OT: Pitt buys Syria Mosque Parking Lot from UPMC

[President Stache]

Well... few things, and I hardly even read talk of the stadium on here becuase i like Heinz Field actually. I loved being in engineering school right next to Pitt stadium and walking from my saturday morning lab like a block to the game too though.

But, that area and the hotel would not be enough for the stadium and parking. Sure, we could do a wrigley field and not have parking, but that is a lot of revenue lost. Then again, being at many a geogia tech game, they dont have much parking either... I dont know.

But, a 45K stadium is lame. We need to make upper 50s at worse. PNC park is awesome, but I bet they wished they made it bigger now. I think 58-60K is needed as capacity.

 

[pitt-girl]

I recognize that's your view and you are entitled to the view. You however made the point as if it's some absolute given etched in stone somewhere and it's not. Again, what percentage of Div 1 schools have their own FB stadium? The size of that percentage suggests to me that there are scores of alums and university administrations around the country who categorically disagree with your view.

I had vowed never to discuss this again because like you said we all have our opinions. I respect yours but I have to say Gallagher has given no indication that Pitt will ever pursue this in the near future.

 

[giveitarest]

I recognize that's your view and you are entitled to the view. You however made the point as if it's some absolute given etched in stone somewhere and it's not. Again, what percentage of Div 1 schools have their own FB stadium? The size of that percentage suggests to me that there are scores of alums and university administrations around the country who categorically disagree with your view.

So how many D1 Universities have our footprint and have the same space, infrastructure etc. and face these same obstacles as Pitt? And how many have on campus stadiums that also have Pro Football? I know there are many of our fans/alums that want a stadium and others that don't care as they will go to games no matter. Of course there are many alums that wouldn't go if all they had to do was walk across the street. My opinion is too much money for minimal use and no where to put it to do it right. If we can't do this exactly right then it should not be done. No compromises just to have an on campus stadium.

 

[Jpripper88]

I don't disagree with any of this, but the reality is the land that potentially could be razed and used for the construction of a stadium and parking don't exist like this parcel of land. Primarily the real estate needed is privately owned. And even if in some perfect world you could get all that land, you would have to jump the hurdle that all of Pitt's academic land needs have been satisfied before that. An on campus stadium will never, ever supersede academic needs for the university. That's why I typically avoid the on campus stadium threads (which this originally was not). Then the infrastructure, then the zoning, then the City of Pittsburgh and all of their demands, blah, blah, blah. It's not going to happen.

Definitely dependent on leadership.

 

[NTOP]

I recognize that's your view and you are entitled to the view. You however made the point as if it's some absolute given etched in stone somewhere and it's not. Again, what percentage of Div 1 schools have their own FB stadium? The size of that percentage suggests to me that there are scores of alums and university administrations around the country who categorically disagree with your view.

What % of P5 schools are in a city with 3 pro sports teams, and have their own stadium?? NW/GT/BC/UW/ASU/&MD & Minny.. That'd be about 11%
We are a glaring exception, as we would be the smallest city in that group.

 

[HailtoPitt]

What % of P5 schools are in a city with 3 pro sports teams, and have their own stadium?? NW/GT/BC/UW/ASU/&MD & Minny.. That'd be about 11%
We are a glaring exception, as we would be the smallest city in that group.

What percentage of P5 schools in a city of 3 pro sports teams don't have their own stadium?

Pitt and Miami. That'd be 3%.

We certainly are a glaring exception.

 

[giveitarest]

What percentage of P5 schools in a city of 3 pro sports teams don't have their own stadium?

Pitt and Miami. That'd be 3%.

We certainly are a glaring exception.

So 2 out 7 not 2 out all P5 schools as that would not be a fair comparison, and of the 7 do they have the same space limitations?

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

LMFAO! "No one predicted it." A surface lot that Pitt has been developing plans off and on for 25 years? That it has been talking to UPMC about acquiring for years?

Perhaps I should've clarified?

Nobody was predicting it on this message board. I have poured through all of these threads for years and no one was predicting that Pitt was on the verge of buying a giant parcel of land right smack in the middle of campus for just $10 million. That did not happen.

The only thing reasonable people haven't predicted on this plot is a football stadium, because it is a dumb prediction.

Well, then I guess it's good that nobody on this message board predicted it.

However, it is alarming that so many of our own people cannot seem to recognize the intrinsically symbiotic relationship between a successful athletic program and a successful academic program.

