Lowering the standards wouldn't help if they all fail out though. You can't get any degree at GT without a certain amount of calculus credits. That weeds out a lot of people.
Perception vs reality - the brand
- Thread starter Chairman Moe
- Start date
by who? Recruits don't complain about facilities. Opposing fans are usually very impressed. Talk to some Tennessee fans. Did you go to the game at UCF? The stadium was literally a glorified high school stadium.
Pitt’s lack of an on-campus stadium has nothing do with it. Pitt’s issues are pretty simple:
1. It’s a college team in a pro sports town
2. It’s relatively small compared to other P5 schools
3. It has a large commuter student population
4. They haven’t had much success in the modern era of CFB outside of a 10 year stretch more than 40 years ago
5. The school is located in a region of the country where the population has been in decline for more than 50 years
I’ve moved past the on campus stadium question. Acrisure is fine. It’s not perfect but it’s much more practical than a stadium in Oakland would ever be.
Last edited:
good summary, but I would replace#3 as a majority now reside on-campus, it's not like it was in the 80's. Instead I would replace it with surrounded by much competition for local recruits in a relatively small radius (PSU, WVU, OSU all within 3 hours), plus the draw of ND which has always recruited WPA pretty hard.
and I may also add one more.
6. Failing to capitalize on opportunities. Paco pointed out that 2021 would have been a chance to finish in the top 10 for the first time since 1982. A great season, but a missed chance as MSU was very beatable. Should have buried egos with Whipple and had him coach, and maybe Pickett doesn't opt out. Other missed chances were 2009, a good senior laden team & favorable schedule should have also been a top 10 finish. And I'm on record as saying last year was a good season while KP8 is vociferous it was a disappointment. I think we can both be right on this. Yeah it was good, but missed a chance at doing better by losing winnable games with GaTech, and even Tennessee.
So if we had a couple top 10 finishes, a top 25 in 2015 & 2016 (losing the bowl games knocked out of top 25), and maybe followed up last year in the top15 instead of barely top 25, perception would change greatly.
I disagree with you.
I wont re-ignite this debate.
But a 45K stadium on campus greatly enhances our perception, and it seems that plays a part (how big admittedly can be debated) in all of this.
Number 3 is false. About 96% of Pitt freshmen live in the dorms, and nearly 50% of Pitt freshmen are from out of state (that would be one hell of a commute).
It matters. It means many Pitt alumni didn’t have the traditional college experience. Most (not all) commuter students weren’t around campus on the weekends, had fewer connections with students on campus, and didn’t become invested in the team. A lot of city universities deal with the same issue.
Try 50.
The vast majority of living Pitt alumni did not experience it as a commuter school.
Last edited:
I’m not sure that’s true. But assuming it is.
Would perception of the ACC change greatly?
Packer’s point is *these* are the 4 teams that have to be good for the perception of the ACC as an on-field product to be good.
Does Pitt finishing in the Top 10, or Wake, or UVA, or anybody he didn’t list, do the same thing?
We already did win the ACC. It's unlikely we ever go higher than that. It really didn't change things much.
I tire of the stadium discussion. But, I don't know what the answer is. The administration sure isn't going to build a stadium right now, given that nobody knows what the future holds.
Yeah, I think everyone is aware that Pitt's ticket based just doesn't match the capacity of the the stadium. However, Pitt has trended upward in attendance (even though the don't use the turnstile count), ranking 5th in % increase with a terrific student section. An on-campus stadium would be 1. on campus and 2. correctly sized. I'm not sure there would be any other upgrades over where Pitt is playing now (stadium amenities, access, parking, tailgating, the general scene outside the stadium, etc.)
On #1, it is not merely a "pro" town. The Steelers, if we are talking brand, are one of the 5 biggest, most recognizable brands in sports. The Penguins have pretty much had the best hockey player(s) in the world for the last 40 years.
When you add that, along with being bordered or infiltrated by Penn State and Ohio State, along with Notre Dame, 3 of the 7 biggest fanbases in college football, even if Pitt duplicates a run from 76-82, it is still limited to what it is going to get fanwise.
we averaged over 60K in 2003. Attendance at live sporting events is trending down so doubtful we hit those numbers again, but sustained winning and some returning star power and the numbers would definitely be higher
Pitt certainly would. A top 10 finish in 2009, 2021, top 15 last year, top 25 in 2015 & 2016....perception would have changed. Especially if it included back to back wins against Tennessee, beating MSU, etc
the 80's were still mostly commuters. The newest dorm was maybe Forbes Hall then? You had a choice of the Towers or Schenley quad, not much else.
Why would Pitt?
Packer’s point is largely that these are your recruiting powers in the ACC. These are the teams that, if they have it clicking, can field a roster and team capable of going shot for shot with the big boys. So if they are down, the conference has to be down. Because there are no other big boys.
I don’t think Pitt changes that. At best Pitt is Missouri in the SEC East when they won the East twice upon entering the League. That was evidence of how good Missouri must be to the public at large. It was evidence of how down the powers were in the SEC East.
