Temple gets approval for on-campus stadium design study

[ClarkLotTgate]

Here's what bothers me.
I'm not sure of the probability of this ever happening but it has to be considered by PITT.

Let's say Heinz field gets out of date, run down, to costly to renovate, parking lots keep being converted to other purposes, no place to tailgate, heavy gameday traffic, fans complain so the Rooney's say F this we'll build our own place somewhere else.

What's PITT's plan B?

Maybe PITT's plan B is this will never happen.

The thing to remember is that most of the development on the north shore is associated with the Rooney's and Steelers. So the buildings that are taking up parking, the bars n restaurants etc are all there ONLY because of the stadium. I'd find it nearly inconceivable that they would relocate to another part of the city as a result.

That being said....I was very closely following the Chargers/Aztecs situation. If the Chargers end up leaving (seems unlikely now that they are re-negotiating with San Diego) the Aztecs would have been able to remain at Qualcomm for at least 5 years. Which would give them time to come up with a plan for their own stadium. Basically San Diego wasn't going to demo the place until the university could figure out their "plan B"

I'd assume unless there was some type of structural safety issue at Heinz that made is dangerous once the Steelers left, that a similar arrangement would be in place.

 

[Delpanther]

This sounds more like "Landsberry can't get his mail!!" with every post. Next up, Z#2 with a sandwich board ousts the sax player from the OC lot steps. I REALLY want grad students in diplomatic relations making decisions.

So why do you belittle this guy for supporting an on campus stadium? Only a grumpy crumudgeon would do that. Your views are passé- just like you!

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

So why do you belittle this guy for supporting an on campus stadium? Only a grumpy crumudgeon would do that. Your views are passé- just like you!

I think it's the maniac style of content which is ridiculed.

Plus it's pure fantasy.

If the will existed to stay on campus, Pitt stadium wouldn't have been neglected for decades and it would have been updated by booster dollars.

Maybe eventually it'll happen... But it won't be because of anonymous posts. The new administration floated a big dollar figure for a reason.
It's a challenge.

 

[Delpanther]

I think it's the maniac style of content which is ridiculed.

Plus it's pure fantasy.

If the will existed to stay on campus, Pitt stadium wouldn't have been neglected for decades and it would have been updated by booster dollars.

Maybe eventually it'll happen... But it won't be because of anonymous posts. The new administration floated a big dollar figure for a reason.
It's a challenge.

Well, it may or may not be fantasy but what I find really weird is, given the fact that maybe 98% of the schools in i Div 1 FB have their own stadiums, that there are so many people who claim to be Pitt fans who just completely reject the idea out of hand inv view of the fact the fact that whether it's longshot or not, it would very much buttress the FB program to have an on-campus stadium. Only in the "bizarro" world of Pitt sports would an element of the fanbase be so deadset against and be so vocal in their seeming opposition to such a positive development for the school's FB program. If schools based their decision to construct a stadium on factors like ROI, no university would build a stadium but guess what, some decisions can be justified for reasons you can't necessarily quantify. If the on-campus naysayers took that sort of position at most other universities they'd be laughed at and ostracized.

As for the will of the university, that will depends significantly on the foresight of the university's leadership at any point in time, which over the last 30 years has been extremely poor at Pitt . I repeat: Nordenberg is an IDIOT! End of story.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Only in the "bizarro" world of Pitt sports do so many people spend so much time pining for a complete and utter fantasy. It's not that people wouldn't prefer an on campus stadium in the perfect world, it's that some people realize this isn't the perfect world and if the choices are to deal with the reality of the situation or to wallow in fantasy that people's time would be better spent in the real world.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Well, it may or may not be fantasy but what I find really weird is, given the fact that maybe 98% of the schools in i Div 1 FB have their own stadiums, that there are so many people who claim to be Pitt fans who just completely reject the idea out of hand inv view of the fact the fact that whether it's longshot or not, it would very much buttress the FB program to have an on-campus stadium. Only in the "bizarro" world of Pitt sports would an element of the fanbase be so deadset against and be so vocal in their seeming opposition to such a positive development for the school's FB program. If schools based their decision to construct a stadium on factors like ROI, no university would build a stadium but guess what, some decisions can be justified for reasons you can't necessarily quantify. If the on-campus naysayers took that sort of position at most other universities they'd be laughed at and ostracized.

As for the will of the university, that will depends significantly on the foresight of the university's leadership at any point in time, which over the last 30 years has been extremely poor at Pitt . I repeat: Nordenberg is an IDIOT! End of story.

