Lyke can only take Pitt up from being the lowest power 5 school in Learfield '15-16

[cbpitt2]

In looking at the 2015-2016 Learfield Directors' Cup Division I final standings, Pitt was 110th. The lowest of all power five schools. Let that sink it. The lowest of all power five schools. She can only take Pitt up. It can't get any worse than the lowest of all power five schools.

Pitt was lower than such athletic powerhouses like Rutgers, New Hampshire, William & Mary, Furman, Stephen F. Austin, Quinnipac and a lot of other schools you'd be surprised to find ranked ahead of Pitt.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools..._pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/D1StandJune30.pdf

Eastern Michigan was 140th by the way. Oregon State was the next lowest power five school at #84. Rutgers was #83.

 

[pittguy81]

In looking at the 2015-2016 Learfield Directors' Cup Division I final standings, Pitt was 110th. The lowest of all power five schools. Let that sink it. The lowest of all power five schools. She can only take Pitt up. It can't get any worse than the lowest of all power five schools.

Pitt was lower than such athletic powerhouses like Rutgers, New Hampshire, William & Mary, Furman, Stephen F. Austin, Quinnipac and a lot of other schools you'd be surprised to find ranked ahead of Pitt.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools..._pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/D1StandJune30.pdf

Eastern Michigan was 140th by the way. Oregon State was the next lowest power five school at #84. Rutgers was #83.

The Director's Cup Fall Final ranking released mid January 2017 had EMU #61 and Pitt #87.

 

[KiwiJeff]

The Director's Cup Fall Final ranking released mid January 2017 had EMU #61 and Pitt #87.

That's abysmal.

 

[djbpitt]

In looking at the 2015-2016 Learfield Directors' Cup Division I final standings, Pitt was 110th. The lowest of all power five schools. Let that sink it. The lowest of all power five schools. She can only take Pitt up. It can't get any worse than the lowest of all power five schools.

Pitt was lower than such athletic powerhouses like Rutgers, New Hampshire, William & Mary, Furman, Stephen F. Austin, Quinnipac and a lot of other schools you'd be surprised to find ranked ahead of Pitt.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools..._pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/D1StandJune30.pdf

Eastern Michigan was 140th by the way. Oregon State was the next lowest power five school at #84. Rutgers was #83.

I'm OK with concentrating on football and men's basketball. I'm sure others are, too.

 

[Delpanther]

It's the fans' fault....NOT! Administrative indifference and ineptitude over decades are the culprits.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

learfield schmearfield....

 

[Pitt79]

I'm OK with concentrating on football and men's basketball. I'm sure others are, too.

But we haven't gotten consistently good at either of those. We had a great run in basketball from 2001-2011, but then let that fall into oblivion.

 

[Pittx9]

Yeah, I'm so jealous of stanford's directors cup banner. Almost as impressive as our CBI banner. Nothing against Stanford, everyone already knows they're a great academic and athletic university. But this list is absolutely retarded.

 

[srpst23]

In fairness, look at the sports Learfield actually counts. Pitt doesn't offer many of them (M/W lacrosse, M/W golf, W rowing, M tennis, M volleyball, W water polo, and Beach Volleyball). It also looks like some of the sports we do offer (wrestling and gymnastics) aren't counted. The more I look at this, it cannot be the final results, it has to be just the Spring sports. No football or basketball on the chart at all.

 

[vegasgreed]

I'm sure one poster on here will blame it on the fans, meanwhile its never the Admin's fault for being one of the worst Admin's in the country.

 

[Delpanther]

Yeah, I'm so jealous of stanford's directors cup banner. Almost as impressive as our CBI banner. Nothing against Stanford, everyone already knows they're a great academic and athletic university. But this list is absolutely retarded.

yea, but being dead last screams of "we don't care and we don't know what the hell we're doing." That's why Pitt can't get people to contribute their hard earned money to athletics.

 

[MarySki]

In looking at the 2015-2016 Learfield Directors' Cup Division I final standings, Pitt was 110th. The lowest of all power five schools. Let that sink it. The lowest of all power five schools. She can only take Pitt up. It can't get any worse than the lowest of all power five schools.

