ADVERTISEMENT

Power 5 football programs by revenue

I believe the list is more about revenue and profit not so much about spending. Yes, you have to invest to make money, but I think it has more to do about bad decisions and the financial consequences.

For example, how much did Pitt pay for contract buyouts over the last few years? Because of poor coaching hires, the basketball attendance took a nosedive, Then there’s branding, mediocre results in the sports program, etc... that contributes to these numbers...
 
The administration needs to do a much better job of getting NFL and Rich alum to donate. If you are relying on the average joe's to fund it you are wasting your time. Look at the bigger numbers on that chart. Big land grant schools with twice the enrollment of Pitt. Stop trying to compare us to these large land grant schools
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittmeister
The administration needs to do a much better job of getting NFL and Rich alum to donate. If you are relying on the average joe's to fund it you are wasting your time. Look at the bigger numbers on that chart. Big land grant schools with twice the enrollment of Pitt. Stop trying to compare us to these large land grant schools

My biggest gripe about Pitt is their inability to think outside the box on every issue. In this case, they have to do better in generating revenue besides raising ticket prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_vmuicqnzlyp3u
I do get the contingent that say the average Pitt fan is cheap and won't dig deep.

I also get those who like to reference that Pitt was a great program in the late 70s and donations and attendance didn't skyrocket then, as proof that it wouldn't happen with success now, either.

I can only offer that things like sports as entertainment, consumer behavior, discretionary income, competition for local spending, and the general local economy have all changed dramatically since circa 1978.

In that year the Steelers were heading to a fourth Super bowl win (Pitt only had won one championship in comparison), ESPN didn't exist (sports were not as important in entertainment mainstream), people didn't blow as much money on entertainment, and the Pittsburgh economy was tumbling and heading for a genuine disaster. There wasn't as much room in the local attention span, or especially in local spending, for leaping on both the Steelers and Pitt bandwagons at the same time. People went with the one that finished the job 4 out of 6 years. We were good, but we couldn't match that dazzling success. So laid off yinzers, pulverized by high inflation as well, chose one over the other.

The Steelers waxed and waned since then, but usually remained good, went to 4 more SBs, to justify keeping and increasing fan attention.

Meanwhile all those other things changed, sports became a much bigger part of entertainment, and people's habits changed as well, more willing and able to spend and attend more on sports.

But Pitt gave absolutely NO reason at all, not any, in the past 40 years, to deserve that added attention and spending.

The debate now is, would people rush in and get excited and spend and attend if Pitt suddenly could become as relevant again as the late 70s?

Most here seem to think not, but I think otherwise, and my point of reference there are the Penguins. The Pens stretched the regions interest and spending beyond the Steelers. It proved this region will throw in behind any major league winners and reward them with riches well beyond the investment needed. But it took the Pens sustained winning and multiple championships. BEFORE that happened. It would take no less for Pitt.
 
It won't matter much if the football program earns more revenue. Those additional funds will go to support the non revenue sports. Just like if the Pirates earn more revenue, those additional funds aren't going back into the team.

Pitt's issues are bad decisions made by dipsticks, and the home game location.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT