Perception vs reality - the brand

[Chairman Moe]

I listened to Mark Packer on ACC PM yesterday. He had some interesting comments about the ACC "brand" as it relates to football. Specifically, that besides Clemson, the three other teams that need to be relevant are FSU, Miami, and VT. Those are the three schools that have the brand recognition for the conference. Period.

That's perception. Reality? Aside from Clemson, the only other ACC team that's been relevant recently (since the start of the BCS in 2014) is Pitt. And we (Pitt) are a distant second to Clemson in terms of conference wins.

That said, in the wake of the past week's conference shakeups, is Packer correct? Does the ACC have to have those specific three teams be the ones relevant?

My thoughts? FSU, yes. Miami, maybe. VT, no. The Frank Beamer days @ VT have long since sailed, and despite their success during his reign, I don't think their future will live up to his. They do have a large and vocal/loyal fan base, regionally

Miami, OTOH, has the football/pro sports/major city and recruiting attraction, but the fan base is much like Pitt's. It's stifled by the presence of the other professional sports teams. And has Miami lost some of the swagger that it had during the '80's and '90's when it was a "love 'em or hate 'em team?

Which leads me back to how does Pitt promote/brand itself as one of the programs that might "save" the ACC, even as one of its newest member schools? Would touting the football program's success in developing NFL (and HOF talent) carry any weight?

A lot to digest. And I keep looking at what possibilities there could be for the ACC and/or its teams in the weeks ahead as the PAC-12/4 is finally settled. I truly believe that our legacy will be solid enough to keep Pitt in a relevant position in NCAA sports

 

[Upg bobcat]

I listened to Mark Packer on ACC PM yesterday. He had some interesting comments about the ACC "brand" as it relates to football. Specifically, that besides Clemson, the three other teams that need to be relevant are FSU, Miami, and VT. Those are the three schools that have the brand recognition for the conference. Period.

That's perception. Reality? Aside from Clemson, the only other ACC team that's been relevant recently (since the start of the BCS in 2014) is Pitt. And we (Pitt) are a distant second to Clemson in terms of conference wins.

That said, in the wake of the past week's conference shakeups, is Packer correct? Does the ACC have to have those specific three teams be the ones relevant?

My thoughts? FSU, yes. Miami, maybe. VT, no. The Frank Beamer days @ VT have long since sailed, and despite their success during his reign, I don't think their future will live up to his. They do have a large and vocal/loyal fan base, regionally

Miami, OTOH, has the football/pro sports/major city and recruiting attraction, but the fan base is much like Pitt's. It's stifled by the presence of the other professional sports teams. And has Miami lost some of the swagger that it had during the '80's and '90's when it was a "love 'em or hate 'em team?

Which leads me back to how does Pitt promote/brand itself as one of the programs that might "save" the ACC, even as one of its newest member schools? Would touting the football program's success in developing NFL (and HOF talent) carry any weight?

A lot to digest. And I keep looking at what possibilities there could be for the ACC and/or its teams in the weeks ahead as the PAC-12/4 is finally settled. I truly believe that our legacy will be solid enough to keep Pitt in a relevant position in NCAA sports

It will never happen unless there is an administration change at GT which allows them to run their program differently, but given all the talent in the area, GT could be a major player. At least they've won a national championship about 30 years ago. Has VT ever won one? I'm pretty sure VT has never won a national championship in any sport. Even BC and Syracuse have football national championships.

 

[pittmeister]

Good post….

As I have said many times, the perception of Pitt is much better than some posters realize.

“McMurphy believes that Pitt has enough weight behind it in terms of tradition and national prestige, combined with a current upward trajectory to make them a candidate for relegation to one of those super leagues.