Pitt was lower than such athletic powerhouses like Rutgers, New Hampshire, William & Mary, Furman, Stephen F. Austin, Quinnipac and a lot of other schools you'd be surprised to find ranked ahead of Pitt.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools..._pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/D1StandJune30.pdf

Eastern Michigan was 140th by the way. Oregon State was the next lowest power five school at #84. Rutgers was #83.

fake news

 

[Pittx9]

yea, but being dead last screams of "we don't care and we don't know what the hell we're doing." That's why Pitt can't get people to contribute their hard earned money to athletics.

That's my point though, how do they figure we are dead last. Whether anyone wants it to be this way or not, football is the money maker and waaaaay more important than anything else. Basketball even at a pretty distant second is miles ahead of most other sports. There's schools that have complete garbage from both those programs. Yet playing in a bowl game and the NCAA tournament in the school year 2015-16 still doesn't get us out of last place? Pitt is in a better place athletically than a ton of schools out there.

I agree with what you're saying though. I think that's pretty clear why they have a hard time getting money from people, at least one of the reasons. I just can't take this list seriously.

 

[PittPoker]

learfield schmearfield....

Dangerfield? We get no respect!!!

 

[revampedpanthers]

That's my point though, how do they figure we are dead last. Whether anyone wants it to be this way or not, football is the money maker and waaaaay more important than anything else. Basketball even at a pretty distant second is miles ahead of most other sports. There's schools that have complete garbage from both those programs. Yet playing in a bowl game and the NCAA tournament in the school year 2015-16 still doesn't get us out of last place? Pitt is in a better place athletically than a ton of schools out there.

I agree with what you're saying though. I think that's pretty clear why they have a hard time getting money from people, at least one of the reasons. I just can't take this list seriously.

Exactly.

 

[CrazyPaco]

In looking at the 2015-2016 Learfield Directors' Cup Division I final standings, Pitt was 110th. The lowest of all power five schools. Let that sink it. The lowest of all power five schools. She can only take Pitt up. It can't get any worse than the lowest of all power five schools.

Pitt was lower than such athletic powerhouses like Rutgers, New Hampshire, William & Mary, Furman, Stephen F. Austin, Quinnipac and a lot of other schools you'd be surprised to find ranked ahead of Pitt.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools..._pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/D1StandJune30.pdf

Eastern Michigan was 140th by the way. Oregon State was the next lowest power five school at #84. Rutgers was #83.

It is quite an indictment of the starting place of the athletic department, and the place should not be a surprised since Pitt's revenue and giving rates are well known to be at the bottom of the P5.

What's sad is the above graph compared to the # of living alumni:

# of living alumni (grad & undergrad)
1. FSU 315,425
2. Pitt 306,821
3. UNC 296,046
4. Syracuse 251,067
5. VT 238,169
6. UVA 213,000
7. NCSU 205,400
8. BC 168,651
9. Miami 168,000
10. Duke 157,017
11. Louisville 138,340
12. Clemson 132,198
13. Georgia Tech 130,000
14. ND 127,553
15. Wake 67,065

 

[Jpripper88]

I'm sure one poster on here will blame it on the fans, meanwhile its never the Admin's fault for being one of the worst Admin's in the country.

And really one of the biggest reasons you fail at these rankings is hiring capable coaches for the Olympic sports. Do that and you will be competitive, even if the facilities aren't very good. IF Pitt can do that, they will be fine. However, there is absolutely 0 doubt an AD is most judged by football and basketball because those pay the bills and those get the press. Everything else is gravy.

yea, but being dead last screams of "we don't care and we don't know what the hell we're doing." That's why Pitt can't get people to contribute their hard earned money to athletics.

This has nothing to do with the donation issue. Directors/Learfield Cup standings (which don't even begin to weight importance of the sport) will barely move the needle. If we won the National Championship in every sport, save football and basketball, and were bottom rung in football and basketball, donations would be much, much, much worse. If we won the National Championship in football and basketball and were the WORST programs in every other sport we offered, donations would skyrocket. That doesn't mean you can't improve donations by being more competitive or champions in other sports, but they will never drive the cart and only be a blip on the radar, save some uber successful small sport alum buying in huge to support.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Here's Pitt's historical rankings in the NACDA cup (title sponsor Sears, Learfield, etc):

1994 84
1995 48
1996 76
1997 66
1998 77
1999 95
2000 69
2001 153
2002 106
2003 68
2004 90
2005 97
2006 91
2007 71
2008 85
2009 93
2010 112
2011 123
2012 131
2013 109
2014 85
2015 110
2016 currently 87th, only fall sports scored

 

[CrazyPaco]

This has nothing to do with the donation issue.

