Reality with AD Greene

[pittdan77]

It was definitely a little deflating, but we still decided to attend the bowl game and I had no problem with Kenny’s decision (he got us 11 wins and an ACC championship, he did his part).

For what it’s worth, I think we win that game if Nick Patti plays the whole game. Felt awful he lost his big breakout opportunity, although (I believe) Slovis had already committed by that point.

All of us want to win that game but the realities of what college football has become makes everything different. Fans have to accept that. No different than anything else about this discussion. We're faced with a difficult financial reality and part of that is that you're probably not going to get anywhere close to the value of what you contribute.

Pitt isn't buying championships. Pitt is buying a seat at the table.

 

[HailtoPitt]

I temporarily unignored Souf to read what was going on here. I have to say, he is correct. It is absolutely like a business and just not feasible to think that Pitt is going to be able to compete at or near the highest level. We are the Chinese restaurant that used to be great but now occupies the old Pizza Hut, hoping that selling overpriced T-shirts is going to change anything other then allowing us to buy more msg.

Welcome to the couch (soon)!

 

[HailToPitt725]

Pitt isn't buying championships. Pitt is buying a seat at the table.

Agreed, and this is important to remember. Personally, I think we’re going to reach an “end game” state for collegiate athletics in the next ~10 years. Unless they’re only taking 20-30 schools, a highly-rated public institution that commits $$ to athletics is not going to be excluded in whatever is next.

 

[bobfree]

the blue bloods of the world are the blue bloods because of their fanbases and donors / not because of the quality of their fundraising department

If you are invested in the program and going to complain about the results, you absolutely “need to donate” (within your means/capabilities).

There is no other argument that makes sense. There’s literally no argument that less money for Pitt helps them achieve the goals that you want to see.

I donate and help the program out, likely, in more ways than most of you.

I don't put all the blame on the fans is all. Pitt needs to do better as well. Every dollar has thousands of ways to get spent, Pitt needs a more compelling case when competing for it.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

I temporarily unignored Souf to read what was going on here. I have to say, he is correct. It is absolutely like a business and just not feasible to think that Pitt is going to be able to compete at or near the highest level. We are the Chinese restaurant that used to be great but now occupies the old Pizza Hut, hoping that selling overpriced T-shirts is going to change anything other then allowing us to buy more msg.

Welcome to the couch (soon)!

The sooner the Big 10 and SEC create a super football league outside of the NCAA, the better (as long as the other sports remained in the NCAA.) I would be perfectly happy to remain in the rump secondary football league and compete for the second tier championship against Cincinnati and Georgia Tech or whoever.. We're not going to win any FBS playoffs in this financial landscape.

Pitt needs to use Victory Heights to maintain a top tier volleyball program and lift both men's wrestling (in the most talented part of the country) up to the highest levels while adding women's wrestling; also hopefully we can stay the course on soccer; and evaluate our men's basketball coach very seriously in 2026. No more extensions for now either, we have competitive pay, and that's what you get if you want to stay. It's not a job for life.

Anyway I'll stop day dreaming now.

 

[PittPharm2002]

Holy **** this was a miserable thread to read.

It’s absolutely embarrassing reading the pretzels our fans twist themselves into to justify why they or our fanbase overall doesn’t need to donate.

We won a Championship at the beginning of the NIL era and over the next few years had one of the lowest 25% NIL budgets in P4.

Pitt athletics is spending a ton of money - they have been and are trying.

Obviously do whatever you want with your money… but if you care, the help is always more money. Not less. ESPECIALLY when things aren’t going well.

If we had a lot of people that thought that way, we’d have a lot more success in basketball and football.

Keep living off that very distant memory
While Pitt football and basketball crater - despite paying what - $13mil/year on their HCs

Maybe a over extension for Capel so we can keep losing by 20 at the half of games against powerhouses like SMU

 

[Upg bobcat]

Agreed, and this is important to remember. Personally, I think we’re going to reach an “end game” state for collegiate athletics in the next ~10 years. Unless they’re only taking 20-30 schools, a highly-rated public institution that commits $$ to athletics is not going to be excluded in whatever is next.

I don't get excited about us just "getting a seat at the table." If we do that, at least for football, Pitt is destined to be another version of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

 

[pittjas]

Keep living off that very distant memory
While Pitt football and basketball crater - despite paying what - $13mil/year on their HCs

Maybe a over extension for Capel so we can keep losing by 20 at the half of games against powerhouses like SMU

But what does that have to do with donating?

Do you think it’s easier to fix the problems if they have less money?

 

[S.R.M.]

I don't get excited about us just "getting a seat at the table." If we do that, at least for football, Pitt is destined to be another version of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Yeah, I don't know what the end game is for Pitt football. I feel like basketball can compete again if they hire the right coach because you only need 2-3 really good players, role players who can do the dirty work well and an ingrained identity and philosophy. In the golden era of Pitt basketball we rarely had equal talent to UConn, Syracuse, Nova, or Louisville but we were the most successful team in the conference for 15 years because we had an identity as a bad ass beat you into submission team who was going to battle every possession on the defensive end and beat you on the glass. We could do something like that again.