“the No. 1 metric right now is your value to the TV networks and I don’t specifically know where Pitt ranks in that whole totem pole listing of schools, but I think they would be in the upper half.”

https://www.si.com/college/pittsburgh/news/brett-mcmurphy-predicts-pitt-panthers-realignment

“Pittsburgh is my wild card. Pitt would match Missouri as the SEC’s most curious additions. Maybe Pitt could become an adopted member of the South. Fans of a certain age remember Pitt sitting atop college football. Pittsburgh is a football city, albeit tilted toward the NFL. Pittsburgh is often compared to Birmingham, which headquarters the SEC.”

https://www.indystar.com/story/spor...su-big-12-expansion-arizona-utah/70496148007/

“This (Pitt to SEC) would be a big jump up north for the SEC, which is really why it’s so low on the list. Pitt’s athletics wouldn’t mesh with the rest of the SEC’s, but it’s a growing brand with a bright future, just not with the Southeastern Conference”

https://rolltidewire.usatoday.com/l...tiveness-in-conference-expansion-realignment/

In addition guys like Josh Pate and Mark Packer think very highly of Pitt. Pitt needs to keep winning and be relevant. If so, they will be all right.

 

[Chairman Moe]

It will never happen unless there is an administration change at GT which allows them to run their program differently, but given all the talent in the area, GT could be a major player. At least they've won a national championship about 30 years ago. Has VT ever won one? I'm pretty sure VT has never won a national championship in any sport. Even BC and Syracuse have football national championships.

Georgia Tech faces a lot of the same issues as Miami with regard to the pro sports teams, and even more (college-wise) with UGA residing just 70 miles away.

Regarding VT, I lump them into a similar mold as Penn State. Almost a cult like fan base, large on-campus stadium, the only game-in-town for miles around ... but as you say, without a national championship

 

[Burgh15]

Clemson and Florida State should've been the equivalent of Ohio State/Michigan, Alabama/Georgia, and Oklahoma/Texas (though Texas failed to live up to expectations as well). Miami is the cherry on top if they're successful. I still don't think it would've mattered because without the depth of teams with huge ratings, the ACC TV contract still wouldn't have been enough to be within striking distance of the SEC and Big 10.

 

[Chairman Moe]

Good post….

As I have said many times, the perception of Pitt is much better than some posters realize.

“McMurphy believes that Pitt has enough weight behind it in terms of tradition and national prestige, combined with a current upward trajectory to make them a candidate for relegation to one of those super leagues.

“the No. 1 metric right now is your value to the TV networks and I don’t specifically know where Pitt ranks in that whole totem pole listing of schools, but I think they would be in the upper half.”

https://www.si.com/college/pittsburgh/news/brett-mcmurphy-predicts-pitt-panthers-realignment

“Pittsburgh is my wild card. Pitt would match Missouri as the SEC’s most curious additions. Maybe Pitt could become an adopted member of the South. Fans of a certain age remember Pitt sitting atop college football. Pittsburgh is a football city, albeit tilted toward the NFL. Pittsburgh is often compared to Birmingham, which headquarters the SEC.”

https://www.indystar.com/story/spor...su-big-12-expansion-arizona-utah/70496148007/

“This (Pitt to SEC) would be a big jump up north for the SEC, which is really why it’s so low on the list. Pitt’s athletics wouldn’t mesh with the rest of the SEC’s, but it’s a growing brand with a bright future, just not with the Southeastern Conference”

https://rolltidewire.usatoday.com/l...tiveness-in-conference-expansion-realignment/

In addition guys like Josh Pate and Mark Packer think very highly of Pitt. Pitt needs to keep winning and be relevant. If so, they will be all right.

I'm replying without having read any of your links, but I will. Thanks for your comments

As I read your reply, a couple of additional things hit me:

1) the football program finally has some continuity (coaching staff-wise) and has proven that playing and practicing next to the Steelers is a huge advantage (developing players who see what it is like in the NFL)

2) Heather Lyke

 

[Burgh15]

“This (Pitt to SEC) would be a big jump up north for the SEC, which is really why it’s so low on the list. Pitt’s athletics wouldn’t mesh with the rest of the SEC’s, but it’s a growing brand with a bright future, just not with the Southeastern Conference”

Winning helps because then you get to play in top-25 matchups, which get on ABC or ESPN in a good time slot. That helps boost ratings. Big 10 teams always get artificially inflated rankings, bringing more top matchups for already huge fanbases. Pitt doesn't have a conference rival, so they really need to be a mainstay in the top-25 to get national attention.