100% false.

 

[Jpripper88]

It is quite an indictment of the starting place of the athletic department, and the place should not be a surprised since Pitt's revenue and giving rates are well known to be at the bottom of the P5.

What's sad is the above graph compared to the # of living alumni:

# of living alumni (grad & undergrad)
1. FSU 315,425
2. Pitt 306,821
3. UNC 296,046
4. Syracuse 251,067
5. VT 238,169
6. UVA 213,000
7. NCSU 205,400
8. BC 168,651
9. Miami 168,000
10. Duke 157,017
11. Louisville 138,340
12. Clemson 132,198
13. Georgia Tech 130,000
14. ND 127,553
15. Wake 67,065

Not good at all, but a big issue there is the undergrad/grad and student body makeup. What kind of alumni does Pitt graduate? In general, they need to be undergrads; they need to have a pre-existing connection to sports; they need to be from or stay closely connected to the area; they need to have a family history of wealth and/or donating.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Not good at all, but a big issue there is the undergrad/grad and student body makeup. What kind of alumni does Pitt graduate? In general, they need to be undergrads; they need to have a pre-existing connection to sports; they need to be from or stay closely connected to the area; they need to have a family history of wealth and/or donating.

Factors that no other schools deal with apparently.

 

[Jpripper88]

100% false.

I assume you are taking from the angle that increased donations would produce better results, because my language was general.

I should have said:
"These standings/results do not and will not drive the donations"

Of course, more general sports donations would allow for more investment and thus (should) better results in currently underfunded and supported programs.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I assume you are taking from the angle that increased donations would produce better results, because my language was general.

I should have said:
"These standings/results do not and will not drive the donations"

Of course, more general sports donations would allow for more investment and thus (should) better results in currently underfunded and supported programs.

Fair enough. But successful results in non-revenue sports do drive donations to those sports. Each of these sports has dedicated, local communities of interest.

If the baseball team was getting to NCAAs regularly, would they be receiving more donations? Wrestling? etc.

The overall terrible donation and revenue levels of the athletic department is directly responsible the the historically poor performance across the board of the athletic department. Obviously, as we didn't even fully fund scholarship allotments until we entered the ACC and received bigger conference revenue.

 

[Jpripper88]

Factors that no other schools deal with apparently.

Many do, but we talk about donation drivers and being in the NE area and drawing many students from there hurts a lot. Being an overly urban campus generally doesn't attract the wealthy. I think Pitt is also hurt from an education focus standpoint. Pitt clearly focuses on medical education at the graduate level. I would imagine this cross section is the one which would not only be the least connected to the University, but also the least connected to sports, in general, the most likely to come from outside the area, the most likely to leave the area, and the least likely to come from generational wealth with donor history or capability early in life. I think the precipitous drop of the law school and middling business school are really hurtful to Pitt on a total, but specifically sports donation level. The overwhelming majority of sports specific donors are going to be (at least) upper middle class men, who are from or stay connected to the area and that is, generally, the best place to find that subset.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Many do, but we talk about donation drivers and being in the NE area and drawing many students from there hurts a lot. Being an overly urban campus generally doesn't attract the wealthy. I think Pitt is also hurt from an education focus standpoint. Pitt clearly focuses on medical education at the graduate level. I would imagine this cross section is the one which would not only be the least connected to the University, but also the least connected to sports, in general, the most likely to come from outside the area, the most likely to leave the area, and the least likely to come from generational wealth with donor history or capability early in life. I think the precipitous drop of the law school and middling business school are really hurtful to Pitt on a total, but specifically sports donation level. The overwhelming majority of sports specific donors are going to be (at least) upper middle class men, who are from or stay connected to the area and that is, generally, the best place to find that subset.