As Chancellor Gallagher himself said, "Excellence is not selective." I think that applies to this situation too, don't you?

Further, I think looking at Pitt academics and athletics as separate entities and pointing to any project for one as inherently coming at the expense of the other is an antiquated and shortsighted point of view.

Let me elaborate.

Everyone knows that the "Flutie Factor" is a very real phenomenon. That has been studied again and again and the results are the same every time. The more success your athletic programs have, the more applications you receive and they are often from highly qualified students.

That is how Boston College zoomed passed Holy Cross in New England in the early 80s and it is a phenomenon that the likes of Duke, Stanford and Northwestern have used to raise their respective profiles as well.

To be clear, that is not to suggest that those schools were all average universities before their teams began having success because that's untrue. However, it is illustrative that despite the fact that those three schools are clear academic juggernauts they continue to pour copious amounts of money into improving their programs.

Why would that be?

If spending that kind of money on a simple football stadium is a bad investment here, how could it be a good investment in real estate-rich places like Chicago or Northern California? And yet they are all doing it. Has it ever caused any of you to wonder why?

I think it's because they see their athletic departments - and specifically their football programs - as an extension of their academic profile, not a competitor to it.

Frankly, I'm not sure what the answer is? I think it is a real uphill battle. However, I am convinced that Pitt cannot reach its full potential at Heinz Field. It is simply too big for our needs and I don't think we can come close to consistently filling it.

It's essentially a pure loss leader approach.

We will sell a lot of tickets this year. There seems to be a genuine enthusiasm about the program right now and we're playing Penn State. That will guarantee us larger crowds than we would normally get but unless we start winning 10-12 games per year over the course of a decade or so (and maybe not even then), we won't be able to sustain it. There's just not enough of us to go around.

I think Pitt offers one of the worst gameday atmospheres in major college football and that will always hold us back in recruiting, fan interest and development. Sure there are some things we can do to improve it, but our home atmosphere SUCKS OUT LOUD and it will never become anything more than average to below average - at least not on a consistent basis.

If done well, a right-sized on campus stadium gives us a chance to affect a legitimate paradigm shift. Staying at Heinz Field can't do that and it places a hard ceiling on the program's potential.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Well, then I guess it's good that nobody on this message board predicted it.

However, it is alarming that so many of our own people cannot seem to recognize the intrinsically symbiotic relationship between a successful athletic program and a successful academic program.

As Chancellor Gallagher himself said, "Excellence is not selective." I think that applies to this situation too, don't you?

Further, I think looking at Pitt academics and athletics as separate entities and pointing to any project for one as inherently coming at the expense of the other is an antiquated and shortsighted point of view.

Let me elaborate.

Everyone knows that the "Flutie Factor" is a very real phenomenon. That has been studied again and again and the results are the same every time. The more success your athletic programs have, the more applications you receive and they are often from highly qualified students.

That is how Boston College zoomed passed Holy Cross in New England in the early 80s and it is a phenomenon that the likes of Duke, Stanford and Northwestern have used to raise their respective profiles as well.

To be clear, that is not to suggest that those schools were all average universities before their teams began having success because that's untrue. However, it is illustrative that despite the fact that those three schools are clear academic juggernauts they continue to pour copious amounts of money into improving their programs.

Why would that be?

If spending that kind of money on a simple football stadium is a bad investment here, how could it be a good investment in real estate-rich places like Chicago or Northern California? And yet they are all doing it. Has it ever caused any of you to wonder why?

I think it's because they see their athletic departments - and specifically their football programs - as an extension of their academic profile, not a competitor to it.

Frankly, I'm not sure what the answer is? I think it is a real uphill battle. However, I am convinced that Pitt cannot reach its full potential at Heinz Field. It is simply too big for our needs and I don't think we can come close to consistently filling it.

It's essentially a pure loss leader approach.

We will sell a lot of tickets this year. There seems to be a genuine enthusiasm about the program right now and we're playing Penn State. That will guarantee us larger crowds than we would normally get but unless we start winning 10-12 games per year over the course of a decade or so (and maybe not even then), we won't be able to sustain it. There's just not enough of us to go around.

I think Pitt offers one of the worst gameday atmospheres in major college football and that will always hold us back in recruiting, fan interest and development. Sure there are some things we can do to improve it, but our home atmosphere SUCKS OUT LOUD and it will never become anything more than average to below average - at least not on a consistent basis.