I don't think football can ever compete with the Alabama Ohio State Notre Dame, Oregon, or Georgia. We can have a good team that could pull an upset or two here and there but we are never winning more than 10%-15% of games against that class of program. I am to the point where I wouldn't hate the SEC and Big Ten breaking away and Pitt competing with comparable schools for championships in new NCAA Free of the super programs. Play in a conference with WVU, Cuse, BC, and some combination of UVA, VT and the Carolina and Florida schools that don't get invited to the Big Ten or SEC. Maybe pull in UConn for basketball prestige if they are willing to up their Football level. That would be a good basketball conference and competitive football league. It wouldn't be the SEC or Big Ten but it would equal to or better than whatever is left out of the big two. We could call it the Atlantic Coast Conference and it would actually be geographically accurate.

 

[HailToPitt725]

I don't get excited about us just "getting a seat at the table." If we do that, at least for football, Pitt is destined to be another version of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Even if that’s true, it’s better than the alternative. I’d rather have one 11-win since 1981 than be a perennial G5 power, because at the end of the day that really doesn’t mean anything.

There’s value in being at the “big kid’s table,” especially since there’s no guarantee schools like Boise State will even have this type of access moving forward.

 

[Upg bobcat]

Even if that’s true, it’s better than the alternative. I’d rather have one 11-win since 1981 than be a perennial G5 power, because at the end of the day that really doesn’t mean anything.

There’s value in being at the “big kid’s table,” especially since there’s no guarantee schools like Boise State will even have this type of access moving forward.

Access to what? Access for other sports to play at the highest level? I could go along with that argument. I think there is a possibility basketball or soccer or volleyball can work. But looking at this solely from football's perspective, if the choices are lacking the resources to compete with the power schools but be in their conference/league, or be the perennial G5 power, I'd take being the G5 power. Now it's not that easy I know. Unfortunately, as we saw with the Big East, we can't seem to rise above our competition no matter the level.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Access to what? Access for other sports to play at the highest level? I could along with that argument. I think there is a possibility basketball or soccer or volleyball can work. But looking at this solely from football's perspective, if the choices are lacking the resources to compete with the power schools but be in their conference/league, or be the perennial G5 power, I'd take being the G5 power. Now it's not that easy I know. Unfortunately, as we saw with the Big East, we can't seem to rise above our competition no matter the level.

Playing devil’s advocate, we would (theoretically) dominate the G5 level with our current resources. However, I’d assume those would deplete if we’re no longer competing at the highest level; at that point, is there a drastic difference in our outcomes at the P4 and G5 levels?

That’s why I believe it’s important to do whatever we can to at least have a seat at the table; football funds everything else. If we lose that revenue, basketball is placed in jeopardy and several Olympic sports programs are likely on the chopping block (if they’re not already).

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

That’s why I believe it’s important to do whatever we can to at least have a seat at the table; football funds everything else. If we lose that revenue, basketball is placed in jeopardy and several Olympic sports programs are likely on the chopping block (if they’re not already).

How you look at this depends on your goals. Our profits from football right now are greatly tempered by how much we pay current and former coaches (roughly a surplus of 7 million a year despite the increased payouts from the TV deals.) A lot of people want to fire Narduzzi, which would mean paying him and other coaches even more, and maybe you're at break even in your major revenue sport at that point.

And OK so if you stay in the bigger portion of college football, do you take those TV payments and try to keep football competitive with schools who will greatly outspend you (assuming this new hypothetical league is primarily made up of SEC and Big 10 level budgets) or do you try to win in other sports like basketball where the money goes further and let football tank? I think people would be very angry at the latter, so we'll be stuck at 40th in football for a long time, and not even get the benefit the basketball only schools get out of focusing their NIL spending there.

 

[PittPharm2002]

But what does that have to do with donating?

Do you think it’s easier to fix the problems if they have less money?

I honestly don’t care to continually invert in athletics at this point .
It’s not entertaining or fun .
What has my thousands of donations a year accomplished ?
I’d rather fund scholarships for the school of pharmacy .

 

[PittPharm2002]

I don't get excited about us just "getting a seat at the table." If we do that, at least for football, Pitt is destined to be another version of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Football is a losing battle

 

[Las Panteras]

Even if that’s true, it’s better than the alternative. I’d rather have one 11-win since 1981 than be a perennial G5 power, because at the end of the day that really doesn’t mean anything.

There’s value in being at the “big kid’s table,” especially since there’s no guarantee schools like Boise State will even have this type of access moving forward.

Agree 1,000,000 %

Nothing stays the same. Regulations change, fan interest changes. Who is to say some type of level playing field caps dont come to be? I would rather be Indiana or Pitt /Acc champ year than the best team in the MAC, as I dont even know who that is.

And, suppose some Pitt whale does show up. Maybe there is another young Chris Bickell who in 10 years wants to throw 20 mill in the kitty. Why waste it on a level of football no one cares about?

 

[Upg bobcat]

And, suppose some Pitt whale does show up. Maybe there is another young Chris Bickell who in 10 years wants to throw 20 mill in the kitty. Why waste it on a level of football no one cares about?

Yes more people care about P5 than G5 right now, but there are still plenty that care about the current G5. If you add to G5 with the right schools, it could become a bigger deal than it currently is. G5 schools have whales that throw a lot of their money at those programs, too.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Even if that’s true, it’s better than the alternative. I’d rather have one 11-win since 1981 than be a perennial G5 power, because at the end of the day that really doesn’t mean anything.

There’s value in being at the “big kid’s table,” especially since there’s no guarantee schools like Boise State will even have this type of access moving forward.

Sticking with the baseball anaology, I bet almost everyone here can name every MLB team in America. I doubt hardly any could name a fraction of AAA teams.

The difference in being at the highest level, and the next highest, is absolutely enormous.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Playing devil’s advocate, we would (theoretically) dominate the G5 level with our current resources. However, I’d assume those would deplete if we’re no longer competing at the highest level; at that point, is there a drastic difference in our outcomes at the P4 and G5 levels?

That’s why I believe it’s important to do whatever we can to at least have a seat at the table; football funds everything else. If we lose that revenue, basketball is placed in jeopardy and several Olympic sports programs are likely on the chopping block (if they’re not already).

You don't have to assume athletic resources would deplete if Pitt dropped down a level. They is no doubt about it. The only reason the budget is what it is right now is because of ACC $. Pitt's resources will reflect only some equivalence to the level it competes at.

People are also making the mistake that the competitive environment will stay the same now as it will 20, 50, or 100 years from now. No one knows. Just because things look like they are trending worse now, doesn't mean it will be that way at some point out in the future. In the meantime, to get to any possible future, you have to keep your seat at the table.

 

[HailToPitt725]

How you look at this depends on your goals. Our profits from football right now are greatly tempered by how much we pay current and former coaches (roughly a surplus of 7 million a year despite the increased payouts from the TV deals.) A lot of people want to fire Narduzzi, which would mean paying him and other coaches even more, and maybe you're at break even in your major revenue sport at that point.

And OK so if you stay in the bigger portion of college football, do you take those TV payments and try to keep football competitive with schools who will greatly outspend you (assuming this new hypothetical league is primarily made up of SEC and Big 10 level budgets) or do you try to win in other sports like basketball where the money goes further and let football tank? I think people would be very angry at the latter, so we'll be stuck at 40th in football for a long time, and not even get the benefit the basketball only schools get out of focusing their NIL spending there.

Your money may go further in basketball, but does it matter how far it goes if there’s significantly less?

In this scenario, let’s say we’re either stuck in a poached ACC or we’re left out of whatever super-entity is formed. Since our budget would decrease significantly, what’s left is now stretched thin, even if we were to go all-in on basketball and end up in the Big East. That means we’d need even more NIL/donor $ than we do now to compete, even if it technically goes further. Would our alum base be willing to step up like that right after (presumably) taking a morale punch? I don’t think you can assume that.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Sticking with the baseball anaology, I bet almost everyone here can name every MLB city in America. I doubt hardly any could name a fraction of AAA teams.

The difference in being at the highest level, and the next highest, is absolutely enormous.

You don't have to assume athletic resources would deplete if Pitt dropped down a level. They is no doubt about it. The only reason the budget is what it is right now is because of ACC $. Pitt's resources will reflect only some equivalence to the level it competes at.

People are also making the mistake that the competitive environment will stay the same now as it will 20, 50, or 100 years from now. No one knows. Just because things look like they are trending worse now, doesn't mean it will be that way at some point out in the future. In the meantime, to get to any possible future, you have to keep your seat at the table.

Agreed. In my opinion, our power conference status is just as important to the entire university as it is the athletic department. Remember, there’s a correlation between the Nick Saban era and enrollment (rankings, stats, volume) at Alabama. Right now, our peer institutions are Cal Berkeley, Duke, and Stanford. I take a great pride in that. That’s not the case if you go G5 or even Big East.

As an infamous athletic director once said, “athletics is the front porch if the university is the house…”

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Agreed. In my opinion, our power conference status is just as important to the entire university as it is the athletic department. Remember, there’s a correlation between the Nick Saban era and enrollment (rankings, stats, volume) at Alabama. Right now, our peer institutions are Cal Berkeley, Duke, and Stanford. I take a great pride in that. That’s not the case if you go G5 or even Big East.

As an infamous athletic director once said, “athletics is the front porch if the university is the house…”

I think it's likely Cal, Duke, and Stanford are not going to be big time football programs under a new SEC style system, and neither are we. Though they definitely have wealthier donors so anything is possible.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I think it's likely Cal, Duke, and Stanford are not going to be big time football programs under a new SEC style system, and neither are we. Though they definitely have wealthier donors so anything is possible.

The rumor is the B10 presidents wanted Cal and Stanford, their media partners said nope.