First off, there is clearly a cultural problem with Pitt and giving. It's overall alumni giving rates, irregardless of athletics, are low.

I don't buy the "focus on graduate education" at all. While true that Pitt has a relatively large graduate student population, and graduate students aren't where athletic donors are typically cultivated, Pitt's undergraduate population compares favorably to the rest of the ACC:

ACC public universities enrolled undergraduates:
FSU: 32,669
Virginia Tech: 25,318
NCSU: 24,111
Pitt: 18,757
Clemson: 18,599
UNC: 18,415
Louisville: 16,033
UVA: 15,891
Georgia Tech: 15,489

Pitt has an overall donor cultivation problem. One that I hope it is rectifying, and I know that it is trying. I don't think the law school rankings have one iota of an affect on athletic giving. And there are a lot of wealthy people at Harvard, Penn, Columbia, NYU.....all quite urban.

 

[Delpanther]

And really one of the biggest reasons you fail at these rankings is hiring capable coaches for the Olympic sports. Do that and you will be competitive, even if the facilities aren't very good. IF Pitt can do that, they will be fine. However, there is absolutely 0 doubt an AD is most judged by football and basketball because those pay the bills and those get the press. Everything else is gravy.


This has nothing to do with the donation issue. Directors/Learfield Cup standings (which don't even begin to weight importance of the sport) will barely move the needle. If we won the National Championship in every sport, save football and basketball, and were bottom rung in football and basketball, donations would be much, much, much worse. If we won the National Championship in football and basketball and were the WORST programs in every other sport we offered, donations would skyrocket. That doesn't mean you can't improve donations by being more competitive or champions in other sports, but they will never drive the cart and only be a blip on the radar, save some uber successful small sport alum buying in huge to support.

Yes it does because it's been ineptitude across the board including the management of men's FB and BB . Exhibit A: what's happened to the mens'BB situation the last 5 years. If Pitt excelled in the major sports then performance in the minor sports wouldn't be as much of an issue. However, don't underestimate the importance of some of the minor sports to certain pockets of alumni. Just because they are meaningless to you doesn't mess they are meaningless to everyone. Pitt should field event teams in every sport in which they compete.

 

[Jpripper88]

First off, there is clearly a cultural problem with Pitt and giving. It's overall alumni giving rates, irregardless of athletics, are low.

I don't buy the "focus on graduate education" at all. While true that Pitt has a relatively large graduate student population, and graduate students aren't where athletic donors are typically cultivated, Pitt's undergraduate population compares favorably to the rest of the ACC:

ACC public universities enrolled undergraduates:
FSU: 32,669
Virginia Tech: 25,318
NCSU: 24,111
Pitt: 18,757
Clemson: 18,599
UNC: 18,415
Louisville: 16,033
UVA: 15,891
Georgia Tech: 15,489

Pitt has an overall donor cultivation problem. One that I hope it is rectifying, and I know that it is trying. I don't think the law school rankings have one iota of an affect on athletic giving. And there are a lot of wealthy people at Harvard, Penn, Columbia, NYU.....all quite urban.

Agree on the cultural problem and I think some of the things I touched on play a big part. Some of those things are impossible to rectify, some of them would take 50 years, and some things can be improved by the University and the athletic department in (relatively) short order.

I said Pitt focuses on medical education at the graduate level. That is their bread and butter and it is their claim to fame.

Yes, the Ivy's are urban, but most have top notch facilities, which are (relatively) localized and have done a much, much better job (Thanks a lot Pittsburgh politics) of maintaining their own space (especially green space) within their campus. Plus, their academic reputations are light years ahead of Pitt's. It isn't even a relatable comparison.

I certainly think that having a better business and law school would produce a base, much more likely to give to athletics because those folks fit the demographic at a much higher rate.

BTW, those ACC peers you just listed, are similar in enrollment numbers, but I don't believe their student populations are all that similar. That has to do with many, many demographic issues and most all of them work against Pitt. Georgia Tech is the only one in a similar situation, but you discount the Southern connection to college athletics at your own peril, even in Atlanta.

 

[Jpripper88]

Yes it does because it's been ineptitude across the board including the management of men's FB and BB . Exhibit A: what's happened to the mens'BB situation the last 5 years. If Pitt excelled in the major sports then performance in the minor sports wouldn't be as much of an issue. However, don't underestimate the importance of some of the minor sports to certain pockets of alumni. Just because they are meaningless to you doesn't mess they are meaningless to everyone. Pitt should field event teams in every sport in which they compete.

I never said anything you attribute to me in the last 3 sentences. Of course Pitt should be competitive in all sports. Of course minor sports are important to certain pockets of alumni. However, we are talking in generalities and overall impact. Courting those individual donors, who will donate niche athletic dollars is very important for all those sports. It just isn't going to happen because of overall sports competitiveness (which is what this measures) and still won't move the needle even remotely close to how much success, or lack of success, in football and basketball will.

 

[Black_Man_Panther]

Lack of donations has everything to do w/ a culture of losing - at every possible level. Pitt sucks in EVERY SPORT. The fans know it, the students know it and the alumni know it.

Now what are they gonna do about it? Oh... that's right. Build a dome for intramural sports. That will fix it!

 

[CrazyPaco]

Agree on the cultural problem and I think some of the things I touched on play a big part. Some of those things are impossible to rectify, some of them would take 50 years, and some things can be improved by the University and the athletic department in (relatively) short order.

I said Pitt focuses on medical education at the graduate level. That is their bread and butter and it is their claim to fame.

Yes, the Ivy's are urban, but most have top notch facilities, which are (relatively) localized and have done a much, much better job (Thanks a lot Pittsburgh politics) of maintaining their own space (especially green space) within their campus. Plus, their academic reputations are light years ahead of Pitt's. It isn't even a relatable comparison.

I certainly think that having a better business and law school would produce a base, much more likely to give to athletics because those folks fit the demographic at a much higher rate.

BTW, those ACC peers you just listed, are similar in enrollment numbers, but I don't believe their student populations are all that similar. That has to do with many, many demographic issues and most all of them work against Pitt. Georgia Tech is the only one in a similar situation, but you discount the Southern connection to college athletics at your own peril, even in Atlanta.

If you are suggesting that Pitt "focuses" on medical education at the graduate level to the detriment of undergraduate education, that is patently untrue. The medical school is a completely self sufficient unit. It actually doesn't consume general university operational resources, and actually provides major opportunities for undergraduate programs in the pre-health or biosciences that wouldn't be there without it.

What is your comparison for urban schools then? Your comment about wealthy individuals not being attracted to urban universities is completely unsupported by reality because there are dozens and dozens of urban schools filled with moneyed individuals. Take a school like BU, Georgia Tech, Miami, George Washington, American, or Tulane....I can keep naming. You also need to visit some of these schools and see how their actual campuses compare. Pitt is crammed into 130 acres. You don't get more "localized" than that. Compared to schools like NYU, Drexel, and George Washington, Pitt is swimming in greenspace. The attractiveness of an urban environment for a school has absolutely nothing to do with the wealth of the potential applicant in my experience at these universities.

You argue that Pitt's problem is a focus on graduate education and then suggest having better graduate law and business schools would help solve the problem? That's not only contradictory, but a wild stretch. People form their bonds with their schools and their sports teams largely at their undergraduate institution. Having a better law school doesn't get law students to attend more athletic events and become bigger fans. If you are suggesting that better schools will attract better students that are ultimately more financially successful in their professional careers and will have more disposable income to donate back to the university, then I might agree with that possibility at the undergraduate level. Don't get me wrong, I understand more prestigious units in any part of the university helps with the overall reputation of the university, but IMO, improving graduate level training in law and business is one of the least likely places you could target to expect to have an impact on athletic loyalty.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I never said anything you attribute to me in the last 3 sentences. Of course Pitt should be competitive in all sports. Of course minor sports are important to certain pockets of alumni. However, we are talking in generalities and overall impact. Courting those individual donors, who will donate niche athletic dollars is very important for all those sports. It just isn't going to happen because of overall sports competitiveness (which is what this measures) and still won't move the needle even remotely close to how much success, or lack of success, in football and basketball will.

I largely agree with this.

However, the overall competitiveness of an athletic department absolutely speaks to the health of the athletic department.

Pitt hasn't had a healthy athletic department for decades. The schools at the top of that director's cup list absolutely do, and are much more able to pull themselves at of slumps that the cyclical nature of both high and low profile sports inevitably find themselves in.

 

[kyfra]

You lost me at irregardless.

First off, there is clearly a cultural problem with Pitt and giving. It's overall alumni giving rates, irregardless of athletics, are low.

I don't buy the "focus on graduate education" at all. While true that Pitt has a relatively large graduate student population, and graduate students aren't where athletic donors are typically cultivated, Pitt's undergraduate population compares favorably to the rest of the ACC:

ACC public universities enrolled undergraduates:
FSU: 32,669
Virginia Tech: 25,318
NCSU: 24,111
Pitt: 18,757
Clemson: 18,599
UNC: 18,415
Louisville: 16,033
UVA: 15,891
Georgia Tech: 15,489

Pitt has an overall donor cultivation problem. One that I hope it is rectifying, and I know that it is trying. I don't think the law school rankings have one iota of an affect on athletic giving. And there are a lot of wealthy people at Harvard, Penn, Columbia, NYU.....all quite urban.

 

[Jpripper88]

If you are suggesting that Pitt "focuses" on medical education at the graduate level to the detriment of undergraduate education, that is patently untrue. The medical school is a completely self sufficient unit. It actually doesn't consume general university operational resources, and actually provides major opportunities for undergraduate programs in the pre-health or biosciences that wouldn't be there without it.

What is your comparison for urban schools then? Your comment about wealthy individuals not being attracted to urban universities is completely unsupported by reality because there are dozens and dozens of urban schools filled with moneyed individuals. Take a school like BU, Georgia Tech, Miami, George Washington, American, or Tulane....I can keep naming. You also need to visit some of these schools and see how their actual campuses compare. Pitt is crammed into 130 acres. You don't get more "localized" than that. Compared to schools like NYU, Drexel, and George Washington, Pitt is swimming in greenspace. The attractiveness of an urban environment for a school has absolutely nothing to do with the wealth of the potential applicant in my experience at these universities.

You argue that Pitt's problem is a focus on graduate education and then suggest having better graduate law and business schools would help solve the problem? That's not only contradictory, but a wild stretch. People form their bonds with their schools and their sports teams largely at their undergraduate institution. Having a better law school doesn't get law students to attend more athletic events and become bigger fans. If you are suggesting that better schools will attract better students that are ultimately more financially successful in their professional careers and will have more disposable income to donate back to the university, then I might agree with that possibility at the undergraduate level. Don't get me wrong, I understand more prestigious units in any part of the university helps with the overall reputation of the university, but IMO, improving graduate level training in law and business is one of the least likely places you could target to expect to have an impact on athletic loyalty.

I have been to all you mention, except American. GT is the best comparison for us. There aren't many comparables, though, because we are talking about P5 athletics donation and attracting those students, who are likely to be engaged and donate. GT, Miami, and USC are about the only situationally similar.

I do not argue Pitt's problem is a focus on graduate education. I argue that their claim to fame and focus is medical education and specifically medical graduate education. That isn't to say it is a detriment, but the law school is borderline poor, at this point, and the undergraduate and graduate business programs are average. My argument are those areas of study tend to attract and graduate folks who are: 1. the demographics more likely to donate; 2. more likely to stay around and connected to the area. When you have a bigger base of area connected alums, who fit the demographics of an athletic donor, that will help. If I had to focus my connection with young alumni, those areas, in addition to engineering, would be where I spent my time. It would be nice if those areas of the University were a little higher achieving and thus, hopefully, have more successful alumni.

Totally fine to not agree on this. I don't deal with it directly. I have some friends involved with it at a couple schools in the SE, but no personal experience. I know they talk about focuses and demographics like that and how it shapes their outreach and donations directly to their programs, athletics, and the University overall.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I have been to all you mention, except American. GT is the best comparison for us. There aren't many comparables, though, because we are talking about P5 athletics donation and attracting those students, who are likely to be engaged and donate. GT, Miami, and USC are about the only situationally similar.