If done well, a right-sized on campus stadium gives us a chance to affect a legitimate paradigm shift. Staying at Heinz Field can't do that and it places a hard ceiling on the program's potential.

Excellent post.

Of course, the crux of many of these anti stadium arguments is that they think your opinion hurts the program and someone must be around to defend the status quo and pretend that it's awesome.

 

[Delpanther]

What % of P5 schools are in a city with 3 pro sports teams, and have their own stadium?? NW/GT/BC/UW/ASU/&MD & Minny.. That'd be about 11%
We are a glaring exception, as we would be the smallest city in that group.

Other than UCLA, USC and Miami, don't the others located in cities all have on campus stadiums? Not sure the existence of pro teams in the city should dictate desirability or feasibility of an on campus stadium. I never said it would be easy or cheap but simply believe it's in Pitt's long term best interests.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Excellent post.

Of course, the crux of many of these anti stadium arguments is that they think your opinion hurts the program and someone must be around to defend the status quo and pretend that it's awesome.

Nobody is anti-stadium.

SOme of us are tired of reading the unrelenting onslaught on the topic year after year after year.

You're a bunch of obsessed weirdos who are enacting exactly zero change.

 

[eastcoasthoops]

Other than UCLA, USC and Miami, don't the others located in cities all have on campus stadiums? Not sure the existence of pro teams in the city should dictate desirability or feasibility of an on campus stadium. I never said it would be easy or cheap but simply believe it's in Pitt's long term best interests.

Neither Northwestern's Football Stadium nor Basketball Fieldhouse are "on" campus.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Perhaps I should've clarified?

Nobody was predicting it on this message board. I have poured through all of these threads for years and no one was predicting that Pitt was on the verge of buying a giant parcel of land right smack in the middle of campus for just $10 million. That did not happen.



Well, then I guess it's good that nobody on this message board predicted it.

However, it is alarming that so many of our own people cannot seem to recognize the intrinsically symbiotic relationship between a successful athletic program and a successful academic program.

As Chancellor Gallagher himself said, "Excellence is not selective." I think that applies to this situation too, don't you?

Further, I think looking at Pitt academics and athletics as separate entities and pointing to any project for one as inherently coming at the expense of the other is an antiquated and shortsighted point of view.

Let me elaborate.

Everyone knows that the "Flutie Factor" is a very real phenomenon. That has been studied again and again and the results are the same every time. The more success your athletic programs have, the more applications you receive and they are often from highly qualified students.

That is how Boston College zoomed passed Holy Cross in New England in the early 80s and it is a phenomenon that the likes of Duke, Stanford and Northwestern have used to raise their respective profiles as well.

To be clear, that is not to suggest that those schools were all average universities before their teams began having success because that's untrue. However, it is illustrative that despite the fact that those three schools are clear academic juggernauts they continue to pour copious amounts of money into improving their programs.

Why would that be?

If spending that kind of money on a simple football stadium is a bad investment here, how could it be a good investment in real estate-rich places like Chicago or Northern California? And yet they are all doing it. Has it ever caused any of you to wonder why?

I think it's because they see their athletic departments - and specifically their football programs - as an extension of their academic profile, not a competitor to it.

Frankly, I'm not sure what the answer is? I think it is a real uphill battle. However, I am convinced that Pitt cannot reach its full potential at Heinz Field. It is simply too big for our needs and I don't think we can come close to consistently filling it.

It's essentially a pure loss leader approach.

We will sell a lot of tickets this year. There seems to be a genuine enthusiasm about the program right now and we're playing Penn State. That will guarantee us larger crowds than we would normally get but unless we start winning 10-12 games per year over the course of a decade or so (and maybe not even then), we won't be able to sustain it. There's just not enough of us to go around.

I think Pitt offers one of the worst gameday atmospheres in major college football and that will always hold us back in recruiting, fan interest and development. Sure there are some things we can do to improve it, but our home atmosphere SUCKS OUT LOUD and it will never become anything more than average to below average - at least not on a consistent basis.

If done well, a right-sized on campus stadium gives us a chance to affect a legitimate paradigm shift. Staying at Heinz Field can't do that and it places a hard ceiling on the program's potential.

You don't pour through threads very effectively. Unless you focus on stadium threads, and why the hell would it be in those (and actually it has been as an absolutely ridiculous proposition that it remains still).

"Excellence isn't selective" Great quote. What the hell does that mean?

Here what is selective: money. There is a finite amount. That is why Pitt has had to make choices between funding different projects, like regional campus projects and closing graduate programs. Excellence demands you be selective or you end up in a mess like Pitt found itself in 1966.

