On Campus Stadium-Pitt's lone solution
- Thread starter Panther Al
- Start date
We build a 50K on campus stadium on the OC Lot for 200M. Additional seating to expand to 70K plus with additional fundraising or demand. It would be easy to build upper deck seating on a lower bowl.
I have given all my qualifications, name and address on my posts before. Please research it. And now please post yours here.
Yes, and field bleacher seating in Pitt Stadium took the crowd to 65K. My Dad sat in those seats for ND game in 1982.
I've seen many of you say that if/when the Steelers build a new stadium, Pitt should take over Heinz Field. Don't you think Pitt would want to play in the new Steelers stadium, if an on campus stadium never happens? Just look at the new/planned stadiums in Dallas, Atlanta, LA.
Not gonna happen. please give that up ?
And do you read anything of Pitt's recent recruits including Drake, Alexandre ,and Browne said (some version of ) they were heavily swayed by meeting the Steelers, the close proximity of their practices, and playing at Heinz field. That doesn't happen on campus.
Yes Pittsburgh maybe a PRO town but you use that to your advantage(as I'm sure Narduzzi does). College campus don't have that and the pro town having things to do besides attend college games, drink, and tip cows, does appeal to some recruits.
Also realistically if you want to play then Pitt s one of your better choices right now because Narduzzi is giving that chance to the best player period. if you go to the school with the big stadium and fan base and 5 star recruits it doesn't put you on the field quicker. Would you rather be Boyd or foster ? Connor leaves this year and Whitehead and probably Henderson is gone next year as there is a premium on quality kick returners in the NFL.
Stadiums don't cause you recruits winning (and to some degree fans) do. In general most people feel that Penn state had a better season because they were screwed out of a playoff spot. But if Pitt whens 2 or 3 of those close loses they are in the ACC championship against Clemson with a shot at the playoffs (or getting screwed like PSU ).
that's was best for recruiting.
And the rest of us are surprised that you continue to tout a plan that was designed by a third grader who had no idea what he was talking about, so there's that.
As has been shown to you before, a 50,000 seat stadium doesn't fit on the OC lot site. And yet you propose one that can be expanded to 70,000. And continue to pretend that you know what you are talking about.
No. There are other schools that don't play in a stadium on their campus. As has been discussed over and over and over again. There aren't many. But if you choose to ignore the reality that Pitt, as an institution, is an outlier in the world of P5 football it is pointless to repeat.
When the footprint of Pitt Stadium was repurposed, playing football on campus was lost.
East Coast Hoops,
Who are the P5 schools that don't play on campus and are successful? I'm curious who you are referring to?
Who are the P5 schools that don't play on campus and are successful? I'm curious who you are referring to?
"Successful" is a matter of subjectivity which I'm quite certain will be lost on you. Further, Dave's comment implies that Pitt is the only school playing P5 football that "can't make the numbers work" to play in an on campus stadium...which is bunk.
Off the top of my head, a few P5 schools who don't play on campus:
Pitt
Northwestern
UCLA
Miami
NC State
And again, 4 of the 5 are heavily urban campuses. If you don't want to admit the unique nature of Pitt as an urban institution playing P5 football, I can't help you.
A better question for you is...how many "successful" P5 football programs face the same urban land and enrollment parameters that Pitt does and play "on campus"? Vandy? UofL? Georgia Tech? EDIT: Forgot Boston College...easily forgettable.
Last edited:
How many P5 schools are playing in on campus dumps and would probably prefer to play in a stadium like Heinz Field?
The attendance issue is easy. I know, because I watched it. Western Pennsylvania is also a high school football area, too. So some segment of the population will be going to watch their kids play. The Steelers are, of course, another factor. Those fans give up their Sundays for football. So that's two subsets of people who are also less inclined to give over their Saturdays to football, too. I think expecting some people to give over their Friday nights AND Saturdays to football, or their Saturdays AND Sundays to football -- or, in some cases, all three -- is asking a bit much. And guess what will be the first two choices? Usually the kid's high school team and the most successful franchise in the history of pro football. Throw in 30 years of bad to mediocre teams, and that's it. Winning will do a lot to cure this, but I never underestimate the difficulty of trying to draw fans when you're in the same town as a successful pro team. Very few people have the time to watch Pitt football on Saturdays and the Steelers on Sundays.
