10 yrs dude.........
Which means never.....or at least Lyke won’t have to listen to it and can retire wo putting up with it.....
But join The Million-Man POST ...we’ll get there before 2027
Lol
On campus stadium and Olympic sports
- Thread starter jivecat
- Start date
Which means never.....or at least Lyke won’t have to listen to it and can retire wo putting up with it.....
But join The Million-Man POST ...we’ll get there before 2027
Lol
I was talking about the building going in the OC a lot. We will worry about the OCS later.
More fake numbers.
People do this all the time it doesn’t make sense. Nobody has any idea what it would cost because we don’t know where you would build it, what materials it would be made of, how large it would be, what other amenities would be involved, would it be coupled with another project, etc.
I have no time for made up facts and figures. The people who resort to this type of baloney are no better than the people who put fake stadium models in the OC lot or do silly mock ups in Panther Hollow.
This is exactly right. Every school in the country can build an on campus stadium but for Pitt is is impossible because it would cost $700 trillion.
Also it is a slum which simultaneously has outrageously high real estate values. Again, Oakland is the only place in America where it is too dangerous to go because the property values are too high.
Sheer. Nonsense.
That’s preposterous! What do you mean you’ve done “research”?
Isn’t it easier just to throw out random outrageously high assessments pulled straight out of our derrières? That’s what I’ll choose to believe, not your goofy so called “research” based on actual comparable situations going back more than a decade.
Everyone knows that to build an on campus football stadium at the University of Pittsburgh it would cost us at least $28 billion because we are totally different than every other situation in the country and the real estate prices here are the most expensive in the world.
Guys, this is so simple. We have a pro football stadium at our disposal. It’s perfect really! All we have to do a shuttle bunch of 18 and 19-year-olds several miles across town to every home game. How could that not work?
And we can fill it. People saying we can’t clearly weren’t there whenever we had a generational talent at the opening of the building and we started off in the preseason top 25. All we have to do is go undefeated in the ACC for like 10 or 12 years straight and I’m telling you we will definitely consistently draw 55,000+ fans per game.
Our game day atmosphere from playing in a cavernous stadium that is comically large for our needs is definitely not an albatross around our neck recruiting-wise. People saying it is don’t know what they are talking about. Recruits love half-empty stadiua because it makes it easy for them to talk amongst themselves without all that extra noise. Also, they get to stretch out and who doesn’t love to lounge around at a football game?
Last edited:
350 to 450 million for a FB Field from scratch in the City of PGh in the slums of Oakland or on the top of a nearly inaccessible hill. Lol
THATS NOW!!!!
Ten yrs double that.
Easy double probably more.
I have no time for these idiotic posts for a football field in Oakland ...especially since the Boss said it ain’t even a twinkle in her eye.....
2027 laugh out loud.
I Like Lyke more everyday.
Last edited:
That doesn't include land acquisition. My estimate is that land would cost $150 million and a first-rate stadium, not a bare bones structure like UCF or what Temple wants to build would cost $250 million. $400 million total cost
Point is RMU is tiny, has a tiny alumni base, and have literally maybe 200 real fans of their sports teams. They dont move the needle at all even with their own alums.....yet they found $50 million very easily. Of course the 2 aren't comparable but RMU was creative, they signed that deal with UPMC. Perhaps Pitt can sign a deal with a semi-local bank and give them their business. Maybe Pitt offers to move their endowment fund to Franklin Templeton for naming rights and say $100 million. There's ways to do this. Pitt has a ton more resources than RMU.
I like her too.
However, I think you are misreading this situation.
Nobody knows anything about where they would put a stadium, how they would acquire the land, how large the stadium would be, what amenities it would include, etc.
That fundamentally means that any time anyone throws out any numbers those are by definition pure guesses – and usually not terribly will informed guesses.
I’m not saying that I know any of these answers either because I’m the only one being honest enough here to say that nobody could possibly know what it would cost or if it would be worth it?
I am saying that I prefer honest conversation to wink and a nod bullshit like this.
So based on your 10 year doubling comment, that means Pitt could have built a new stadium after they knocked down Pitt Stadium for $88-112M.
The $150 million includes land acquisition and all other soft costs. Some of the projects I looked at may have only been hard costs because it was tough to decipher but most were pretty clear. $150 million gets Pitt a nice stadium.
To be fair, no newish college stadium would have land acquisition costs remotely comparable to Pitt.
If we only spent $150 million total, I think I'd pass. I'd rather stay in Heinz than have UCF's stadium built with Legos
Your wrong on every single point. A nice stadium could be had for $150 million. You just don't seem to have an understanding of what anything actually costs.
my sense of value is lost as well. I saw an article, i'll try and find it, on a "T" extension to Oakland from downtown Pittsburgh and they gave an estimated cost of 2B. I read it and I realize that I don't get this land value at all. 2 Billion dollars?