Stanford raised their profile through sports?!? No.

Has Duke raised through profile form their prolific football program? Northwestern was always been known as a bastion of high quality athletics, huh? Between 1948 and 1995 it went to zero bowl games and still hasn't ever been to an NCAA tournament. It rocketed up from #13 in US News in 1994 to its current #12 I guess thanks to all that recent gridiron success. I guess the University of Chicago really tanked when it dropped out the Big Ten?

You make it sound like Pitt hasn't poured money into athletics and these schools have, and Pitt's level of subsidization athletic departments indicates that it has put more into than most. What it doesn't have is revenue because it doesn't have the boosters or endowments of any of those schools.

The "Flutie Factor" results in transient application boosts. Plenty of studies out there showing it doesn't actually improve the overall academic profile of the students. Counting on athletic success is an extremely unreliable and an extremely poor way, cost effective wise, to recruit students and improve the student population's academic profile. BU's profile has sky rocketed at the same time they dropped football. See, I can make absolutely ridiculous corollations too. I bet you think Alabama's recent academic improvement is due to football? I think you know that I'm can tell you that is has hardly anything to do with it.

And I've never called for Pitt to cut funding for athletics. I call for people to have realistic expectations so they don't play into the narratives of recruiting rivals and try to save them from being grass-is-greener Johnnies.

Thinking that the Syria Mosque lot site is ever going to house a football stadium is FLAT OUT STUPID. It makes all the Panther Hollow and OC lot plans look like inspired genius.

Lay off the stadium crack, you're going to have a very disappointed life as a Pitt fan if you don't.

 

[Delpanther]

Neither Northwestern's Football Stadium nor Basketball Fieldhouse are "on" campus.

I'm of the understanding though that the stadium is their stadium-correct?

 

[eastcoasthoops]

I'm of the understanding though that the stadium is their stadium-correct?

Indeed, but your statement was in regards to the "on campus" status, not ownership necessarily. I was just adding another to your list.

I'm curious why the "on campus" at all costs crew on here never address the fact that the ratio of "on campus" football programs that have enjoyed little sustained success far out weighs those that do? If on campus football is the be all-end all, why isn't there more parity?

 

[9nationalchampionships]

why the sale now?

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I specifically said that those universities did not raise their profile through athletics. Please go back and reread what I wrote so that we are speaking the same language and at least debating the same points.

I am not doing remediation and ending up in some nonsensical circular debate where we argue past each other rather than talk to each other.

What I said was despite having excellent academic profiles, those universities still WISELY chose to invest heavily in their athletic programs as well - to a FAR greater level than Pitt ever has.

Unlike Pitt historically, they see their athletic success as an extension of the university, and a tremendous recruiter of academic talent, not it's adversary.

That small minded us versus them thinking has hurt Pitt tremendously over the years and I refuse to get drawn into it. Hell, even within athletics it exists. Some Panthers football fans openly root against Pitt basketball because they're afraid that Pitt has become a "basketball school." The basketball goofballs are just as guilty of it vis-à-vis Pitt football. It's stupid and small minded and it hurts us.

Of course resources are finite and of course some things are going to be prioritized over others. However, as with everything else in this discussion, not argument, there is nothing in our situation that is remotely unique to the University of Pittsburgh. Resources are tight just about everywhere. Space is scarce at all urban universities. At some point it comes down to your willingness to commit and your athletic programs/university and your willingness to sustain that commitment.

Anyone who saw how badly Pitt Stadium deteriorated throughout the 80s and 90s knows that Pitt was not reinvesting in its infrastructure largely because of how it chose to prioritize its funds.

By the time they made the decision to demolish it, they really had no other choice but to tear down the old girl. However, it is utterly disgraceful that it got to that point in the first place!

It didn't get to that point over night and nor did the other major universities in our situation allow that to happen to their stadia built in that same era.

Cal has a stadium that is roughly that old and they refurbished it. Stanford has a stadium that is also from that era and they too refurbished it. Notre Dame - same. Washington - you bet. Ohio State - ditto. Michigan - check.

Not us. We allowed our historic stadium to fall into dilapidation and then we hoped and prayed to be bailed out by the state legislature based almost entirely on the power of the Steelers.

We were basically the only one who didn't reinvest In our historic football stadium. Why? Because we had other priorities, that's why.