Agreed. And, if playing "on campus" is the be all-end all of P5 football success...why isn't there more parity, since so many schools play on campus?
Ok, so what does Pitt do in 15 years when the Steelers opt to leave Heinz Field? Maybe they move the new Stadium north or south....then what does Pitt do? I'm not as focused on where the stadium is as I am that Pitt has to share a stadium. If Pitt Stadium was built where Heinz Field is now, I'd be great with that.
That wasn't a far walk. Plenty park further away than that now.
You are focused on what may or may not happen in 15 years? Lol.
Can we go back to your original inference that Pitt is the "only P5" school that can't make the numbers work and agree that it is bs?
I live in Raleigh, and over the years, I've asked NC State grads, fans, and former bball players about whether they want an on-campus football stadium or bball arena. They look puzzled when I ask. Not only is their no desire for one, they really don't understand the question. Why am I asking? Why would we want one? They really don't get it. When I explain that many Pitt fans want one for football and try to explain it, they don't get it. They've responded with things like:
1) "Well, there really no room for either...on-campus. You'd have to tear stuff down."
2) "Parking is impossible now on campus. There would be no where for fans to park."
3) and "why would we want one anyway?"
They play football and basketball at about the same distance from campus as Heinz is from Pitt's campus, and of course, Pitt's basketball arena is on-campus. BTW, its a bitch to park for Pitt basketball games, with a 10k seat arena. Imagine how much fun it would be to park for football.
Part of the fun of having an on-campus stadium is the tailgating that goes on around the stadium. Fitting a stadium into Oakland somewhere with a shoehorn would not include the tailgate experience...you know, the one that Pitt fans get to enjoy at Heinz.
1) "Well, there really no room for either...on-campus. You'd have to tear stuff down."
2) "Parking is impossible now on campus. There would be no where for fans to park."
3) and "why would we want one anyway?"
They play football and basketball at about the same distance from campus as Heinz is from Pitt's campus, and of course, Pitt's basketball arena is on-campus. BTW, its a bitch to park for Pitt basketball games, with a 10k seat arena. Imagine how much fun it would be to park for football.
Part of the fun of having an on-campus stadium is the tailgating that goes on around the stadium. Fitting a stadium into Oakland somewhere with a shoehorn would not include the tailgate experience...you know, the one that Pitt fans get to enjoy at Heinz.
In a structure that got 75% more use because of the Pirates and wasn't a design suited for either football or baseball. The "multi-purpose" stadium was a failed concept.
Northwestern and NC State have on campus facilities..(well NC State's is like walking distance from campus)
Ryan Field is definitely not on campus. If you think so, you've never been to Evanston. And NC State is on university owned land off campus...the same distance from their campus as Heinz Field is to Oakland (as a crow flies).
Ah, PantherDave, you've put forward a POV that not everyone will agree with, but it points out an important distinction.
Some hate on Heinz because Pitt doesn't control it; others hate on Heinz because its not on Pitt's campus. You're obviously part of the former, but many are part of the latter, or part of both.
If Pitt wants to control its own stadium destiny, it can build its own stadium; whether that is on or off-campus is a different question.
Regarding the fear that the Steelers will head to the burbs to play, that is something that Pitt should consider as part of its long-term contigency planning, which I'm sure it does, even if we never hear about it. But the plug isn't going to be pulled on Pitt overnight. An announcement isn't going to be made one future January that the Steelers will be playing the next season in Cranberry and immediately tearing down Heinz, leaving Pitt screwed. Considering what to do next will already have been done, and Pitt will be given time to do it, so there is no rush to go build a stadium before its too late.
Wanting a future stadium on campus, rather a Pitt Stadium off-campus, is another matter.
BS. Both are off campus. My son is a soph at Northwestern, and I've been to three games in the last two years. Students (and parents) take shuttle buses from campus to the stadium. Yes you can walk to both, as I've walked to Ryan Field on a nice day, but you can walk to Heinz too if you want. It so happens that the neighborhoods at the other two schools are nicer than the Hill District, but the distances are similar.
