Temple is catching up to us if you look at on-field success, support from inside and outside and attendance figures. Theirs is trending upwards while ours flatlines.
Steve Pederson
- Thread starter the_insider_
- Start date
Right, but Temple was never in major football in the same way that Pitt was once in major football. You know that as well as I do and that’s my point. They had no point of reference like we did.
It wasn’t any single Temple administration that made the decision to limit Temple’s commitment to playing big time college football. By the time they were kicked out of the Big East, they had earned their status as THE perennial bottom feeder.
That was not some rogue sports-hating administration. That was an administration that had inherited a complete mess with no hope for ever turning it around and thought they were pulling the plug on something that was already long dead.
Also, they were being blocked from joining Big East basketball, so they were of limited value.
Conversely, at that same time Pitt was a full member of the Big East and at the time of the discussions you are alleging, they would’ve been about a decade or so removed from appearances in Fiesta Bowls and Sugar Bowls and what not.
That’s what makes it apples to oranges.
Pitt’s administration may well have tried to drop football, but it is my firm suspicion that had they done so, they would’ve been unilaterally fired.
Again though, when you look at what happened at Temple, and even what is happening with UConn right now, you can see the value big time football — or even the faint hope of one day attaining or recapturing it — brings to a university. It’s impossible to buy that kind of publicity in any other way.
For the past two years, the University of Pittsburgh has been voted the top public university in the Northeast by the WSJ. We all know that because we’re zealots. However, how many Western Pennsylvanians know that, let alone people in other parts of the country?
However, you play one game on ABC or ESPN and an announcer casually mentions it in passing in the middle of the first quarter and suddenly the whole country knows it.
That’s why it remains my firm belief that the University of Pittsburgh was never going to drop football and people insisting otherwise are completely full of shit.
Last edited:
They should. I can't imagine what they get from football. At least now, football gets Pitt the ACC conference money to operate the other sports.
What's also shit, much deeper and darker, is that in that same telecast when you imagine that the announcers will be talking up Pitt's academics ranking in a business journal, if Pitt's football team (the reason people are watching the telecast) it's getting its face stomped in (as in the Clemson game), that has a more profound effect on the perception of the school.
If the school ever commits to not getting its face stomped in so regularly when playing such games, it makes having football worth it.
When almost every one of these games go down the path of the Clemson game (and the Miami, and the Stanford), because the program is hopelessly outclassed because of the commitment needed to win against these levels of opponents ... it really calls into question whether football is worth it.
The announcers MIGHT say something nice about the school's fabled philosophy program in a pause after a punt return in the 3rd quarter. Though, let's admit it, that's pretty doubtful.
However, the announcers DEFINITELY will be laughing and mocking the school name when the team is getting destroyed, like definitely happened during the PSU game and the first part of the Clemson game.
Basically that's like the logo of the school having diaharrea drizzled over it on national TV.
Having WINNING football is a great thing for a school. Having a perennial LOSER is not.
At what point do you realize that the average person watching these games couldn’t get into Pitt and could care less about Pitt’s academics? The hit to Pitt’s reputation from losing football games is negligible to nonexistent
The decision to move to Heinz was essentially accomplished behind the scenes and although former players, alumni, and students protested (they weren't allowed to protest at games), it was a done deal.
As time progressed, I think those of us who opposed the move accepted it and made the best of it. Pitt's current attendance problems are a result of coaching changes, mediocre performances on the field, no bowl wins since 2013, no final AP rankings, and a football program that does not appear to be valued by the university leadership. Those same issues made discussions about raising the money to remodel Pitt Stadium, as those Michigan had about the Big House with its alums and Cal did concerning Memorial Stadium,
impossible.
Wasn't Posvar under pressure from Pitt's academic community about the emphasis on football. This tug of war has been going on sine Jock Sutherland was the coach...part of why Pitt is where it is today.
How in the world is it that the dipstick academics at Pitt were able to derail football success because they perceived it to be at the expense of academics, but other comparable good to very good institutions were able to succeed on both fronts? Something doesn't add up. When know everything (aka know nothing) professors start getting involved in non academic pursuits, the correct response from an institution's leadership is "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP"... but in a nice way, of course.
And this post is in no way meant to disparage professors. Just to 10% or so that attempt to make things in their image, and sometimes gain too much influence and control. These select few would sink a ship at dry dock if they were allowed to build a ship.
And this post is in no way meant to disparage professors. Just to 10% or so that attempt to make things in their image, and sometimes gain too much influence and control. These select few would sink a ship at dry dock if they were allowed to build a ship.
It’s all mythology.
Bad coaching hires derail programs quickly .
A tepid at best and cheap alumni base which frankly doesn’t value athletics- as demonstrated over decades and decades -
Mean it’s always a razor’s edge between success and irrelevance.