The reasoning then, as now apparently, was that you can't afford to put that kind of money into athletics when we have so many academic needs.

It makes me wonder how everyone else could afford to do it – including some schools that I chose not to list who are not as well off as we are?

I don't see investing $200 million in a football stadium as choosing to stick the dagger in our own backs academically. Rather, I see it as an opportunity to recruit students and reengage donors to the Pitt athletic department as well as the university at large. That simply can't happen when you're playing three-and-half miles off-campus.

Speaking strictly from an athletics standpoint, for the past two decades Pitt has done a pathetic job of engaging donors and at times has seemed hellbent on alienating them.

You can't repeatedly give the fans the finger on a host of issues and then turn around and bitch about their frugality. Why would anyone donate generously to an athletic department that clearly wasn't interested in their preferences or opinions and wasn't doing everything it could to compete?

 

[CrazyPaco]

why the sale now?

It is my understanding...and I know I read something about this a bit back...that UPMC wanted to divest of this property and had offered it to Pitt. Pitt didn't immediately snap it up, probably because it had no plans for its immediate use. My guess is that this was sort of a standing offer from UPMC (and remember, 1/3rd of UPMC's board members are from the university).

Now Pitt is in the midsts of formulating its 10 year facilities master plan so my hunch is they have one or a few things in mind for this plot and were ready to take it....and perhaps they want to do something before the hotel gets built right next to it. I expect something to go up sooner than later (e.g. within 5 years).

 

[CrazyPaco]

I specifically said that those universities did not raise their profile through athletics. Please go back and reread what I wrote so that we are speaking the same language and at least debating the same points.

I am not doing remediation and ending up in some nonsensical circular debate where we argue past each other rather than talk to each other.

What I said was despite having excellent academic profiles, those universities still WISELY chose to invest heavily in their athletic programs as well - to a FAR greater level than Pitt ever has.

Unlike Pitt historically, they see their athletic success as an extension of the university, and a tremendous recruiter of academic talent, not it's adversary.

That small minded us versus them thinking has hurt Pitt tremendously over the years and I refuse to get drawn into it. Hell, even within athletics it exists. Some Panthers football fans openly root against Pitt basketball because they're afraid that Pitt has become a "basketball school." The basketball goofballs are just as guilty of it vis-à-vis Pitt football. It's stupid and small minded and it hurts us.

Of course resources are finite and of course somethings are going to be prioritized over others. However, as with everything else in this discussion, not argument, there is nothing in our situation that is remotely unique to the University of Pittsburgh. Resources are tight just about everywhere. Space is scarce at all urban universities. At some point it comes down to your willingness to commit and your athletic programs/university and your willingness to sustain that commitment.

Anyone who saw how badly Pitt Stadium deteriorated throughout the 80s and 90s knows that Pitt was not reinvesting in its infrastructure largely because of how it chose to prioritize its funds.

By the time they made the decision to demolish it, they really had no other choice but to tear down the old girl. However, it is utterly disgraceful that it got to that point in the first place!

It didn't get to that point over night and nor did the other major universities in our situation allow that to happen to their stadia built in that same era.

Cal has a stadium that is roughly that old and they refurbished it. Stanford has a stadium that is also from that era and they too refurbished it. Notre Dame - same. Ohio State - ditto. Michigan - check.

We were badically the only one who didn't. Why? Because we had other priorities, that's why. You can't afford to put that kind of money into athletics when we have so many academic needs. It makes me wonder how everyone else could afford to do it – including some schools that are not as well off as we are?

I don't see investing $200 million in a football stadium as choosing to stick the dagger in our own backs academically. Rather, I see it as an opportunity to recruit students and reengage donors to the Pitt athletic department as well as the university at large. That simply can't happen when you're playing three-and-half miles off-campus.

Yeah, lets not play games with your disclaimers. You were clearly using the topic of schools using athletics to advance their overall profile...and specifically made an example of BC. It is unambigously disingenuous to throw Northwestern, Duke, and Stanford out there in that context, and then not bring up a single Ivy or the many other elite schools that have deemphasized sports...but I guess that somehow proved unwise for those schools? Let alone the fact these schools have almost nothing in common with Pitt's situation. Stanford is no different than Harvard. If it dropped sports tomorrow, it would still be Stanford.

Yeah, why didn't Pitt put millions of dollars into its stadium like ND, Ohio State, and Michigan? LMFAO.

