to last as long as they used to. Trying to retro-fit older venues with ever changing technology is always a challenge.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jun/15/stadiums-future-holograms-drones-fan-experience