Pitt Med, great idea! Multi use Jackson State Stadium without dome is $200M
- Thread starter Z #2
- Start date
Great....use it for academic scholarships. Did Tepper play FB?? BB?? VMB???
Making friends again NTOP. You should try not being so arrogant and abrasive. Using the word "stupid" should give you a clue people won't take kindly to you. Just trying to help a friend. Seriously when did you decide to hijack our football site. Go over to BWI and do some good work over there. That would be respectable.
I would donate heavy dollars for what you are suggesting. A no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Let this idea morph into an on campus stadium please.
Coming from a true hoop guy. Football is king and hoops mean very little compared to football. Do your research on expansion then come back and read the rest of this post. I go to every hoop game and will be sitting on floor tomorrow night. With that said hoops doesn't supply the dollars that a great football program does. Apply the 80/20 rule here with where long range strategic dollars go. Do I need to explain that to you? Let me know and I will explain without considering you stupid.
With that said, at Pitt hoops has supplied more dollars over the last decade than football has. In fact when you take into account donations it isn't even close.
Don't believe you're accurately describing effort but maybe you've seen a study that I haven't. BTW if a #7 Pitt team played a #1 Duke at the Consol Energy Center that place would be crazy. And if an unranked Pitt played Wake Forrest..........well based on the game I attended last week at The Pete who cares.
Interesting point of view. So are you saying basketball secured Pitt's future regarding expansion and the ACC bid and more important the contracts that were secured by the conference? So you think football is just a piece of our future and not the single most important part?
Hey BTW I read a year or two ago that one Saturday in football generates more revenue than the entire basketball season. Not sure how accurate that article was but what's your thoughts on that if accurate?
At some schools that certainly could be true. Pitt isn't one of them. If it ever was it was probably back in the 30s when we were playing national power Fordham in front of 65,000 people at Pitt Stadium.
I think exactly what I said. That it is a matter of fact that over the last decade Pitt has made more money from basketball than from football. It is also a matter of fact that when you take into account the donation levels at the two venues that basketball was responsible for far more donations than football was responsible for. It is no coincidence that Pitt's fund raising, meager as it is, saw it's greatest increase from the required donation levels at the Petersen Center for basketball, not from anything that happened at Heinz.
Now if you want to ask if that's the way it "should" be or if that's the way that it is at most schools, then the answer is no, that isn't the way that it is at most schools and it shouldn't be that way at Pitt either. But that doesn't change the fact that it has been that way at Pitt. Doesn't change it even a little wee bit.
Maybe I didn't explain what I read very well. What I read was that one Saturday in all of college football generates more revenue in all of college hoops for the entire year. You can focus in on Pitt hoops if you like but every study shows hoop revenue is a distant player compared to football revenue. You don't see Nova, UCONN or other great hoop only schools in the ACC. Wonder why? Philly is bigger market than Pittsburgh. Strange why ACC took a struggling football program over a great hoop program. Unless of course you think the ACC brought Pitt in because of hoops. Food for thought.........in 2011 the top 15 highest grossing football programs was more than
$1 billion. In 2011 the top 15 hoop programs brought in $293 million dollars. So my point stands at Pitt as well. Basketball is a cute revanue source but any legitimate Administrator would put their long term strategic effort pointed directly at getting Pitt football back on campus.
One more thing to consider....in 2012-2013 the University of Kentucky projected a profit of $18.1 million for football and $8.2 million profit for the basketball program. Just sayin.
As Joe has correctly pointed out....Basketball donations are what have essentially kept the athletic department afloat. Not the way it is at most schools....and certainly is not optimum
But that is the direction the previous regime chose to go.That said, I think we all sense a shift in thinking at Pitt....back to football.
BTW.......since what Joe has described is 100% accurate, I would ask the "tear down the Pete and build a stadium" gang.......
Are you certain that is the right move given where the majority of donations are coming from today?
But that is the direction the previous regime chose to go.That said, I think we all sense a shift in thinking at Pitt....back to football.
BTW.......since what Joe has described is 100% accurate, I would ask the "tear down the Pete and build a stadium" gang.......
Are you certain that is the right move given where the majority of donations are coming from today?
Not to mention, profits are a little bit more important than revenues.
Using the following link from 2013-2014 (latest report I could find), it looks like Pitt more or less has been spending an equivalent amount on football to what the team brings in. The football team isn't especially profitable, which is an issue for a school like Pitt. So, yeah, I'd imagine these revenues trump anything else in Pitt's athletic department, but I'm sure the expenses do as well:
LINK
Thank god someone said it. The multi-use (in terms of football and basketball dual use) facilities are terrible. Also would hate playing football in a dome in Pittsburgh.
If this facility cost $200M in Mississippi , state known to be anti-union, the labor costs in pro labor state like Pa. will double that. Then add the cost of buying land in Pittsburgh versus Mississippi and the cost leaps even higher. Would love OCS but I think it can't happen
You aren't respectable. Tell us again that you're smarter than me. Or how successful you are. Blowhard. I'm not your friend....my friends are good people.
You explained what you read well enough. But for some reason you can't seem to understand the difference between the way that things are in places like Alabama and Ohio State and the way that things are at Pitt. You can't seem to understand that it doesn't really matter if the top 15 highest grossing football programs brought in $1 billion, because not only is Pitt not one of those schools Pitt isn't even close to them. Not by a long shot.
By the way, do you want to know the reason that Kentucky makes $18 million for football and Pitt doesn't come anywhere close to that? Way back when Pitt played Kent State in the Sweet 16 at Rupp Arena I bought tickets for the game through the Kentucky box office. That got me on the Kentucky mailing list for several years. They used to send me their athletic department magazine. One issue had the football stadium map with the current required donation levels for each section of the stadium. At Heinz I sit at the 40 yard line in the highest non-club donation level seats. I have to donate $100 per ticket. Back then, well more than a decade ago now, to sit in the same seats in Kentucky's stadium I would have had to donate $1000. Not total. Per ticket. In other words, to sit in a good non-club seat at a football game at Kentucky more than a decade ago cost double the donation per ticket as a 50 yard line club seat at Heinz does today. Imagine how many people would be sitting in those seats at Heinz if you had to pay a $1000 donation per seat instead of $100 per seat. Or extrapolate those numbers out a little bit. How many club seats do you suppose Pitt would sell if people had to donate $5000 PER SEAT to sit in those seats? That means that someone would have to donate $10000 just to get two tickets. Do you realize how few $10000 donors Pitt even has?
Kentucky makes lots of money on football because Kentucky fans donate giant piles of money to Kentucky specifically for football (in addition to the giant piles of money they donate for basketball). Pitt makes hardly any money on football because Pitt fans don't donate a whole lot of money for anything, football included.
Under zero circumstances is the Pitt basketball program the number one priority for this Athletic Department. The move to the ACC is what saved the AD. Revenue increase is what will take Pitt to where we want to be. I would assume that a football program on par with a top 20 program would increase donations. When this site was on its knees begging for a P5 invite basketball revenue and donations were far from administration glee. I will use the Kentucky example I provided as one example of arguing the obvious regarding where the revenue comes from. Obviously donations(and where they are credited to) may have value. But when the hoop program adds $100 million of donations that would still be roughly $27 million less than PSU AD brought in. I'm talking about a Pitt program that is in the ACC going to New Year day bowl games. Doubt hoops would keep up with that in revenue or donations. Agree to disagree on Basketball's place in the food chain. Whatever is best for that pursuit gets my vote and money.
Aw come on man let's be friends. Your posts are awesome. Enjoy them. I miss your NTOP notes on the hoop side. They use to educate me and make me shake my head all at the same time. Based on your notes I assumed you had no friends. And you come off as very insecure and jealous. You may want to consider posting something of substance. Lastly thanks for not ignoring me. I enjoy our relationship.
Your first paragraph is off. I obviously understand Pitt isn't FSU(if you don't mind using ACC FSU instead of Bama) right now. My point was Pitt's long term plan would have to be pointed toward a top 20 football program and the revenue that it would produce. You would concede that the Chancellor, AD, HCPN and just about every booster would agree to that right?
Your last paragraph is off. Pitt is in the ACC for one reason. Football. Not hoops. Not academics. Not wrestling(sorry doc). Revenue has already increased about 3 times more than when we were in the Big East. Thanks to the football program. Not hoops. Revenue related to football in comparison to basketball(and that's UK hoops) is not even close. I'm not just talking about two years ago or today. I'm mainly talking about 10 years from now. You are stuck on where the money is coming from. To me it's one business vs. another business. The long term strategic plan of this athletic department wisely would be focused on what is best long term for the best revenue source. That would be football. When the University of Minnesota spent millions on long term strategic planning why do you think they decided that an on campus stadium was crucial? Because increased revenue would justify the investment and dramatically increase revenue long term.
Your second paragraph is different but ok. Thanks for the effort and great story but you actually established that football drives revenue. My seats at Heinz are at the 45 in the club. I mean it's not like we would pay $1000 for a great middle seat in the library right? Or for a seat at a track meet. So UK can hammer you all day but ask UCONN how important football is as they languish. What's obvious is we are talking about two different things. Anyone arguing that basketball is as important to long term strategic planning within the AD as football is misguided. How bout when the GOR contracts end in 8-10 years? You think Pitt will put their hoop foot forward if the ACC falls and the big 12 survives? Not a F'n chance. We would be joining UCONN in the AAU wondering what just happened.
You may want to re-read Las Panteras second paragraph
You just bloviated on and on that you essentially agree with his post.
Should have stopped when you were behind.
Hint, think revenue minus expenses.
It took acc money to make Pitt football have Any kind of margin.
Prior to that hoops was the profit leader... It's not debatable.
Pitt fans have demonstrated over decades they really don't care about football.... Not with their wallets.
Last edited:
Just some historical perspective....when Pitt FB was top 5 for several years....donations & attendance were pretty pedestrian. We have NEVER raised big revenues for FB OR BB, compared to schools elsewhere. BB has been profitable over the last 12-15 years because of seat donation requirements and the lower cost for 13 kids vs. 85 or more. FB revenue is about equal, I think, but costs much greater. Frankly, it's pretty amazing that we aren't in worse shape. Tix at HF or the Pete are pretty cheap....even with the Club donation for hoops at $1500/seat. The prior AD didn't do much with growing smaller donations...hunted elephants.
But Pitt has NEVER been a big revenue school. Not sure it ever will be. Sad, but true.
Nope not if his point is basketball is critical to the overall position of our athletic department and that the hoop donations kept the department afloat. Not the case. But thanks for adding to the pissing contest. I have given to both sides but know damn well we aren't UCONN because of football.
Last edited:
I get that NTOP I do. I guess my overall point is that if not for football we are not in the ACC. So hoops provides only a small portion to the long range revenue perspective. My argument, right or wrong, simply is football needs to be back on campus. How that's done or if it is even considered is a topic I really don't have much interest in. I'm just saying Minnisota barked up the right tree and got it done. Pitt at Heinz field will never work year in year out IMO. You know me from the hoop side!!! Love hoops. Remember watching the real Big Games at Fitz when I was going B to Pitt in the 80s. I was at 50 feet from Lane's monster dunk. I love the Pete. But under ALL circumstances I believe Pitt needs that stadium back closer to campus. Pipe dream I get. But warts for football program til it happens.
Your pro hoop stance doesn't line up with this admin for long range planning. You were perfectly lined up with the guys that left. Thank God football got us into the ACC. Or you just want to keeping ignoring that part of the argument. I'm arguing that long range planning needs to focus on football and also get the football program back on campus or revenue will under perform. The hoop program never could and never will keep the Athletic Department afloat. We good?