Sorry, the decades of neglect happened before nordenberg.
He was handed that financial albatross.

The Steelers threw us a financial life line.

 

[Delpanther]

Sorry, the decades of neglect happened before nordenberg.
He was handed that financial albatross.

The Steelers threw us a financial life line.

True but Nordenberg was the guy in the chair when the decision had to be made and I believe he made a very short sighted one, one which completely misread the direction and future of the BE and one which completely miscalculated the relative importance of football versus basketball in the restructuring of division I athletics.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

True but Nordenberg was the guy in the chair when the decision had to be made and I believe he made a very short sighted one, one which completely misread the direction and future of the BE and one which completely miscalculated the relative importance of football versus basketball in the restructuring of division I athletics.

Not at all...
The importance of football revenue is why the decision was made.
To keep it viable with revenue streams from luxury boxes and club seats.
Being that we moved to the acc I'd say your determination is incorrect.

 

[NTOP]

There are those that make things happen and there are those that don't.
I think PITT has been and still is plagued by the it can't be done here crowd in which case it won't get done! So lets see if someone surprises us.
Now next up will be "Skippy" (Souf) telling everyone they're all a bunch of "dumb cheap loser fans"
and the myiad of posters who will say "it can't be done, there's no space, we looked at this already."
Hard to believe Temple has deeper pockets than PITT ( fans & the U.)

Temple doesn't have deeper pockets than Pitt. And this debacle might not get built. Pitt has a much better situation at HF than Temple at Lincoln. Pitt should simply make a statement that is will NOT be wasting $$$ this way. Telling people in private conversations isn't wise.

 

[Delpanther]

Not at all...
The importance of football revenue is why the decision was made.
To keep it viable with revenue streams from luxury boxes and club seats.
Being that we moved to the acc I'd say your determination is incorrect.

We would have been a much stronger candidate for a major conference, most likely the Big 10, had Pitt stadium been renovated and had we built the Pete somewhere else. For Pitt FB and revenue as a whole, the Big 10 would have been a much better destination than the ACC. Perception wise, not having your own stadium on campus is a huge negative. The decision was the one of least resistance, the easy out. Luxury boxes of the number Pitt needed could have been incorporated in a refurbished Pitt stadium, just like they have at any number of older on-campus stadiums that have been renovated over thee last 20-30 years. Whatever additional revenue Pitt gets from club seats at Heinz is more than offset by poor attendance which, in part, is attributable to playing early season games at noon to avoid conflicts with the pirates-not being able to control when you play your games is a effin disaster for attendance. Is the ACC better than the BE and has it been a life rope for Pitt sports-absolutely. But the ACC is not a premier FB conference and FB drives the bus and will always drive the bus.

 

[Delpanther]

Temple doesn't have deeper pockets than Pitt. And this debacle might not get built. Pitt has a much better situation at HF than Temple at Lincoln. Pitt should simply make a statement that is will NOT be wasting $$$ this way. Telling people in private conversations isn't wise.

Pitt's smarter than you-they will never make such a dumb a$$ statement. It will happen, crumudgeon.

 

[CrazyPaco]

We would have been a much stronger candidate for a major conference, most likely the Big 10, had Pitt stadium been renovated and had we built the Pete somewhere else. FALSE. For Pitt FB and revenue as a whole, the Big 10 would have been a much better destination than the ACC. FALSE. Perception wise, not having your own stadium on campus is a huge negative. FALSE. The decision was the one of least resistance, the easy out. FALSE. Luxury boxes of the number Pitt needed could have been incorporated in a refurbished Pitt stadium, just like they have at any number of older on-campus stadiums that have been renovated over thee last 20-30 years. TRUE, and we'd be 15 years behind where we are now in other athletic facility upgrades and in paralyzing debt ...making us a much weaker major conference candidate in 2011. Whatever additional revenue Pitt gets from club seats at Heinz is more than offset by poor attendance FALSE which, in part, is attributable to playing early season games at noon to avoid conflicts with the pirates-not being able to control when you play your games is a effin disaster for attendance. FALSE. Is the ACC better than the BE and has it been a life rope for Pitt sports-absolutely. TRUE. But the ACC is not a premier FB conference FALSE and FB drives the bus and will always drive the bus. TRUE.

Hot garbage, per usual.

 

[Delpanther]

Hot garbage, per usual.

You know NOTHING. You pretend.

 

[eastcoasthoops]

You know NOTHING. You pretend.

And you know nothing and PROVED it with your little work of fiction above.

 

[Delpanther]

And you know nothing and PROVED it with your little work of fiction above.

I know that Pitt is keeping its options open and investigating the feasibility of doing something when the time is right. They are not narrow minded idiots of your ilk who don't see the benefits of controlling their own destiny. The prior admin. like you , had their heads tucked up their tail ends and took the easy way out. You like your croney were probably an RA who worked as Nerdy's valet.

 

[eastcoasthoops]

I know that Pitt is keeping its options open and investigating the feasibility of doing something when the time is right. They are not narrow minded idiots of your ilk who don't see the benefits of controlling their own destiny. The prior admin. like you , had their heads tucked up their tail ends and took the easy way out. You like your croney were probably an RA who worked as Nerdy's valet.

The more you type, the dumber you look.

Keep it up.

 

[CrazyPaco]

You know NOTHING. You pretend.

One really doesn't have to know anything. One just has to not be a intellectually dishonest, major fuccking moron and complete whinny bitch.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

This year stadium is status quo but I wouldn't rule anything out in the future (except a new stadium). This group seems pretty much ready to try anything.

 

[HailtoPitt]

If the will existed to stay on campus, Pitt stadium wouldn't have been neglected for decades and it would have been updated by booster dollars.

Maybe eventually it'll happen... But it won't be because of anonymous posts. The new administration floated a big dollar figure for a reason.
It's a challenge.

Not sure I agree. The Pitt administration deemphasized football at the exact wrong time. Perhaps a T. Boone Pickens type donor could have stepped forward and forced the admin to make better choices, but it was also the admin that completely screwed up by not working to build on the success. Then, when they actually attempted to do something, some BOT members called a few folks in an extremely ill sighted and completed incompetent fundraising attempt. The result... blame the fans for their failings.

 

[Delpanther]

One really doesn't have to know anything. One just has to not be a intellectually dishonest, major fuccking moron and complete whinny bitch.

 

[Delpanther]

One really doesn't have to know anything. One just has to not be a intellectually dishonest, major fuccking moron and complete whinny bitch.

You're still hoping, I see, that Nerdy will get you that RA job in the Towers so you continue to attack anyone with the audacity of challenging his record. You should also be banned for attacking people and trying to censor the content on every Pitt sports blog. You are a major nuisance and intolerant of any view that challenges the Nerdy position on any issue.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

We would have been a much stronger candidate for a major conference, most likely the Big 10, had Pitt stadium been renovated and had we built the Pete somewhere else. For Pitt FB and revenue as a whole, the Big 10 would have been a much better destination than the ACC. Perception wise, not having your own stadium on campus is a huge negative. The decision was the one of least resistance, the easy out. Luxury boxes of the number Pitt needed could have been incorporated in a refurbished Pitt stadium, just like they have at any number of older on-campus stadiums that have been renovated over thee last 20-30 years. Whatever additional revenue Pitt gets from club seats at Heinz is more than offset by poor attendance which, in part, is attributable to playing early season games at noon to avoid conflicts with the pirates-not being able to control when you play your games is a effin disaster for attendance. Is the ACC better than the BE and has it been a life rope for Pitt sports-absolutely. But the ACC is not a premier FB conference and FB drives the bus and will always drive the bus.

Pitt brings zero additional tv sets to the b10, so wasn't going to happen.

Hey, all you successful older folks didn't support the program enough... What can I say?
I was in college when the stadium was torn down...
So, it's the grey hairs to blame.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Not sure I agree. The Pitt administration deemphasized football at the exact wrong time. Perhaps a T. Boone Pickens type donor could have stepped forward and forced the admin to make better choices, but it was also the admin that completely screwed up by not working to build on the success. Then, when they actually attempted to do something, some BOT members called a few folks in an extremely ill sighted and completed incompetent fundraising attempt. The result... blame the fans for their failings.

You know how football gets deemphasized??

Because apathetic fans allow it to happen.

You'll figure this out eventually... Well, maybe you won't.

Fans and boosters drive athletics at colleges, not administrators.

 

[Delpanther]

Pitt brings zero additional tv sets to the b10, so wasn't going to happen.

Hey, all you successful older folks didn't support the program enough... What can I say?
I was in college when the stadium was torn down...
So, it's the grey hairs to blame.

Pitt brings zero additional tv sets to the b10, so wasn't going to happen.

Hey, all you successful older folks didn't support the program enough... What can I say?
I was in college when the stadium was torn down...
So, it's the grey hairs to blame.

Yea, two gray hair culprits, the two buffoons: Nerdy and pedey boy, the two greatest strategic thinkers in Pitt history who completely misread both the NCAA and Big East tea leaves on conference realignment and the future of both the Big East and the relative importance of FB in Div. I athletics.

 

[eastcoasthoops]

Yea, two gray hair culprits, the two buffoons: Nerdy and pedey boy, the two greatest strategic thinkers in Pitt history who completely misread both the NCAA and Big East tea leaves on conference realignment and the future of both the Big East and the relative importance of FB in Div. I athletics.

Do you even remember the perilous condition of Pitt athletics in 1995? The crown jewels of both revenue sports were a dilapidated Pitt Stadium, a far beyond his prime Johnny Majors, and Dietrich Jells in football and a dilapidated Fitzgerald Fieldhouse, Ralph Willard, and Andre Aldridge in hoops.

In the high stakes game of poker that is major college athletics, you act like Pitt was holding four aces and just mucked the hand. We had nothing. N O T H I N G.

Nordenberg and Pederson were far from perfect. But the constant myopic and largely false narrative you vomit over and over again is tiresome. And, quite frankly, obnoxious.

 

[Delpanther]

Do you even remember the perilous condition of Pitt athletics in 1995? The crown jewels of both revenue sports were a dilapidated Pitt Stadium, a far beyond his prime Johnny Majors, and Dietrich Jells in football and a dilapidated Fitzgerald Fieldhouse, Ralph Willard, and Andre Aldridge in hoops.

In the high stakes game of poker that is major college athletics, you act like Pitt was holding four aces and just mucked the hand. We had nothing. N O T H I N G.

Nordenberg and Pederson were far from perfect. But the constant myopic and largely false narrative you vomit over and over again is tiresome. And, quite frankly, obnoxious.

There's nothing false about my narrative. I don't doubt the issues were significant but what I do know is that neither Nordenberg nor Pedersen were up to the challenge! They took the easy way out and focused short term. And how does the plight of Pitt athletics when Nordenberg became chancellor explain his rehiring Pedersen after he killed Nebraska FB, Nordenberg's awarding Pedersen a golden parachute right before his retirement or the entire FB coaching carousel that made Pitt a national disgrace? You conveniently ignore those facts in your assessment of Nordenberg? Why? Because it doesn't suit your bias? Just because you don't agree with my assessment as regards Nordenberg and Pedersen, doesn't make my position false OR obnoxious. My guess is that you were part of the Pitt administration during the Pedersen/Nordenberg years and if you were, you and your cronies nearly killed Pitt athletics! Thankfully, you're gone and done!

 

[eastcoasthoops]

There's nothing false about my narrative. I don't doubt the issues were significant but what I do know is that neither Nordenberg nor Pedersen were up to the challenge! They took the easy way out and focused short term. (We will agree to disagree on this point.)

And how does the plight of Pitt athletics when Nordenberg became chancellor explain his rehiring Pedersen after he killed Nebraska FB, Nordenberg's awarding Pedersen a golden parachute right before his retirement or the entire FB coaching carousel that made Pitt a national disgrace? (I never said that the status of Pitt athletics at the time he became Chancellor absolves him of his later mistakes.) You conveniently ignore those facts in your assessment of Nordenberg? (I don't leave out those facts in my evaluation of his impact on Pitt athletics at all. I do not consider Nordenberg or Pederson ALL wrong or ALL right.) Why? Because it doesn't suit your bias? (I have no bias. I base my opinions on the realities of the moment as well as the realities of when decisions are made.)

Just because you don't agree with my assessment as regards Nordenberg and Pedersen, doesn't make my position false OR obnoxious. (You often inject you opinions AS fact, and that is the error. And simply taking an opposing view or being critical does not make one obnoxious. It is your childish name calling and dismissive perspective that does.)

My guess is that you were part of the Pitt administration during the Pedersen/Nordenberg years and if you were, you and your cronies nearly killed Pitt athletics! Thankfully, you're gone and done! (Once again, your assumptions are incorrect, as usual.)

 

[pittengineer75]

Whether Pitt maintained an on-campus stadium or not, Pitt Stadium was being completely demo'd following the study. The stadium had a ton of structural issues alone, let alone bringing it up to what it would have needed to be to even compete in college football today.