You reject fake numbers when it comes to stadium cost but have no problem quantifying what a better game day atmosphere having 21,483 fewer seats available would mean to the team's performance.
If we got the land for free, $150 million just for the stadium construction would be the absolute bare minimum
That's $2B for adding miles and miles of track. Pitt owns a lot of Oakland, but if they had to pay for 100% new land for the stadium, the going rate would end up costing them about $100M in land acquisition.
I agree with von Yinzer that no one knows what the hell would go on with a stadium but I will say this. Even if Pitt had a lot of things finalized (land, funding).....I doubt that the city would play ball. It seems that it is so hard to get much of anything done. Rooney has the rights to develop the area around Heinz Field, but yet, here we are, by some estimates near the end of the useful life of Heinz Field, and very little has been developed. They'll finish just in time to tear that stadium down. I won't comment on the development around the hockey rink as that speaks for itself.
I would be excited for an on (near) campus stadium, neatly done. But I have a hard time buying into the optimism of Dr. von Yinzer for many reasons other than funding and where to put it.
I would be excited for an on (near) campus stadium, neatly done. But I have a hard time buying into the optimism of Dr. von Yinzer for many reasons other than funding and where to put it.
The sub-par amount of development around Heinz Field is the fault of the Rooney’s much more than the city. The city’s biggest fault in that case was giving the exclusive redevelopment rights for the area between the stadiums to the Steelers and Pirates - two parties whose primary motivation is keeping as many parking spots as possible for the stadiums. The city has had to pull teeth every step of the way to keep the Steelers on the agreed redevelopment schedule, and the Penguins keep delaying and delaying their schedule to keep that site a parking lot for as long as they can.
The city erred badly in giving away exclusive redevelopment rights to its sports teams. It erred with the North Shore and it erred with the Civic Arena site. It’s probably the single-biggest error by city leadership since allowing the Syria Mosque to be torn down.
Very little has been developed? Wow. What were you expecting. A ton of that land is developed now.
Yes, I feel completely comfortable making the distinction that a more full stadium provides a significantly better atmosphere than a consistently half-empty stadium.
Also, I don’t think that is in any way comparable to throwing out fairly specific price tags about the cost of a stadium whose, size, location and materials have yet to be determined and without having any other context either like lead donors, sponsorship opportunities, etc.
40K people in a 45K seat stadium provides a better home atmosphere than 40K people in a 70K seat stadium. Recruits are sold on home game atmosphere. Its kind of weird reason to choose a school but its real. A smaller stadium would allow us to get maybe 2-3 recruits per year who wouldn't have wanted to play at a half-empty Heinz. That may amount to an extra win or 2 per season or it may not depending on who those players are
LMFAO, again. What do you expect? This topic makes people lose their minds.
The primary problem with these repetitive, never ending, and absolutely counterproductive discussions is that Pitt doesn't actually need a new football stadium. Nor does the region need another one, which is why it has little chance to gain the political momentum necessary to be accomplished. The current infeasibility of building one on or contiguous to campus is really only a secondary issue.
The single most important component of the athletic department is football. Everyone knows that, whether you think them idiots or not. This isn't some profound discovery made by bloggers and geniuses on message boards that administrators who've spent their entire professional careers in college athletics just can't seem to wrap their collective heads around, particularly after the advent of conference realignment and networks over the past 20 years.
A football stadium project does not appear to be destined for the 10 year facilities master plan because the importance of such a project for the football program, weighted by the actual resources needed and feasibility to undertake such a project, doesn't warrant inclusion on a list of must-do athletic projects over the next decade. It's not #1 on the list, it's not #5 on the list; it's not on the list as something to attempt towards the end of the 10 years. It doesn't seem that it will even make the list, nor did it make the prior list (and they did evaluate it), and I'd guess an on-campus, Pitt-only, football-specific stadium likely won't make the next list either, but hats off if you can predict the landscape in 2028 that will be used for judging priorities out to 2040.
A new football stadium is a nice-to-have item, and EVERYONE agrees it would be nice to have a great, Power 5-adequate, on-campus stadium. If it was a must-have item, meaning necessary for the competitiveness and success of the football program, it would be in the plan because it would be critical for the overall health of the athletic department, and likewise, the careers of everyone attached to it. Likewise, if a Power 5-adequate facility could be done for only $150m (which is hilarious), and there weren't other well-discussed issues, then it would also likely find its way on the 10 year plan because such a nice-to-have project would be realistically feasible to launch. It appears that it isn't going to be on the facilities master plan for a reason. That's not a conspiracy, it is just competent people doing their jobs with actual numbers, professional consultants, and years of expertise coming together to evaluate the situation. I know that doesn't always line up with the opinion of professional fans and message board posters, but the latter was never a stronghold of reality.
If something changes with necessity, cost, or general feasibility, then great, but until then, learn to appreciate the amenities at Heinz because they exist at few other college venues.