You missed the memo. I'm talking about long range planning and where the priorities are or at least should be. Pitt gets the ACC revenues, up from around $7 million per, for one reason and only one reason. Football footprint. Now that's what's not debatable. Prior........blah blah doesn't mean crap at this point. Hey if any of you guys need someone to say thank God hoops was making money in the Big East I would laugh in your face and say thank God BC cockblocked UCONN from having our spot in the ACC. Make a call up to UCONN and see how that worked out. Men's and women's hoops really delivered for them huh? But wait the hoop program up there has kept the AD afloat. Screw football!!! Pitt got lucky that BC refused UCONN or Nordy and SP would have crushed our long term viability. But hey have at your 2005-2010 perspectives.
Some more historical perspective... Pitt's admin, when it comes to football, has not been supportive in a consistent way. I'd argue that this is why donations are historically lacking (or pedestrian as you put it) and perhaps more importantly, it is why prior ADs were not successful with hunting more of those elephants.
Organizations typically don't receive huge donations without first convincing those individuals to donate at much smaller levels for a period of years or decades. The idea that Pitt football could suddenly start receiving mega contributions from unspecified wealthy individuals is extremely unlikely (although still possible).
The solution to Pitt's athletics funding problem still has decades to go. That is ONLY if Pitt football is fortunate to have the same level of leadership commitment that Gallagher and Barns are currently providing.
It is my belief that playing in the Steelers stadium, while perceived as financially more sustainable, ultimately hurts the long term goal Pitt athletics should be striving to achieve.
I don't have a pro hoops agenda.'m
I'm a season ticket Owner for 14 years with club seats.
I have a fact agenda.
BC had almost nothing to do with UConn not getting into the ACC. UConn isn't in because its neophyte football program has no national cache and a low ceiling. BC certainly didn't go to bat for them but they don't wield that sort of power on Tobacco Road to affect the block of a school like UConn.
Pitt is in the ACC almost solely due to the prior administration, and that move, and most others, were made entirely for football.
The current administration is not funding athletics at a higher level than the prior administration. The ACC is.
Last edited:
Facts? So you continue to think basketball revenue is factually more than football revenue? Or more importantly potential revenue for hoops produces more than football revenue long term? Are you one of those that think hoops had something to do Pitt getting into ACC? The $20+ million we get is all about football right? Do you concede that? Educate me on the revenue facts please. Not donations. Revenue. I'm confused on the ACC football TV contracts. Thanks in advance
Look what I actually said .
I said for about a decade hoops made more profit for the ad (revenue - expenses) than football.
You see...when football generates $24mik in revenue but expenses are $22mil you clear $2 mil to fund other sports .
When hoops makes $17 mil in revenue and costs $12 mil... It yields $5mil in funds for others sports.
And no, the tv revenue is not all about about football .. Though it mostly is.
Fixating on revenue is missing half the equation .
And it takes applying the tv revenue to football to increase our Margin.
Because literally for decades Pitt fans have demonstrated they won't pay a premium price for tickets and they won't donate to watch Pitt football .
If you can't grasp that, we're done talking .
Passively my sourced information is different from yours regarding UCONN. But the meat of your post is what I've been saying to the hoop guys that over value basketball and look at the Pete as holy ground. That decision to go to Heinz has jeopardized our future. Im not saying it was bad at the time. Just bad long term. If we were in the AAC we would be getting Temple crowds down there. I'm convinced that there is one last power play coming when GOR is renegotiated around 2022-2025. Now is the time to pour resources into that football program. Including getting that program back on campus. Defending the Pete may or may not be appropriate. But if that's the only place for the football program to come back home then so be it because football, not basketball and not both, is the only thing we should focus on until the last round of realignment is put to bed.
You ran off into left field crunching numbers. Have at it 4L. You haven't stated one thing that is earth shattering. Here's my point that I made again as clear as I can make it. Basketball doesn't mean dick long term and football means everything long term. So for those that say leave football at Heinz and don't come near The Pete for real estate I say the long term plan must have basketball needs as a very secondary priority. A second point I made was I have no idea what the solution looks like and how viable a move back to Oakland would be. Or timeline. But like any SWAT analysis would show there are threats that a strong hoop program would not even put a scratch on. Only a strong football program would combat long term threats to the Athletic Department.