This is the TCU vs Alabama playoff spot argument. Everybody understood that Bama had more talent and had a much better shot at beating some combo of Michigan/UGA/OSU. Even the people that supported TCU for the playoffs. TCU beating K State in the Big 12 title game wasn’t going to change that.
Pitt still has more brand recognition and tradition. And a string of finishes like I described would have definitely pumped up the perception of the ACC, if sprinkled in were some OOC wins against PSU, beat Tennessee twice, etc.
It’s not a “brand” problem in the ACC right now, at least as it relates to on-field product perception by the rest of the country.
I think it was yesterday that one of the WVU fans on the board, when summing up the new Big 12, said: it’s a conference that will never win a NC.
Why did that poster have that (correct) perception of the Big 12? Because there are no recruiting powers left in the conference. So how good can the best team possibly be? And so how good can the nation’s perception of the conference ever be?
3* teams can improve how the country perceives the overall depth of the conference.
They cannot change how the country perceives how much of a heavyweight power the conference is. Only the heavyweight recruiting powers can do that.
This might be true, but back then there weren't a ton of bowl games so in essence all of them were major. And considering the four "major" bowls (Cotton, Orange, Rose, and Sugar) did have conference tie ins (and making it extremely hard for more than one or two independents to even play in them before the BCS era) its pretty unfair to use the 50 year tag. As an independent Pitt was a pretty important program for most of the 1970s and 1980s and played in many big bowl games between top ranked teams at the time. And although not as big as they were in the glory day they have been pretty consistent and a winning program one level below since Walt came in the late 90s
Somewhere in the middle.
I got my Pitt degree in 1975, so about 50 years ago.
The majority of students were commuters.
My son got his Pitt degree in 2001. He lived in Southerland hall then commuted for the last two years.
The majority of current Pitt students are Oakland residents both dorms and private apartments.
Couple consolidated thoughts:
1) We're so much lower in the hierarchy than so many Pitt fans want to believe. In the modern era, we are talking six really good/great seasons out of how many? I think what makes so many people cling to the belief that we're more relevant than we are is the quality of top level players that have passed through here since. Quite the anomaly for a team that recruits where we do.
2) If every team in the ACC operated at its full potential, we'd be behind FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, VT, Louisville, NC State... and then Virginia and GT would probably be close. So appreciate what we've done lately, because things can "straighten themselves back out" on a dime
3) No way in hell we should ever build a stadium over 48k, in my opinion. I'm at the games, and I don't trust these announced attendance stats as far as I can throw them. We're lucky if we actually have more than 50k once per season. You build for the norm, not for the best-case scenario. And we averaged more people at Heinz in the early 2000s because the stadium was still a novelty that people wanted to see if they couldn't get Steeler tickets.
1) We're so much lower in the hierarchy than so many Pitt fans want to believe. In the modern era, we are talking six really good/great seasons out of how many? I think what makes so many people cling to the belief that we're more relevant than we are is the quality of top level players that have passed through here since. Quite the anomaly for a team that recruits where we do.
2) If every team in the ACC operated at its full potential, we'd be behind FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, VT, Louisville, NC State... and then Virginia and GT would probably be close. So appreciate what we've done lately, because things can "straighten themselves back out" on a dime
3) No way in hell we should ever build a stadium over 48k, in my opinion. I'm at the games, and I don't trust these announced attendance stats as far as I can throw them. We're lucky if we actually have more than 50k once per season. You build for the norm, not for the best-case scenario. And we averaged more people at Heinz in the early 2000s because the stadium was still a novelty that people wanted to see if they couldn't get Steeler tickets.
A lot her act like Pitt’s lack of stature in the sport was some cruel random act of fate. Let’s remember that Pitt itself chose to minimize football, not just once but multiple times, when the program was at or near the top nationally. Pitt largely deserves the plight it is in right now. Not so much the current administration but the sins of the ghosts of the past.
Even now Pitt doesn’t throw in nearly completely with the most competitive programs as far as money and perks to players. We certainly have to be a little pregnant, or we wouldn’t be competitive at all, and we do ok for what the admin allow our boosters to do (which is not ever very much). We certainly aren’t any further than toe-deep in the muck. Unfortunately to win to the level that might have made us appealing to one of the big 2, it isn’t close to enough.
Hence, we are where we are now largely because of the schools own decisions, both in the past and even right now. We were lucky to even make it this far. We should have been totally out of football in 1996. Anyone who saw / suffered through those terrible seasons knows it is true. And it was largely self-inflicted.
The squeaky clean thing was fine as long as the ACC/ESPN checks were coming in, but prospects for this bonanza continuing long term is starting to look very threatened.
Even now Pitt doesn’t throw in nearly completely with the most competitive programs as far as money and perks to players. We certainly have to be a little pregnant, or we wouldn’t be competitive at all, and we do ok for what the admin allow our boosters to do (which is not ever very much). We certainly aren’t any further than toe-deep in the muck. Unfortunately to win to the level that might have made us appealing to one of the big 2, it isn’t close to enough.