 

[Upg bobcat]

Georgia Tech faces a lot of the same issues as Miami with regard to the pro sports teams, and even more (college-wise) with UGA residing just 70 miles away.

Well Miami is included as one of the big ACC brands. It wasn't that long ago Miami, even with substandard facilities and an NFL team in town, was among the elite of the elite programs in country. I see no reason why GT can't become that, if they tried.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Miami vs FSU was THE game for a long period of time. They were both in the Top 5 competing for titles on a regular basis. They have been the biggest disappointment, especially in recent years.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Well Miami is included as one of the big ACC brands. It wasn't that long ago Miami, even with substandard facilities and an NFL team in town, was among the elite of the elite programs in country. I see no reason why GT can't become that, if they tried.

Georgia Tech can't become that because Georgia Tech doesn't have a bunch of majors that they can hide athletes who are substandard in academics like Miami (and most other schools) do.

For Miami it was easy to get any player they wanted admitted, and they had places to hide them to keep them eligible. For Georgia Tech it is harder to get some players admitted, and they do not have places to hide them once they are there.

 

[rmf05]

Pitt has a golden opportunity this season. With FSU, ND, WVU, Cincy on the schedule, we can make a statement in all those games and if we win out, the perception of this program will be transformed in just 3 months. That's a huge hurdle but it's there in front of us.

 

[cbpitt2]

Four years ago, Stewart Mandel predicted that eventually college football would form a 28-team league.

He called it the College Football Premier League.

A hypothetical 28-team league in which the top two teams in each division make an eight-team playoff. Schools were selected based on criteria like TV ratings, attendance figures, recent success and historical success.

Pitt was not one of those 28 teams. West Virginia is. Despite regularly producing NFL greats, not having won a major bowl game since 1982 doesn't help Pitt’s case. Nor does having won only two major bowl games in more than 75 years. That may be the reality on how Pitt is viewed by others.

The 28 teams were:
Clemson

lowa

Alabama

Oklahoma

Florida

Michigan

Arkansas

Oregon

Florida State

Michigan State

Miami

Nebraska

Auburn

Texas

Georgia

Texas A&M

Penn State

Notre Dame

LSU

UCLA

Virginia Tech

Ohio State

South Carolina

USC

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Tennessee

Washington

 

[Las Panteras]

Four years ago, Stewart Mandel predicted that eventually college football would form a 28-team league.

He called it the College Football Premier League.

A hypothetical 28-team league in which the top two teams in each division make an eight-team playoff. Schools were selected based on criteria like TV ratings, attendance figures, recent success and historical success.

Pitt was not one of those 28 teams. West Virginia is. Despite regularly producing NFL greats, not having won a major bowl game since 1982 doesn't help Pitt’s case. Nor does having won only two major bowl games in more than 75 years. That may be the reality on how Pitt is viewed by others.

The 28 teams were:
Clemson

lowa

Alabama

Oklahoma

Florida

Michigan

Arkansas

Oregon

Florida State

Michigan State

Miami

Nebraska

Auburn

Texas

Georgia

Texas A&M

Penn State

Notre Dame

LSU

UCLA

Virginia Tech

Ohio State

South Carolina

USC

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Tennessee

Washington

Im sorry,

But in terms of brand, fan enthusiasm....administration enthusiasm,

Pitt should bit be on that list.

If there is a breakaway of only 28 teams....no

48......on the bubble

64.....in

 

[Upg bobcat]

Georgia Tech can't become that because Georgia Tech doesn't have a bunch of majors that they can hide athletes who are substandard in academics like Miami (and most other schools) do.

For Miami it was easy to get any player they wanted admitted, and they had places to hide them to keep them eligible. For Georgia Tech it is harder to get some players admitted, and they do not have places to hide them once they are there.