Last edited:
Also known as the stadium that they forgot to put water fountains in.
But yeah, that's something we ought to aspire to.
Well... they somehow convinced the ACC for an invite to conference membership despite having middle school-like facilities. The orb of confusion is strong in Oakland, indeed.
Just replying based on another poster’s inquiry. There was a group called “Armstrong” that was negotiating large pieces of land in South Oakland. It was their intent to privately finance a multipurpose entertainment facility. PITT would have been the main tenant but was expected to sign a long term and unfavorable agreement. Not sure it got very far.
From 1999-2000, to when they were invited into the ACC in 2011, Pitt had moved into the UPMC Sports Performance Complex, Heinz Field, Petersen Events Center, Peterson Sports Complex, and put about $15 million worth of renovations into Trees Hall and Pool and Fitzgerald Field House. In inflation adjusted dollars, that is about $730 million in new athletic facilities and renovations over a 10 year period on a Big East budget. Of course, large portions of that weren't funded by Pitt. But even with all the remaining facility issues, that prioritization of upgrading athletics facilities, however achieved, certainly factored, on some level, into the decision to invite Pitt. Does Pitt get an invite without most of those upgrades and demonstrated commitment? My guess is no.
Well, if Pitt is smart, they should take some of the details of the plan and try to incorporate the best aspects of the plan in to their own interests. I think this project almost certainly must happen in South Oakland, but time will tell.
But what about the 2 recruits who choose Pitt because they play at the same place as the Steelers? I say at best it’s a wash. It’s like arguing over the attendance difference for noon starts compared to 3:30 starts.
I suppose our new baseball, soccer and softball facilities factored in on some small level. I also think our football tradition helped and the recent success of the men’s basketball program certainly didn’t hurt. Further, I’m sure Pitt’s academic profile played in our favor as well.
Pitt offers an attractive package for just about any conference.
However, I think the size of our media market is the primary reason Pitt was invited into the ACC. And when I say “the primary reason” I mean probably upwards of 75% of the decision was rooted in that fact.
The ACC has long openly talked of becoming the East Coast’s equivalent of the PAC-12 and you can’t do that without adding the two most heavily populated states in the Northeast and two of the top five largest states in the country.
For the record, despite saying all this, I wholeheartedly support this new project. It is definitely badly needed and it will almost certainly make a positive impact on the University of Pittsburgh‘s athletic program, which in turn positively impacts the mothership. I just happen to think that the same logic that applies to building these Olympic sports a new right-sized on campus facility also applies to the football program.
I am very confident that is the logic that will ultimately prevail here. The only variable is time.
With good sense the person in charge of Football isn’t going down that rathole of a FB Field in Oakland.....and she’s the Boss.
How cow, that’s very interesting. Thanks for the scoop. Was it near the Blvd of the Allies? I suggested something like this a while back and thought that’d be a good location for it. Is this plan still in the works or did it stop once Pitt backed out?
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS!!!
regrading a stadium on campus, it does not matter what I, you SMF, Paco or anyone thinks.
The most important issue is what do the recruits think. And i highly doubt that an on campus stadium....for kids that are difference makers with NFL aspirations, dont give a rat's ass care where the stadium is located.
As long as it is filled.
Legion Field in Birmingham is a dump. If Bama played their home games there.....90 minutes from campus it would sell out every game and recruits would be begging for the chance to play their home games there.
You dopes that think a new stadium on campus makes us CFP contenders, I will be including the following post in every thread;
"the problem is not Heinz Field. The problem is a half empty Heinz Field".
Please; for the love of God, can we end these mind numbingly stupid discussions about this complete and utter pipe dream?
It’s not a wash and it’s not close to being a wash! I think our home game atmosphere is Pitt’s primary recruiting challenge - regardless of who is the coach - and I cannot fathom any realistic scenario in which that is going to magically change in our current stadium.
You have to bus kids to and from each game, you have to arrange your schedule around all of the other tenants in the area and you’re playing in a stadium that is just far too large for our needs. Our supply will always outpace ticket demand in a stadium that large.
All of those things conspire to create a horrible home atmosphere. Yes, there are individual games here and there in which the atmosphere is terrific. There are even some seasons where it is better than others. However, we can’t build a consistent home atmosphere while we’re playing in a stadium that is 20K seats larger than our dedicated fan base.
There is a reason why it is so rare in college football for successful teams to play off campus. That’s because playing the games off campus is antithetical to the entire college football experience.
Why do we have to always play up hill on everything? Why can’t we ever make the common sense decisions?
There’s a reason why nearly all of the schools that used to play their home football games off campus have moved back to their respective campuses or are trying to do so.
It’s expensive for them too. Planning a project of that scale was a pain in the ass for them too. However, they have all somehow managed to do it and we can too.
Now, that is not to say that it is the best allocation of resources? It may be a poor financial decision. I would just prefer to make that decision based on real facts and real figures rather than made up facts and made up figures.
