Logos and colors have zero to do with program success. It's just marketing tactics. Although there was reasonable logic behind the changes, they ultimately proved to be a failure. But the branding changes are superficial and had no impact on program success. The stadium location also has zero impact on program success. Zero.
Compared to the prior 10 years, the decade from 97 on, donations and attendance went up to record levels for Pitt and the fan base was rejuvenated while a lot of dead weight (and it was dead) volunteered to disengage because they were excluded from decision making, as they should have been because they had help steer Pitt straight into 1996, was was absolutely the most rock bottom the athletic department had been since 1968. Facilities were essentially an abandoned mess and collectively perhaps the worst in all of Division 1A. The Golden Panthers were dead; a complete shell of the early 80s and tinged with corruption. Pitt Stadium was empty. The football program itself was bleeding millions a year, and there was some internal movement pushing for football to drop out of 1A. The university itself was a mess, apathy was rampant, its reputation was falling, and it wasn't able to fill its beds. Overcoming those issues was a major accomplishment, and absolutely rescued the football program and, unbeknownst at the time, the athletic department since it was barreling headfirst, with many other universities, into the turmoil of conference realignment. But even though the 2000s saw things reach levels that were better than any time since the early 80s, Pitt still was well below athletic finances of peers, and there is a cap on what can be done because of that, and that is due to the comparatively small fan and athletic donor base compared to presumed athletic peer schools to the east, west, and south.
Pederson's biggest mistakes were always meddling in the programs by forcing his coaches to make staff changes, not to mention an ego and style that sometimes alienated his employees and donors. He should have never been rehired for a second round. Rehiring someone that left almost never works out, for any position anywhere. He should have at least been fired when the Wannstedt firing and Haywood hire was botched. You never want to get into such a internal power play tug of war like that, it was just a dysfunctional department at that point. However, during that same period, the Big East was falling apart and it was one of the most critical junctures in the history of Pitt athletics going back to the end of the Sutherland days, and perhaps since 1890. Pederson was a key actor in getting Pitt into the ACC because he was well connected and well known in the athletic community, as was his boss. That was, and is by far, the single most important accomplishment of the last administration for athletics and the most important thing that happened to Pitt athletics since 1976, and perhaps longer. Like it or not, the last university administration, including Pederson, helped saved Pitt football twice...in ways that are significantly more important than just wins and losses.
Hiring, retaining, and supporting the department's coaches is the most important jobs an AD has. A sports program's success is 80% about getting the right coaching hire. Walt was the right hire. Haywood and Graham were absolutely not. But helping to secure Pitt a seat at the power conference table has ensured its place in major college athletics for the foreseeable future. If Pitt doesn't have a seat at the Power 5 table, no AD or coaching hire would have been able to overcome that. With that seat, there is still hope to wake the echos of past glories.