Hence, we are where we are now largely because of the schools own decisions, both in the past and even right now. We were lucky to even make it this far. We should have been totally out of football in 1996. Anyone who saw / suffered through those terrible seasons knows it is true. And it was largely self-inflicted.
The squeaky clean thing was fine as long as the ACC/ESPN checks were coming in, but prospects for this bonanza continuing long term is starting to look very threatened.
Last edited:
Great summary.
Pitt is and has been Pitt’s worst enemy.
I think this is Packer’s point.
I disagree about VT. I think they are in a next tier with 2 to 3 other teams. And I would have those teams even above them. But that can be debated.
But a conference needs its high ceiling teams to play up to its ceiling. Because you cannot replace those teams in terms of national perception.
The middle of a conference you can. If VT sucked but NC State was playing to its ceiling, nothing would be lost. Because their ceilings are probably interchangeable.
But if FSU sucks and NC State is good, something is lost for the conference. Because NC State’s ceiling is not FSU’s.
And if you aren’t the SEC, where you are flushed with high ceiling NC-worthy type teams, you basically need all of them to be peaking.
So the Astro Bluebonnet Bowl, the Liberty Bowl, the Holiday Bowl, etc., were in your mind major bowls as well since there weren't many? Only in your mind. Sorry Fiesta not major till 1987.
I think any bowl with two top 10-15 teams was a major bowl then. No matter how you try to minimize them based off their name status in todays oversaturated bowl market. It’s presentism to look at any other way. Pitt was a major National program at that time regardless of how you try to spin it.
You couldn't be more wrong. Cite me one link that refers to the '79 Fiesta as a major bowl. Just one. I even cited you a reference that said that there were only four Major bowls (Cotton, Rose, Orange and Sugar) before the Fiesta set up a national championship game in 1987. No major bowl game was played on Christmas day as was the 1979 Fiesta Bowl.
On top of which, Pitt was ranked 10th going into the '79 Fiesta Bowl, Arizona was unranked. So much for your two top 15 teams argument which was totally superfluous to the definition of a major bowl game.
Feel free to look at how the bowl games are differentiated. The FOUR major bowl games and the rest are OTHER bowl games. But please persist in being wrong.
1979 NCAA Division I-A football season - Wikipedia
Last edited:
People would see a sold out stadium that's totally dedicated to the backdrop of the university, not a shared environment where you're just a tenant. Have you ever been to an on campus stadium? Just walking across campus with tents, grills, etc.? Totally different vibe than going to the North Shore.
There’s a massive difference between playing in front of 50k people in a sold out 50k seat stadium. Not only for perception purposes on TV, but also for in-person recruiting.
The Pete is a perfect example. The SU basketball game last was electric in front of a sold out crowd of 12,500, but would not have been the same if played at PPG Paints Arena.
You couldn't be more wrong. Cite me one link that refers to the '79 Fiesta as a major bowl. Just one. I even cited you a reference that said that there were only four Major bowls (Cotton, Rose, Orange and Sugar) before the Fiesta set up a national championship game in 1987. No major bowl game was played on Christmas day as was the 1979 Fiesta Bowl.
On top of which, Pitt was ranked 10th going into the '79 Fiesta Bowl, Arizona was unranked. So much for your two top 15 teams argument which was totally superfluous to the definition of a major bowl game.
Feel free to look at how the bowl games are differentiated. The FOUR major bowl games and the rest are OTHER bowl games. But please persist in being wrong.
1979 NCAA Division I-A football season - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
We are arguing different things. It appears that your original intent was to discredit Pitt by saying they have only won 2 major bowls in 75 years when those bowls were considered Major Bowls. My point there is that its unfair since only a handful of independent teams were eligible to play in those bowls and even then invites weren't always the highest ranked teams. A perfect example of this was the 1980 Pitt team that finished 2nd in the country but ended up playing in the Gator Bowl. They were ranked 3rd in the country going into that game but because they didn't play in and win a "Major" bowl that year it doesn't matter to you. Same with the 1979 team that was 10-1 but was ranked 10th because of biased voters so they got passed (or didn't have the conference tie in) over by other big conference teams for the major bowls. To discredit that team because they got stuck in the Fiesta bowl because of conference politics and BS is ridiculous. And to say the Fiesta was not a major is fine. But don't forget that other major bowls (i.e. Cotton Bowl from from the late 80s to the 4 team playoff started in 2014) weren't always considered major as well. And in the past other bowls like Sun and Liberty were considered bigger and drew big tv audiences over bowls that are considered major today.
You can argue the fairness all you want. I didn't make up the definition/criteria of which are the major bowls nor when they became major bowls. Pitt was not the only independent then. Independent Notre Dame played in the Sugar, Orange and Cotton Bowls. Independent Syracuse played in major bowl games. Independent Penn State played in the Orange, Sugar and Cotton Bowls and
numerous Fiesta Bowls before 1987 and NO ONE counts those Fiesta Bowls prior to 1987 as a major bowl but you want to count it for Pitt? You are WRONGLY changing criteria to suit yourself and create your own Pitt-serving definition.