You think schools like BC have put more money into its revenue sports than Pitt? really. It is the farthest thing from wise to put a university in major debt for unnecessary athletic facilities, and a stadium is completely unnecessary for Pitt. None of those schools have put themselves into debt like that. Stadiumbots like yourself are calling for Pitt to do that. And there is no where to put it on-campus without substantially more than a $200 million investment. You're crackpots.

 

[Delpanther]

Indeed, but your statement was in regards to the "on campus" status, not ownership necessarily. I was just adding another to your list.

I'm curious why the "on campus" at all costs crew on here never address the fact that the ratio of "on campus" football programs that have enjoyed little sustained success far out weighs those that do? If on campus football is the be all-end all, why isn't there more parity?[/QUOTE

No one addresses the point because it's totally irrelevant. The the more relevant points are that: over 95% of Div. 1 schools have their own on campus stadiums; and that with the exception of USC there 's not a single Div. 1 school that has experienced sustained success that doesn't have its own on-campus stadium. The only school that even came close to entering the magic circle who didn't have its own stadium is Miami and they have been down quite a number of years now. Having said that, no one is contending that having an on campus stadium guarantees success. Nothing is more important than institutional support and having a good coaching staff. Count Pitt under Nerdy as having none of the requirements for success-lousy institutional support, lousy coaching and the worst AD in Div. 1 were factors which hamstrung the program! An on -campus stadium when combined with the other factors correlated with success just strengthens a team's FB program because it helps generate better attendance for a number of reasons-anyone for another noon start in September because the Suckos are playing Saturday evening?

 

[Perrypanther]

if this is good then don't be surprised when local kids elect to go to school elsewhere.. If you think hotels and 45 hospitals makes Oakland great well gonna go out on a limb and say that your typical 18 year old doesn't want to go to school on a campus that looks like an episode of ER.

Applications for admittance to PITT are increasing dramatically.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Yeah, lets not play games with your disclaimers. You were clearly using the topic of schools using athletics to advance their overall profile...and specifically made an example of BC. It is unambigously disingenuous to throw Northwestern, Duke, and Stanford out there in that context, and then not bring up a single Ivy or the many other elite schools that have deemphasized sports...but I guess that somehow proved unwise for those schools? Let alone the fact these schools have almost nothing in common with Pitt's situation. Stanford is no different than Harvard. If it dropped sports tomorrow, it would still be Stanford.

Yeah, why didn't Pitt put millions of dollars into its stadium like ND, Ohio State, and Michigan? LMFAO.

You think schools like BC have put more money into its revenue sports than Pitt? really. It is the farthest thing from wise to put a university in major debt for unnecessary athletic facilities, and a stadium is completely unnecessary for Pitt. None of those schools have put themselves into debt like that. Stadiumbots like yourself are calling for Pitt to do that. And there is no where to put it on-campus without substantially more than a $200 million investment. You're crackpots.

Okay, apparently you are incapable of nuanced discussion. That's fine, many on here are.

For the record, here is what I ACTUALLY wrote:

---
"(Reinvesting in its athletic program) is how Boston College zoomed passed Holy Cross in New England in the early 80s and it is a phenomenon that the likes of Duke, Stanford and Northwestern have used to raise their respective profiles as well.

To be clear, that is not to suggest that those schools were all average universities before their teams began having success because that's untrue. However, it is illustrative that despite the fact that those three schools are clear academic juggernauts they continue to pour copious amounts of money into improving their programs.

Why would that be?"
---

Help me out here, what on earth was ambiguous or disingenuous about that very SPECIFIC statement? I feel like I'm watching the GOP debate - a lot of passion and recrimination but not a whole lot of common sense.

I have no idea why you take any dissent whatsoever so personally? That's weird, dude. However, I do agree that the term crackpot is apt.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Perhaps if you could make your point directly , gene ...
Rather than filibustering us.

You're a bright guy, take an extra 20 seconds and think how you can make the same point in 4 or less bulletpoints.

Being vague and double talking isn't nuance. Nor are ad hominems in response to challenges

 

[Saboteur]

for $10M. A nice piece of prime mid-campus real estate.

And before anybody goes there, NO, there are not plans to relocate facilities here to make room for a stadium up the hill.

It would be a great place for an underground lot and green space on the surfaces

 

[HailtoPitt]

Okay, apparently you are incapable of nuanced discussion. That's fine, many on here are.

For the record, here is what I ACTUALLY wrote:

---
"(Reinvesting in its athletic program) is how Boston College zoomed passed Holy Cross in New England in the early 80s and it is a phenomenon that the likes of Duke, Stanford and Northwestern have used to raise their respective profiles as well.