Northwestern: I didn't even know they play off campus but have never competed for the Big 10
NC State: Has never competed for ACC championship
Miami: I'll give you that one but talks are already happening about a new stadium. Heinz looks great compared their game day environment which looks like a high school crowd and will never compete with the FSU, UF's for players and other southern schools with that atmosphere. Just a matter of time.
UCLA: I'll give you that one as well though I never watch PAC 10 games so I wouldn't know. Again when have they competed for a championship or even mentioned in the playoff. I've heard USC and Oregon in the PAC over the last ten years. Washington is the city like Pitt and refurbished their stadium on campus which was outdated.
Basically, you're saying two teams are successful playing off campus and I'm trying to be fair however that's a lousy percentage. If the land is available and it is at Schenley Park, then why not build it. I saw somebody say SP isn't on campus? Nonsense. It's a five minute walk from the towers. U of Mich and OSU have at least a ten minute walk from their dorms to their on campus stadiums due to the size of their campus.
The bottom line whether you like it or not, we compete with PSU, OSU, UM and ND for the 4/5 star players. You win with good coaching however Meyer, Harbaugh and Saban always have great players. College football is about recruiting and if you don't get those top players, you can't compete for a championship and those players want atmosphere. So we have two choices. Stick to the current plan which yields us 7-5 and 8-4 or step it up with a new building in attempt to get to 10-2 or better with an opportunity to compete for championships. Nobody cares about bowl games as you're starting to see star players sit. The public cares about the playoffs and in order to get there we need top players. We had two really nice wins this season and had an exciting team however nobody (students especially) didn't show for VT, Duke (after the clemson win-not a good enough win) and Cuse.
NC State: Has never competed for ACC championship
Miami: I'll give you that one but talks are already happening about a new stadium. Heinz looks great compared their game day environment which looks like a high school crowd and will never compete with the FSU, UF's for players and other southern schools with that atmosphere. Just a matter of time.
UCLA: I'll give you that one as well though I never watch PAC 10 games so I wouldn't know. Again when have they competed for a championship or even mentioned in the playoff. I've heard USC and Oregon in the PAC over the last ten years. Washington is the city like Pitt and refurbished their stadium on campus which was outdated.
Basically, you're saying two teams are successful playing off campus and I'm trying to be fair however that's a lousy percentage. If the land is available and it is at Schenley Park, then why not build it. I saw somebody say SP isn't on campus? Nonsense. It's a five minute walk from the towers. U of Mich and OSU have at least a ten minute walk from their dorms to their on campus stadiums due to the size of their campus.
The bottom line whether you like it or not, we compete with PSU, OSU, UM and ND for the 4/5 star players. You win with good coaching however Meyer, Harbaugh and Saban always have great players. College football is about recruiting and if you don't get those top players, you can't compete for a championship and those players want atmosphere. So we have two choices. Stick to the current plan which yields us 7-5 and 8-4 or step it up with a new building in attempt to get to 10-2 or better with an opportunity to compete for championships. Nobody cares about bowl games as you're starting to see star players sit. The public cares about the playoffs and in order to get there we need top players. We had two really nice wins this season and had an exciting team however nobody (students especially) didn't show for VT, Duke (after the clemson win-not a good enough win) and Cuse.
We don't need an on campus stadium to win championships. An on campus stadium doesn't help us beat Virginia Tech. We could've and should've played for an ACC championship this year but the difference wasn't an on campus stadium.
What helps recruiting is winning and the coaches in the programs. Narduzzi was here for one year and he almost got us a Top 25 class. If we continue to win we will get stronger recruiting classes. I believe we can win the coastal division with the players we have.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you must be 15 years old. Otherwise, you are just dumb and/or ignorant of facts.
Northwestern won the Big Ten last in 2000. NC State won the ACC last in 1979. So both of your first statements are factually inaccurate.
If you have ever been to Coral Gables, you would know that there is absolutely no room to build a football stadium on Miami's campus. So, if the University is considering building a new facility, it too will be off campus, the same as the Orange Bowl and Hard Rock (Joe Robbie) before it. The very same attendance issues that you site that Miami will never be able to overcome in competing with UF and FSU existed before. You know what changed? Miami hired a string of great friggin coaches. Howard Schnellenberger for one and Jimmy Johnson for two. Miami started winning. You know what didn't matter then? Playing off campus.