I could be wrong, but I always thought until like the late 70s, Miami was a small private school with relatively tough admission standards. Then they started to make a commitment to football and it became the U. The lack of majors could be a hurdle, but I GT could make a decision to relax admission standards for purposes of the spots going to the recruits of the football program.

 

[Dan1911]

If Pitt consistently performs, we’ll be a brand the conference needs and will stop being ignored. I’m only worried about Pitt. Btw, exactly what has VT done to make them a brand? I’ll put our national championships, hall of famers and tradition against every school in the ACC.

 

[Burgh15]

If Pitt consistently performs, we’ll be a brand the conference needs and will stop being ignored. I’m only worried about Pitt. Btw, exactly what has VT done to make them a brand? I’ll put our national championships, hall of famers and tradition against every school in the ACC.

Pack a stadium and play Enter Sandman for the player entrance. That’s all I’ve got.

 

[FIVE4PITT]

That's just a guess some of those teams haven't been relevant for years and aren't going to be anytime soon. Pitt is a great brand with it's history, tradition and academics for any conference. The media is clueless they pick their darlings every year like Miami to win the ACC. They are like 3-12 against top 25 competition in recent years. Pitt out performs its rankings most years.

 

[cashisking884]

I’m not sure about VT. I’d put Lville ahead of them. Probably even UNC.

Ideally you need your teams capable of being powers, to play up to their potential.
If your best teams are 3* recruiting class teams, those teams can only be so good. Particularly when your legit powers are down.

This is why, even while the conference was down, the ACC had a better national perception than the PAC12, which was a better overall conference.
Clemson was a recruiting power that was playing like a national title contender. The PAC12 didn’t have an equivalent team.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Im sorry,

But in terms of brand, fan enthusiasm....administration enthusiasm,

Pitt should bit be on that list.

If there is a breakaway of only 28 teams....no

48......on the bubble

64.....in

I'm sorry but I can't put VaTech over Pitt on the Mandel list of 28. Literally outside of Vick, they are mediocre at best with decent attendance. But if attendance is a factor then USC & Miami shouldn't be included either.

So what is your argument for including VaTech on the list and not Pitt?

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

If Pitt consistently performs, we’ll be a brand the conference needs and will stop being ignored. I’m only worried about Pitt. Btw, exactly what has VT done to make them a brand? I’ll put our national championships, hall of famers and tradition against every school in the ACC.

that's what still burns me up about the Wanny years. Big East really needed Pitt to step up, and it was also a chance to enhance our brand as well. Easy schedules, decent recruiting, but still let Cinci, UCONN & WVU out perform us.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

I'm sorry but I can't put VaTech over Pitt on the Mandel list of 28. Literally outside of Vick, they are mediocre at best with decent attendance. But if attendance is a factor then USC & Miami shouldn't be included either.

So what is your argument for including VaTech on the list and not Pitt?

Sometimes infamous things actually perversely help your program’s stature. They’ve had the terrible campus shootings, of course. Hard to think it “helps” their football but it certainly made the school greatly sympathetic, and I think that resonates even to this day, much like a Columbine, etc. More to the football point, they’ve had Vick dog murders, his brother’s bizarre criminal antics, and a couple other notorious football alum that have had violent trouble with the law. Much like Miami’s history of violent, even murderous criminals, it perversely resonates positively for them.

As usual squeaky clean, never cheat, always self report, suspend guys for having a car towed, etc … Pitt is left holding the bag.

 

[pittdan77]

I’m not sure about VT. I’d put Lville ahead of them. Probably even UNC.

Ideally you need your teams capable of being powers, to play up to their potential.
If your best teams are 3* recruiting class teams, those teams can only be so good. Particularly when your legit powers are down.

This is why, even while the conference was down, the ACC had a better national perception than the PAC12, which was a better overall conference.
Clemson was a recruiting power that was playing like a national title contender. The PAC12 didn’t have an equivalent team.