I didn't hate steve as most did here, but it is starting to look that way. Can't argue he helped save football in the 90's and the move to the ACC, but the move to Heinz may be his thing that crushed football. I personally like Heinz for the ease of access, amenities, sight lines, etc. And they do everything in their power to make it feel like Pitt's own stadium (separate locker rooms, signage, retail gear, etc). But there is no getting around those bright yellow empty seats and it just keeps getting worse. A true viscous cycle. Won't draw more people unless you win, can't win without better players, can't get better players because of lack of atmosphere/fan support.
true, but if the rehabbing option of Pitt stadium was chosen that could have been mitigated. Stadium could have been retro-fitted to 45K, and even a 35k crowd wouldn't look as bad there, especially if the seats were blue.
But, have Pitt fans make the head coaching decisions? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that some of Pitt's choices have been nothing short of terrible. The admin made those decisions. Not fans.
What did Pitt do to improve Pitt Stadium? Not much. Some want to always compare HF with the dilapidated version of Pitt Stadium, but that isn't a valid comparison, because Pitt Stadium could have been rebuilt.
I don't know how many times I have heard that HF is great because Pitt Stadium's bathrooms and concessions were terrible, as if that couldn't have been fixed.
If the topic is capacity and optics , the amenities are not relevant.
Like Heinz- Pitt stadium was half empty most games
Because you claim that bad coaching hires derail programs, and fans don't make the coaching hires. Considering that Pitt has probably had more bad coaching hires than most, it's a testament that we still have any fans left at all. The primary issue isn't the fans. It's been an administration that has consistently proven to drop the ball. Fans are an easy scapegoat, internally.
No, it really doesn't. Unless you want to claim that attendance is a primary reason for success and failure.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Follow along -
Revenues are.
A program makes a bad hire , but has a large war chest - say like UNC hiring Matt Doherty.
They fix the mistake a lure Roy Williams from Kansas.
Penn state has coaching turn over- they snag a head coach from the sec.
Because they have a ton of dough flowing into athletics .
Pitt doesn’t .
So our Margin of error is razor thin.
Athletics is no different than any other business.
Attracting talent (coaches) comes down to money and culture .
Revenue isn't the problem for football. The issue has been decades of one poor decision after another.
We already spend more on football than Louisville, WVU, Virginia Tech, Stanford, UCLA, BC, Cal, Zona, Colorado, NC State and others. If David Tepper cuts the football program a $10M each year, do you think they increase spending? Or would they just shift money around and better fund other athletics programs?
Oregon State was a pile of trash when he took that job. Although the way he destroyed Pitt hoops is much worse than Pederson’s job ruining the football program.
I brought it up once last year, when Pitt is in navy blue and gold those empty yellow seats look infinitely worse and we look like we’re guests at another stadium. At least with the blue and yellow it looks like our stadium. The goal is still to fill those seats with fans, but empty seats that don’t even match the home teams uniforms just looked depressing.
To be fair to Pitt, Dan Rooney said that he would do everything be could to make it Pitt's Stadium too, only then then make the seats Steeler yellow. Of course, he lied.
Wait, are you advocating they drop football now if the alternative is funding it at the current level? Respectfully, that’s completely bananas.
I wasn’t insinuating it was Pitt’s fault. Just saying I don’t really mind Heinz and the yellow seats aren’t terrible in their own right, they look fine they when there’s random empties at Steeler games.
I just really hate the look when there’s a bunch of empty yellows and the home team doesn’t look like they belong there. When we wear the throwbacks it at least looks like we’re in our own stadium, going to those full time is a smart move.
I thought they should have changed their uni colors as soon as I saw those seats. However, the real issue is that the stadium is too large for Pitt.
Yeah, the color change is finally a step in the right direction. Playing at Heinz seems like a good idea, but the size far outweighs the benefits.
If we were consistently really good it would be interesting to see what attendance was like for non-marquee opponents. That’s easier said than done though, we may be waiting a while to see a consistent winner.
I think attendence would initially increase with a really good team, but fall back once the novelty wore off. We would be back to a bunch of empty seats and a top 10 team. It's really a problem that takes decades to fix, and until maybe recently, we haven't done much, and likely can't solve it playing at the Steelers stadium. If Pitt would have spent the $100 million to rebuild Pitt Stadium, AND committed the same effort they do at HF to get students and fans to games, and not have created some pretty bad clusterf***s, then we would be halfway there. But, what is standard at most schools playing this level of football is like rocket science for Pitt. We will never get there.
Can't do it now, need to have football to keep milking money from the ACC. But otherwise, yes, i personally think that if you absolutely cannot complete for championships, you are wasting everyone's time and money, including your own, just get out of it, get out if the way and let the serious programs go at it.
As a Pitt grad and fan i'd have some regret, but there's plenty other sports teams to root for. I'd respect my school more for stopping the dumb charade.
It really is a charade for all but a handful of programs. But Pitt is getting paid so they are ok with it. Kind of like Bulb Nutting.