UCLA has won 17 PAC12 Championships...as recently as 1998. As for Washington being located in Seattle...this is the one thing you've gotten right so far. However, are you seriously comparing the capabilities for land development of the State University and a semi-private city school? Don't be so idiotic.
Schenley Park isn't available. Why do you think Pitt can just move in and build there? Because that's the only available area of open grass with in 5 miles? Do you understand how private property granted for the public trust works? Apparently not.
The bottom line is, whether you like it or not...Pitt is NOT like Penn St, OSU, WVU, and ND. Pitt has it's own unique situation that lends to other strengths and weaknesses. And a friggin on-campus stadium has nothing to do with it.
The Indiana Hoosiers have been playing on campus since 1887. They have won a total of 2 Big Ten titles, and only one since man landed on the moon...barely. Where is their on campus success? Where is Kentucky's? Vanderbilt's? Mississippi State's? Virginia's? Duke's? Wake Forest's? Washington State's? Iowa State's? Oregon State's? And on and on and on.
Your argument is just flat baseless and dumb.
Last edited:
OK, let's talk about recruiting. If you pay attention at all to the interviews with Pitt's recruits who visit, most of them are wowed by Pitt's relationship to the Steelers. They practice and play at the same place as the Steelers, and hardly a single recruit fails to mention that as a positive. Some are blown away by it. In the interview posted today with Max Browne, he talked about getting to meet Rothleisberger at the facility on his visit, and was really impressed by it. And to them, Heinz is big-time; they've watched many games there on TV.
Recruits don't give a damn about whether a stadium is on or off campus, and why would they?
If you, as a fan, want an on-campus stadium, petition for one, but don't pretend like its important to recruits, because it just isn't.
Recruits don't give a damn about whether a stadium is on or off campus, and why would they?
If you, as a fan, want an on-campus stadium, petition for one, but don't pretend like its important to recruits, because it just isn't.
When I see Pitt games on TV, I feel really bad for you guys. One thing nobody mentioned in this entire thread is that now almost every game is televised, a lot of people simply would rather watch it on TV than go to the stadium and sit around for all the TV time outs.
ESPN has sunk its claws into college football and the changing isn't done yet. They have over saturated the market and with changing TV viewership they are going to leave behind a smoking mess when its all over.
I dropped my $120/month cable plan (that was that high to pay for the sports payouts from ESPN) and now pay $25/month for streaming and I still get all the games, there is no way the current model is sustainable.
I'll watch Pitt games if they are playing against Clemson, FSU, or VT, but it is really hard to get worked up over Pitt vs Wake Forrest, North Carolina, NC State, UVA.
ESPN has sunk its claws into college football and the changing isn't done yet. They have over saturated the market and with changing TV viewership they are going to leave behind a smoking mess when its all over.
I dropped my $120/month cable plan (that was that high to pay for the sports payouts from ESPN) and now pay $25/month for streaming and I still get all the games, there is no way the current model is sustainable.
I'll watch Pitt games if they are playing against Clemson, FSU, or VT, but it is really hard to get worked up over Pitt vs Wake Forrest, North Carolina, NC State, UVA.
...I think that is a bigger influence than most people realize - the ability to watch most games in the comfort of one's home ... low cost food and drinks, no rowdy, foul-mouthed fans next to you and uncrowded bathrooms nearby ... and a better seat and view than almost anywhere in a stadium...
Last edited:
What exactly is the argument?
I suppose if someone comes up with a half a billion dollars, then we could have an argument over what to do with it; like maybe we could build a football stadium with it. Wake me when you find the money.
I suppose if someone comes up with a half a billion dollars, then we could have an argument over what to do with it; like maybe we could build a football stadium with it. Wake me when you find the money.
I'm very ignorant when it comes to things like stadium costs, but is 500 million all it would take for a new stadium? The one they're getting set to build in Las Vegas for the Raiders and UNLV is projected at 1.9 billion, and will probably end up higher. I realize that's for an NFL team, but 500 million doesn't seem like much by today's standards.
I disagree with all the naysayers and those who get angry by the mere suggestion, but I'm very confident that Pitt will eventually have an on campus stadium again. Will it be ready when I'm still able to walk any distance to get to it, probably not. I'll say it won't happen before the next 20-25 years, but hopefully it does in my lifetime.