Today we play in a stadium that college stadiums cant even compete with. Heinz Field smokes pretty much every college stadium I have been to and I have been to a lot....and by NFL standards out of the ones builts in the last 15 years, Heinz is actually pretty shitty by NFL comparison. Most schools have to build their own stadiums because they dont have a choice but to. Even like Minnesota that had to build their own because the terms the Vikings wanted fell apart and they dont share the relationship that Pitt/Steelers have. And some of my friends who live up there and are Viking season tickets holders have called TCF Field pretty much garbage since the Vikings had to play there the past two seasons while US Bank Stadium was being built.

I think some people just want the "on-campus" stadium just to say the stadium is on-campus, even if its a big turd of a stadium.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Whether Pitt maintained an on-campus stadium or not, Pitt Stadium was being completely demo'd following the study. The stadium had a ton of structural issues alone, let alone bringing it up to what it would have needed to be to even compete in college football today.

Today we play in a stadium that college stadiums cant even compete with. Heinz Field smokes pretty much every college stadium I have been to and I have been to a lot....and by NFL standards out of the ones builts in the last 15 years, Heinz is actually pretty shitty by NFL comparison. Most schools have to build their own stadiums because they dont have a choice but to. Even like Minnesota that had to build their own because the terms the Vikings wanted fell apart and they dont share the relationship that Pitt/Steelers have. And some of my friends who live up there and are Viking season tickets holders have called TCF Field pretty much garbage since the Vikings had to play there the past two seasons while US Bank Stadium was being built.

I think some people just want the "on-campus" stadium just to say the stadium is on-campus, even if its a big turd of a stadium.

Heinz isn't a disadvantage unless fans let it be.

Heinz can be an advantage unless fans don't let it be.

Pitt athletics has many built in disadvantages which include the size and pocket depth of its booster, alumni, and fan base along with competition for the local sports spotlight, not to mention developable land. The former issues result in gate and donation revenue levels that will never be able to compete with the financial power of state flagship programs that Pitt is surrounded by to the west, east, and south. There are strategies that can be implemented to minimize these disadvantages, but they will never be completely mitigated. Luckily, Pitt is also not in a conference made up mostly of schools with these sorts of profiles.

Pitt athletics has three notable financial advantages over these types of large state flagship schools that help offset the revenue gap from gate receipts and donations: having little existing debt service burden, fielding a modest number of non-revenue varsity sports, and being in a very favorable stadium agreement that allows it to avoid the financial commitment of perpetually maintaining and upgrading the most expensive athletic facility at any university. While well discussed on these boards over the past years, these points have all been recently touched on by the currently athletic administration or media to some degree.

This permits new revenue, to a tune of $12+ million more a year thanks to the ACC, to be directed into things like coaching salaries and recruiting budgets for football, along with scholarships and staff upgrades that have been long overdue, but not previously financially feasible, for Pitt's other existing sports. The university itself has not put any more of its general operational resources into athletics...with subsidies seeming to be flat or decreasing... since joining the ACC, which is good because financial strain across the university is only increasing with the continued plummeting of state appropriation and federal research expenditures. However, at Pitt, the new conference athletic revenue has not been plunged into the infrastructure arms race to the same degree that is swallowing up many other schools' conference media deal windfalls. This is putting Pitt in a position of better competitiveness, financially with things like salaries, than it has been for decades, although it still has many financial and infrastructure issues to address. At the same time Pitt reaps the benefits of new jumbotrons and endzone suites at a stadium, which you correctly note is superior in accouterments than the vast majority of college facilities, without any increased financial burden.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Heinz isn't a disadvantage unless fans let it be.

Heinz can be an advantage unless fans don't let it be.

Pitt athletics has many built in disadvantages which include the size and pocket depth of its booster, alumni, and fan base along with competition for the local sports spotlight, not to mention developable land. The former issues result in gate and donation revenue levels that will never be able to compete with the financial power of state flagship programs that Pitt is surrounded by to the west, east, and south. There are strategies that can be implemented to minimize these disadvantages, but they will never be completely mitigated. Luckily, Pitt is also not in a conference made up mostly of schools with these sorts of profiles.

Pitt athletics has three notable financial advantages over these types of large state flagship schools that help offset the revenue gap from gate receipts and donations: having little existing debt service burden, fielding a modest number of non-revenue varsity sports, and being in a very favorable stadium agreement that allows it to avoid the financial commitment of perpetually maintaining and upgrading the most expensive athletic facility at any university. While well discussed on these boards over the past years, these points have all been recently touched on by the currently athletic administration or media to some degree.