I do not argue Pitt's problem is a focus on graduate education. I argue that their claim to fame and focus is medical education and specifically medical graduate education. That isn't to say it is a detriment, but the law school is borderline poor, at this point, and the undergraduate and graduate business programs are average. My argument are those areas of study tend to attract and graduate folks who are: 1. the demographics more likely to donate; 2. more likely to stay around and connected to the area. When you have a bigger base of area connected alums, who fit the demographics of an athletic donor, that will help. If I had to focus my connection with young alumni, those areas, in addition to engineering, would be where I spent my time. It would be nice if those areas of the University were a little higher achieving and thus, hopefully, have more successful alumni.

Totally fine to not agree on this. I don't deal with it directly. I have some friends involved with it at a couple schools in the SE, but no personal experience. I know they talk about focuses and demographics like that and how it shapes their outreach and donations directly to their programs, athletics, and the University overall.

Ok, I can agree on the claim to fame bit. But that isn't that different from many "public" research schools. They all have areas of specialty. Few are like a Michigan with overall reputations.

I still don't buy the law/business school argument. If you had a top 25 law school, I don't know how that changes the number of Pitt lawyers that would stay in Pittsburgh, nor do I understand how it would create more loyalty to Pitt's athletic teams when it would be recruiting more students from outside the region. For instance, I think if you have a top ranked law school, you are likely to place more law grads at top 100 law firms, and there are more top 100 law firms outside of Pittsburgh than inside. How many more lawyers graduating from Michigan stay around Ann Arbor or Detroit...or Duke around Raleigh-Durham...because of those law schools' top 10 rankings vs if they were ranked 50th? I would think most of their law grads are more likely to look to head to Chicago, NYC, or DC. But, I defer to the wisdom of people in the legal field.

 

[Jpripper88]

Ok, I can agree on the claim to fame bit. But that isn't that different from many "public" research schools. They all have areas of specialty. Few are like a Michigan with overall reputations.

I still don't buy the law/business school argument. If you had a top 25 law school, I don't know how that changes the number of Pitt lawyers that would stay in Pittsburgh, nor do I understand how it would create more loyalty to Pitt's athletic teams when it would be recruiting more students from outside the region. For instance, I think if you have a top ranked law school, you are likely to place more law grads at top 100 law firms, and there are more top 100 law firms outside of Pittsburgh than inside. How many more lawyers graduating from Michigan stay around Ann Arbor or Detroit...or Duke around Raleigh-Durham...because of those law schools' top 10 rankings vs if they were ranked 50th? I would think most of their law grads are more likely to look to head to Chicago, NYC, or DC. But, I defer to the wisdom of people in the legal field.

It changes the quality of graduate and likelihood of success, which will allow them to donate. The profession just lends itself to be more area focused than medicine. Right now, Pitt isn't even remotely close to being a top ranked law school, let alone top 10. Law and business professions, save the absolute best of the best schools, tend to churn out graduates who get more mileage from staying local and within the name recognition and increased local reputation of their school. This is especially true since most are usually involved in clerkships, internships, current jobs, etc. while attending those graduate programs or making local in roads on some of those same types of things during undergrad. We are talking about getting to be competitive in those fields, not becoming top programs, like they have across the medical spectrum.

 

[CrazyPaco]

It changes the quality of graduate and likelihood of success, which will allow them to donate. The profession just lends itself to be more area focused than medicine. Right now, Pitt isn't even remotely close to being a top ranked law school, let alone top 10. Law and business professions, save the absolute best of the best schools, tend to churn out graduates who get more mileage from staying local and within the name recognition and increased local reputation of their school. This is especially true since most are usually involved in clerkships, internships, current jobs, etc. while attending those graduate programs or making local in roads on some of those same types of things during undergrad. We are talking about getting to be competitive in those fields, not becoming top programs, like they have across the medical spectrum.

I don't buy, at all, that graduate law or business school reputation (or actual quality) would, in isolation, have substantial impact on giving to athletic programs, unless improvement in those rankings meant that they ended up accepting more students with Pitt undergraduate degrees into their programs. However, improvement in those schools generally enhancing the giving back to those particular schools, yes, I would agree with. I also don't see how Pitt Law ranked 20th vs 80th gets a higher percentage of its grads to stay in Pittsburgh. Overall improvement of the reputation of the university via improving these graduate schools can be part of a tide that lifts the boat, and I'm all for that, but that's all that I see there. And we'll just have to leave it at that and agree to disagree.