I was thinking the same. VT had one really good run and seems to get a lot of love for it.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I was thinking the same. VT had one really good run and seems to get a lot of love for it.

VT finished in the top ten 7 times over a 15 year period between 1995 and 2009. VT finished ranked 13 of those 15 years, and following that, finishes ranked 4 of the next 8 seasons.

Pitt hasn't had a streak similar to that since 1975-1989: 5 top ten finishes and 9 ranked finishes over that 15 year period. Before and after that period, giant cliffs.

When Pitt has a chance to finish in the top 10 for the first time in 39 years (let that sink in), it proceeds to lose to a very beatable MSU team. People go crazy about Pitt finishing ranked back-to-back for the first time in 39 years while at the same time proclaiming the sour grapes of the meaninglessness of bowl games and opt outs.

Consistently getting ranked, finishing ranked, getting into the top 10, and ending seasons with meaningful, rank-impacting bowl wins, is critical for Pitt if it ever helps to regain the juice it had at the end of the 80s.

 

[accindc]

The team needing removed from list is Nebraska. Their time has come and gone. Never say never in terms of returning to prominence but of those 28. Nebraska is the most dead.

 

[cashisking884]

VT finished in the top ten 7 times over a 15 year period between 1995 and 2009. VT finished ranked 13 of those 15 years, and following that, finishes ranked 4 of the next 8 seasons.

Pitt hasn't had a streak similar to that since 1975-1989: 5 top ten finishes and 9 ranked finishes over that 15 year period. Before and after that period, giant cliffs.

When Pitt has a chance to finish in the top 10 for the first time in 39 years (let that sink in), it proceeds to lose to a very beatable MSU team. People go crazy about Pitt finishing ranked back-to-back for the first time in 39 years while at the same time proclaiming the sour grapes of the meaninglessness of bowl games and opt outs.

I would put VT over Pitt in terms of ceiling.

But I wouldn’t put VT as 4th in the ACC in terms of ceiling.

I’d put other programs ahead of them.

 

[Gep Dawg]

Pitt has won 3 major bowl games in the last 75 years. 76 and 81 Sugar and 79 Fiesta. Not sure this matters anymore since so many guys don't play even the major bowls now if they aren't a playoff game.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I could be wrong, but I always thought until like the late 70s, Miami was a small private school with relatively tough admission standards. Then they started to make a commitment to football and it became the U. The lack of majors could be a hurdle, but I GT could make a decision to relax admission standards for purposes of the spots going to the recruits of the football program.

Georgia Tech can (and does to some degree) relax their admission standards for football players, but they are not going to completely change the nature of the school to accommodate football players.

 

[revampedpanthers]

I listened to Mark Packer on ACC PM yesterday. He had some interesting comments about the ACC "brand" as it relates to football. Specifically, that besides Clemson, the three other teams that need to be relevant are FSU, Miami, and VT. Those are the three schools that have the brand recognition for the conference. Period.

That's perception. Reality? Aside from Clemson, the only other ACC team that's been relevant recently (since the start of the BCS in 2014) is Pitt. And we (Pitt) are a distant second to Clemson in terms of conference wins.

That said, in the wake of the past week's conference shakeups, is Packer correct? Does the ACC have to have those specific three teams be the ones relevant?

My thoughts? FSU, yes. Miami, maybe. VT, no. The Frank Beamer days @ VT have long since sailed, and despite their success during his reign, I don't think their future will live up to his. They do have a large and vocal/loyal fan base, regionally

Miami, OTOH, has the football/pro sports/major city and recruiting attraction, but the fan base is much like Pitt's. It's stifled by the presence of the other professional sports teams. And has Miami lost some of the swagger that it had during the '80's and '90's when it was a "love 'em or hate 'em team?

Which leads me back to how does Pitt promote/brand itself as one of the programs that might "save" the ACC, even as one of its newest member schools? Would touting the football program's success in developing NFL (and HOF talent) carry any weight?