This permits new revenue, to a tune of $12+ million more a year thanks to the ACC, to be directed into things like coaching salaries and recruiting budgets for football, along with scholarships and staff upgrades that have been long overdue, but not previously financially feasible, for Pitt's other existing sports. The university itself has not put any more of its general operational resources into athletics...with subsidies seeming to be flat or decreasing... since joining the ACC, which is good because financial strain across the university is only increasing with the continued plummeting of state appropriation and federal research expenditures. However, at Pitt, the new conference athletic revenue has not been plunged into the infrastructure arms race to the same degree that is swallowing up many other schools' conference media deal windfalls. This is putting Pitt in a position of better competitiveness, financially with things like salaries, than it has been for decades, although it still has many financial and infrastructure issues to address. At the same time Pitt reaps the benefits of new jumbotrons and endzone suites at a stadium, which you correctly note is superior in accouterments than the vast majority of college facilities, without any increased financial burden.

Agree Paco

If you look at Rutgers for example, last year they had to divert $36 million from their general administration operating budget into the Athletic Dept.

This year the amount has been reduced to $23 million.

When they get Full Shares from their B1G Conference membership these subsidies will probably be eliminated.

I don't know how G5 teams can compete in this arms race.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[QuitCallingMeWanny]

There's nothing false about my narrative. I don't doubt the issues were significant but what I do know is that neither Nordenberg nor Pedersen were up to the challenge! They took the easy way out and focused short term. And how does the plight of Pitt athletics when Nordenberg became chancellor explain his rehiring Pedersen after he killed Nebraska FB, Nordenberg's awarding Pedersen a golden parachute right before his retirement or the entire FB coaching carousel that made Pitt a national disgrace? You conveniently ignore those facts in your assessment of Nordenberg? Why? Because it doesn't suit your bias? Just because you don't agree with my assessment as regards Nordenberg and Pedersen, doesn't make my position false OR obnoxious. My guess is that you were part of the Pitt administration during the Pedersen/Nordenberg years and if you were, you and your cronies nearly killed Pitt athletics! Thankfully, you're gone and done!

Yes your position is false and you obviously have no clue how college athletics works.......

Good ol' Del it's always someone else's fault

 

[Delpanther]

Yes your position is false and you obviously have no clue how college athletics works.......

Good ol' Del it's always someone else's fault

My position as usual is spot on ; just doesn't conform to the views of apologists for failure like you.

 

[QuitCallingMeWanny]

My position as usual is spot on ; just doesn't conform to the views of apologists for failure like you.

Yea ok Del sometime in the near future you will pop that bubble that you live in and join reality

 

[bwh05]

Playing off campus won't ever be an advantage, it's something we have to overcome. Players (yes the current ones) wish we played on campus. Whether or not we can build a new stadium or even should is debatable, but demolishing Pitt stadium was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid idea now.

 

[ThePanthers]

Playing off campus won't ever be an advantage, it's something we have to overcome. Players (yes the current ones) wish we played on campus. Whether or not we can build a new stadium or even should is debatable, but demolishing Pitt stadium was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid idea now.

Meh, I don't think it was stupid.

 

[bwh05]

I guess stupid isn't the right way to describe it. I understand the logic behind it, i.e. it was much cheaper to move with the Steelers than pay to renovate. The issue is now that the cache of a new stadium has worn off, we've left ourselves without many options to return to campus even if we wanted to.

 

[Consultant Panther]

I guess stupid isn't the right way to describe it. I understand the logic behind it, i.e. it was much cheaper to move with the Steelers than pay to renovate. The issue is now that the cache of a new stadium has worn off, we've left ourselves without many options to return to campus even if we wanted to.

Remember that part of the deal was the practice facility, which Pitt desperately needed. The "cache" of that hasn't worn off.

 

[bwh05]

Right, recruits and current players think that's cool. Other than getting the guys back and forth to the south side, which can be a bit of a hassle, sharing the practice facility has been a huge benefit.

 

[Consultant Panther]

Right, recruits and current players think that's cool. Other than getting the guys back and forth to the south side, which can be a bit of a hassle, sharing the practice facility has been a huge benefit.

We need to point out out strengths, like practicing in the same facility as the Steelers, instead of complaining about playing off campus. If Pitt didn't move to Heinz, we would not have that practice facility.

 

[ThePanthers]

I guess stupid isn't the right way to describe it. I understand the logic behind it, i.e. it was much cheaper to move with the Steelers than pay to renovate. The issue is now that the cache of a new stadium has worn off, we've left ourselves without many options to return to campus even if we wanted to.

I think there was much more to it though than that.