To be clear, that is not to suggest that those schools were all average universities before their teams began having success because that's untrue. However, it is illustrative that despite the fact that those three schools are clear academic juggernauts they continue to pour copious amounts of money into improving their programs.

Why would that be?"
---

Help me out here, what on earth was ambiguous or disingenuous about that very SPECIFIC statement? I feel like I'm watching the GOP debate - a lot of passion and recrimination but not a whole lot of common sense.

I have no idea why you take any dissent whatsoever so personally? That's weird, dude. However, I do agree that the term crackpot is apt.

It really doesn't matter how well you argue this point, as Paco and Souf are disciples of Steve and have known him personally. They will defend his decision to the end.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

It's amazing that you try to give people respect by presenting a balanced view of what is unquestionably a highly complex situation and that is seen as filibustering. It's just flat out dumb and there's no other way to say it.

My point all along – and it remains – is that this is not a black or white situation. It would not be easy but it can be done. That doesn't mean that it should be done – how could anyone possibly know that without having access to actual plans and numbers? However, it certainly can be done and any assertion to the contrary is nonsense.

How do I know that? Because schools all over the goddamn country have already done it, that's how I know it!

Never mind. I give up. We're the only school in the country that has budgetary concerns and limited space upon which to build. Everyone else is just swimming in resources and has all the land in the world at their disposal and no political hurdles to overcome whatsoever.

The people who are saying that it can't be done are not being any more reasonable than the people who say it would be no problem.

 

[Palm Beach Panther]

In 5 to 10 years parking will be a non-issue because of self-driving cars and better public transportation.

 

[Saboteur]

In 5 to 10 years parking will be a non-issue because of self-driving cars and better public transportation.

Better public transportation is a relative term. Going from Gawd awful to simply sucking and having to wade thru the host of Union contracts, prior POs, etc... makes any reference to a 5-10 window untenable.

 

[mdpitt]

There is an answer but a Federal Mediator would need to be in a room with Paco and Von Yinzer. Pitt will have their own Stadium in the next 20 years because Heinz Field will essentially become the old Orange Bowl and the Steelers are going to command an incredible new home that Pitt will not want to play in that could be well outside the City Limits. There will be a decision to make in 2036 or so of where is Pitt going to play football?

I'm not saying it's on Campus but it is very obvious someone needs to answer the question of where we play Football in 2036. I'm really not sure where that place will be as Heinz Field location will likely be developed and not for sports.

 

[pitt-girl]

It really doesn't matter how well you argue this point, as Paco and Souf are disciples of Steve and have known him personally. They will defend his decision to the end.

Not sure why you think that either are "disciples" of Pederson; and even if they were so what?

 

[QuitCallingMeWanny]

Not sure why you think that either are "disciples" of Pederson; and even if they were so what?

It is just a lazy argument for people that don't have the IQ to debate Paco and Souf's points

 

[Jpripper88]

LMFAO! "No one predicted it." A surface lot that Pitt has been developing plans off and on for 25 years? That it has been talking to UPMC about acquiring for years?

The only thing reasonable people haven't predicted on this plot is a football stadium, because it is a dumb prediction.

I never saw you bring it up when acquisitions were discussed for a myriad of projects. I like your knowledge, but don't act like it was something that was essentially a fait accompli, just because people are now attaching the chance it could potentially grow into a bigger, football centric venture.

 

[upj87]

I recognize that's your view and you are entitled to the view. You however made the point as if it's some absolute given etched in stone somewhere and it's not. Again, what percentage of Div 1 schools have their own FB stadium? The size of that percentage suggests to me that there are scores of alums and university administrations around the country who categorically disagree with your view.

kind of comparing apples to amoebas ....what percentage of Div 1 schools have an NFL stadium with an NFL team willing to share it for their use two or three miles away have their own FB stadium? The main argument for the on-campus deal seems to be that it looks much nicer to have a full 45,000 attendance on campus stadium as opposed to a 45,000 attendance half empty stadium off campus.

 

[Swervin27]

a data center, well that sounds.. well it's exci... well ok then.

 

[pitt-girl]

I never saw you bring it up when acquisitions were discussed for a myriad of projects. I like your knowledge, but don't act like it was something that was essentially a fait accompli, just because people are now attaching the chance it could potentially grow into a bigger, football centric venture.