 

[Joe Magarac]

I have been to all you mention, except American. GT is the best comparison for us. There aren't many comparables, though, because we are talking about P5 athletics donation and attracting those students, who are likely to be engaged and donate. GT, Miami, and USC are about the only situationally similar.

I do not argue Pitt's problem is a focus on graduate education. I argue that their claim to fame and focus is medical education and specifically medical graduate education. That isn't to say it is a detriment, but the law school is borderline poor, at this point, and the undergraduate and graduate business programs are average. My argument are those areas of study tend to attract and graduate folks who are: 1. the demographics more likely to donate; 2. more likely to stay around and connected to the area. When you have a bigger base of area connected alums, who fit the demographics of an athletic donor, that will help. If I had to focus my connection with young alumni, those areas, in addition to engineering, would be where I spent my time. It would be nice if those areas of the University were a little higher achieving and thus, hopefully, have more successful alumni.

Totally fine to not agree on this. I don't deal with it directly. I have some friends involved with it at a couple schools in the SE, but no personal experience. I know they talk about focuses and demographics like that and how it shapes their outreach and donations directly to their programs, athletics, and the University overall.

Ohio State does it's damdest to sign you up as an athletics doner while you are still an undergraduate, while you are still a "captive audience". They value all doners no matter how small. For years Pitt didn't give a damn about doners unless you gave at least 5 figures.
Unless Pitt changes their own behavior toward their benefactors you get the same old same old.

 

[Joe Magarac]

First off, there is clearly a cultural problem with Pitt and giving. It's overall alumni giving rates, irregardless of athletics, are low.

I don't buy the "focus on graduate education" at all. While true that Pitt has a relatively large graduate student population, and graduate students aren't where athletic donors are typically cultivated, Pitt's undergraduate population compares favorably to the rest of the ACC:

ACC public universities enrolled undergraduates:
FSU: 32,669
Virginia Tech: 25,318
NCSU: 24,111
Pitt: 18,757
Clemson: 18,599
UNC: 18,415
Louisville: 16,033
UVA: 15,891
Georgia Tech: 15,489

Pitt has an overall donor cultivation problem. One that I hope it is rectifying, and I know that it is trying. I don't think the law school rankings have one iota of an affect on athletic giving. And there are a lot of wealthy people at Harvard, Penn, Columbia, NYU.....all quite urban.

Yinzers are traditionally cheap b@stards, unless it come to dem Stillers.
Why pay for something (football tickets) when you can get it for free (channel 4).

 

[upj87]

In looking at the 2015-2016 Learfield Directors' Cup Division I final standings, Pitt was 110th. The lowest of all power five schools. Let that sink it. The lowest of all power five schools. She can only take Pitt up. It can't get any worse than the lowest of all power five schools.

Pitt was lower than such athletic powerhouses like Rutgers, New Hampshire, William & Mary, Furman, Stephen F. Austin, Quinnipac and a lot of other schools you'd be surprised to find ranked ahead of Pitt.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools..._pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/D1StandJune30.pdf

Eastern Michigan was 140th by the way. Oregon State was the next lowest power five school at #84. Rutgers was #83.

rankings of power 5 football and basketball (not saying Pitt would excel but would not be at the bottom) are the only thing that matters..who the hell cares about anything else about the athletic money drainers success or failure? Pretty sure PItt has never lost a football recruit based on the suckiness of its softball team.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

In fairness, look at the sports Learfield actually counts. Pitt doesn't offer many of them (M/W lacrosse, M/W golf, W rowing, M tennis, M volleyball, W water polo, and Beach Volleyball). It also looks like some of the sports we do offer (wrestling and gymnastics) aren't counted. The more I look at this, it cannot be the final results, it has to be just the Spring sports. No football or basketball on the chart at all.

Women's Beach Volleyball is a must! That is one of my favorite sports!
Whats better than a bunch of barefoot women diving in sand for volleyballs?
It beats watching a lot of 300 sweaty guys rolling around in the mud!