A lot to digest. And I keep looking at what possibilities there could be for the ACC and/or its teams in the weeks ahead as the PAC-12/4 is finally settled. I truly believe that our legacy will be solid enough to keep Pitt in a relevant position in NCAA sports

I don't see vt as a bigger program than pitt or nc state. The acc does need another program to step up. NC is just as important as any of the others listed. Pitt I think has settled into that 8-4 type of team which is good. Perhaps another 10 win season begins to move us past that point, but honestly don't expect that this year. To be in a relevant position pitt needs to sustain winning at the level we have the last 2 years and do it for another 8. That likely builds the fan base another 10k for home games and makes us a regular top 25 team which helps draw ratings.

 

[revampedpanthers]

Im sorry,

But in terms of brand, fan enthusiasm....administration enthusiasm,

Pitt should bit be on that list.

If there is a breakaway of only 28 teams....no

48......on the bubble

64.....in

And the fact he included wvu is laughable. But wvu's reputation took a huge jump during the rich rod and following years and has taken a huge hit the last 4 years. It's amazing what 4 or 5 year stretch can do for perception especially for a solid program like a pitt or wvu. You could add vt into that as well.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I listened to Mark Packer on ACC PM yesterday. He had some interesting comments about the ACC "brand" as it relates to football. Specifically, that besides Clemson, the three other teams that need to be relevant are FSU, Miami, and VT. Those are the three schools that have the brand recognition for the conference. Period.

That's perception. Reality? Aside from Clemson, the only other ACC team that's been relevant recently (since the start of the BCS in 2014) is Pitt. And we (Pitt) are a distant second to Clemson in terms of conference wins.

That said, in the wake of the past week's conference shakeups, is Packer correct? Does the ACC have to have those specific three teams be the ones relevant?

My thoughts? FSU, yes. Miami, maybe. VT, no. The Frank Beamer days @ VT have long since sailed, and despite their success during his reign, I don't think their future will live up to his. They do have a large and vocal/loyal fan base, regionally

Miami, OTOH, has the football/pro sports/major city and recruiting attraction, but the fan base is much like Pitt's. It's stifled by the presence of the other professional sports teams. And has Miami lost some of the swagger that it had during the '80's and '90's when it was a "love 'em or hate 'em team?

Which leads me back to how does Pitt promote/brand itself as one of the programs that might "save" the ACC, even as one of its newest member schools? Would touting the football program's success in developing NFL (and HOF talent) carry any weight?

A lot to digest. And I keep looking at what possibilities there could be for the ACC and/or its teams in the weeks ahead as the PAC-12/4 is finally settled. I truly believe that our legacy will be solid enough to keep Pitt in a relevant position in NCAA sports

Ya know I thought about this........and thankfully they switched back, but I believe Pitt football lost alot of that brand identity when they switched from Pitt to Pittsburgh and the color schemes and logo. Steve Pederson, the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[revampedpanthers]

And the fact he included wvu is laughable. But wvu's reputation took a huge jump during the rich rod and following years and has taken a huge hit the last 4 years. It's amazing what 4 or 5 year stretch can do for perception especially for a solid program like a pitt or wvu. You could add vt into that as well.

I didn't realize VT run was quite as long as it was they had a 15 year run but they have been pretty mediocre for the last 12 years. And we're pretty mediocre before.

 

[cbpitt2]

Pitt has won 3 major bowl games in the last 75 years. 76 and 81 Sugar and 79 Fiesta. Not sure this matters anymore since so many guys don't play even the major bowls now if they aren't a playoff game.

The Fiesta Bowl wasn't considered a major bowl game till 1987. At the time, the traditional four "major" bowl games granted automatic bids to their conference champions.

The 1987 and 1989 games were two of four straight matchups of teams ranked in the AP Top 10 going into the bowl season to close out the 1980s. This significantly increased the Fiesta Bowl's prestige, to the point that it was now considered a major bowl by many fans and pundits.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

VT finished in the top ten 7 times over a 15 year period between 1995 and 2009. VT finished ranked 13 of those 15 years, and following that, finishes ranked 4 of the next 8 seasons.