But it's not - you get that, right?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Not sure why you think that either are "disciples" of Pederson; and even if they were so what?

If anything, I'm a disciple of my former Dean, Dr. Randy Juhl.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

It really doesn't matter how well you argue this point, as Paco and Souf are disciples of Steve and have known him personally. They will defend his decision to the end.

I don't know Steve personally at all... outside of a handshake once or twice at a Pitt tailgate.

And a couple of meetings back in the 90s as a student liason on an athletics committee which met about twice regarding moving out of Pitt Stadium.

You're silly, as usual.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

It's amazing that you try to give people respect by presenting a balanced view of what is unquestionably a highly complex situation and that is seen as filibustering. It's just flat out dumb and there's no other way to say it.

My point all along – and it remains – is that this is not a black or white situation. It would not be easy but it can be done. That doesn't mean that it should be done – how could anyone possibly know that without having access to actual plans and numbers? However, it certainly can be done and any assertion to the contrary is nonsense.

How do I know that? Because schools all over the goddamn country have already done it, that's how I know it!

Never mind. I give up. We're the only school in the country that has budgetary concerns and limited space upon which to build. Everyone else is just swimming in resources and has all the land in the world at their disposal and no political hurdles to overcome whatsoever.

The people who are saying that it can't be done are not being any more reasonable than the people who say it would be no problem.

I have absolutely no issue with the content or opinions.

I'm suggesting paragraph after paragraph after paragraph isn't serving to clarify anything..it's obscuring whatever point you're attempting to make. Don't get upset when people aren't handing on your every word for every nuance of wiggle room. Get to the point.

I'll sum up all of your verbose posts on this topic for you, "It could be done for some reasons, and won't happen for plenty of reasons".
There you go.

 

[bwh05]

Yeah, lets not play games with your disclaimers. You were clearly using the topic of schools using athletics to advance their overall profile...and specifically made an example of BC. It is unambigously disingenuous to throw Northwestern, Duke, and Stanford out there in that context, and then not bring up a single Ivy or the many other elite schools that have deemphasized sports...but I guess that somehow proved unwise for those schools? Let alone the fact these schools have almost nothing in common with Pitt's situation. Stanford is no different than Harvard. If it dropped sports tomorrow, it would still be Stanford.

Yeah, why didn't Pitt put millions of dollars into its stadium like ND, Ohio State, and Michigan? LMFAO.

You think schools like BC have put more money into its revenue sports than Pitt? really. It is the farthest thing from wise to put a university in major debt for unnecessary athletic facilities, and a stadium is completely unnecessary for Pitt. None of those schools have put themselves into debt like that. Stadiumbots like yourself are calling for Pitt to do that. And there is no where to put it on-campus without substantially more than a $200 million investment. You're crackpots.

It's interesting that you called someone a crackpot CP. Didn't you post a plan on here where you advocated burying 5th and Forbes ave and most of the side streets?

People think they know what's best for the University and that's fine, but no one knows what the future holds. There were people who were adamant that we weren't getting into the ACC, and they were wrong. You can say whatever you want, but the powers that be ARE currently looking into the feasibility of a stadium, and they'll decide if its worth it.

 

[OnSHATterday]

I read this entire thread and for no particular reason decided to look up a few stats:

FWIW, BC and Pitt's campuses are nearly identical in size (132 acres/130 acres), Pitt's endowment is also $1.5bil more than BCs. Swervin's point though about a lot of non-Pitt buildings occupying that 130 acres doesn't help Pitt the least bit in planning, building, etc.

In 2013, Pitt's game day expenses were $4.4mil according to a PBT article (somewhat dated, but relative). The same article compares PSU's game day expenses, which were $2.9mil - Pitt's revenue for that year ended up being 1/3rd of PSU's.

Now for personal musings:

Does anyone know how game day support staff - vendors, ushers, etc play out with Pitt's agreement at Heinz? What I mean is, on campus stadiums are typically staffed by student's who are volunteering or others who are volunteering. Is Pitt paying the full $$ amount for the Aramark staff, etc.? Also - what's Pitt's take home on gameday parking, if any? Those same university lots that are collecting $10 a pop for hoops games would fetch a pretty penny for 6 or 7 Saturday's a year.

I look at ND's campus crossroads project as a great example of having a classic college football venue with modern, practical, mixed-use upgrades. The land needed to build the facilities that are being connected onto the outside of ND Stadium as standalones would be much larger. It just takes some creativity and ingenuity.