Pitt hasn't had a streak similar to that since 1975-1989: 5 top ten finishes and 9 ranked finishes over that 15 year period. Before and after that period, giant cliffs.

When Pitt has a chance to finish in the top 10 for the first time in 39 years (let that sink in), it proceeds to lose to a very beatable MSU team. People go crazy about Pitt finishing ranked back-to-back for the first time in 39 years while at the same time proclaiming the sour grapes of the meaninglessness of bowl games and opt outs.

Consistently getting ranked, finishing ranked, getting into the top 10, and ending seasons with meaningful, rank-impacting bowl wins, is critical for Pitt if it ever helps to regain the juice it had at the end of the 80s.

I stand corrected. I didn't realize the sustained success of VTech, but similar to Nebraska & Miami are now really in a rut that seems like it will take a long time to get back to that kind of glory.

Yeah, there was a lot on the line for that Peach Bowl, 12 win season, top 10 ranking, and the 1st season with less than 3 losses since 1981. Still a great season, but a missed opportunity to leave a big mark with a top 10 finish.

 

[Las Panteras]

I'm sorry but I can't put VaTech over Pitt on the Mandel list of 28. Literally outside of Vick, they are mediocre at best with decent attendance. But if attendance is a factor then USC & Miami shouldn't be included either.

So what is your argument for including VaTech on the list and not Pitt?

Miami and USC are on that list in spite of bad attendance as each has a brand worthy of top 28 AS WELL AS the distinct possibility of being very good every year

VA tech in our lifetimes has had more success than Pitt.

To me.....this list represents schools that take their football far more seriously than Pitt.

I might add.....

One way to build your brand and become a solid candidate for expansion is to have sold out stadiums or at least....not 30K yellow seats every Saturday.


Every one of those 28 teams offers a better brand. What some lack in attendance is made up in winning.

I will argue this to my grave......if Pitt tore down the stadium and built a multi pupose house with 45K for football, our history is not only better but we wouldnt be sweating realignment.

We would have everything a conference would want.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Miami and USC are on that list in spite of bad attendance as each has a brand worthy of top 28 AS WELL AS the distinct possibility of being very good every year

VA tech in our lifetimes has had more success than Pitt.

To me.....this list represents schools that take their football far more seriously than Pitt.

I might add.....

One way to build your brand and become a solid candidate for expansion is to have sold out stadiums or at least....not 30K yellow seats every Saturday.


Every one of those 28 teams offers a better brand. What some lack in attendance is made up in winning.

I will argue this to my grave......if Pitt tore down the stadium and built a multi pupose house with 45K for football, our history is not only better but we wouldnt be sweating realignment.

We would have everything a conference would want.

I would love an on campus stadium as well but a reminder that the next to last game played on campus against a ranked Miami team failed to draw 35k. Winning would cure a lot of woes at Acrisure

 

[Burgh15]

I will argue this to my grave......if Pitt tore down the stadium and built a multi pupose house with 45K for football, our history is not only better but we wouldnt be sweating realignment.

If Pitt was playing in a football/basketball bubble they would be talked about as having one of the worst stadiums in college football.

 

[Las Panteras]

If Pitt was playing in a football/basketball bubble they would be talked about as having one of the worst stadiums in college football.

What a coincidence.

We already are talked about that way

 

[Burgh15]

What a coincidence.

We already are talked about that way

People around the country really think The Pete is a dump? I think it's nice having seatbacks, a quality sound system, huge scoreboard, numerous bathrooms and concessions that blow away every college stadium I've ever been in.

 

[Jeffburgh]

I was thinking the same. VT had one really good run and seems to get a lot of love for it.

YEP.

Their image gets more shine than it should off the Beamer high years, which were pretty good, not great.

Finished inside the top 10 four times in twenty four years, 2, 6, 7, 9.

 

[WillyDavis33]

Perception - Pitt won 12-14 games the last 2 seasons

Reality - Pitt won 20 games the last 2 seasons