TEMPLE TO GET NEW STADIUM! 2/15/16

[Z #2]

As of today, per Phila. Inquirer and well placed politicians in Philadelphia City Council, Temple will get new stadium, Beaver Stadium will be refurbished and THE NEW PITT STADIUM WILL GET BUILT! That is how we roll in Pennsylvania. Book it. The money is there and the money is to be made by the political hacks and corporations. Isn't it funny how reading the post-gazette about news never really happens or is the truth? lolol

http://www.philly.com/philly/educat...but_Temple_will_get_its_way_with_stadium.html

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

As of today, per Phila. Inquirer and well placed politicians in Philadelphia City Council, Temple will get new stadium, Beaver Stadium will be refurbished and THE NEW PITT STADIUM WILL GET BUILT! That is how we roll in Pennsylvania. Book it. The money is there and the money is to be made by the political hacks and corporations. Isn't it funny how reading the post-gazette about news never really happens or is the truth? lolol

http://www.philly.com/philly/educat...but_Temple_will_get_its_way_with_stadium.html

Serious question:

If Temple finds $126 million to build a football stadium. How much can Pitt "find," hypothetically? Just curious, would Pitt be able to raise more or less money than Temple?

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Who knows? We've never had an athletic director before whose focus was on raising money for projects like that which is being proposed in North Philadelphia. Our former long time athletic director thought he was a general manager, not a fundraiser or even a scheduler.

Unreal.

I will say this much: if state money is indeed being used to help Temple build a new on-campus stadium, you can rest assured that state money will also be used to help refurbish Beaver Stadium.

If that happens, the University of Pittsburgh would be beyond remiss if it failed to take advantage of that once in a lifetime funding opportunity as well.

The time for Pitt to plan is now. That doesn't mean they have to act on their plan necessarily but they do need to have an on campus stadium plan ready to go just in case the opportunity were to present itself in a meaningful way.

It would be tragic if Pitt sat on its hands while all of this money was being doled out and then 5–10 years from now they decided, "Hey, remember what you did for Temple and Penn State a few years ago? Well, we've given that whole thing some thought and we would like some money for our new on campus stadium too."

They would get shut out completely and anyone who follows this stuff knows that's completely true.

 

[cruzer]

Wow... the State can't even pass a budget but there is somehow hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars for football stadiums?

Excellent prioritization PA.

Cruzer

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

It's not that Pennsylvania can't pass a budget, it's that they won't pass a budget.

The money is definitely there. However, special-interests on both sides of the aisle have hijacked the state's legislators – and many others too. As a result, we're stuck in perpetual gridlock at both the state and national levels.

Criminals.

 

[Z #2]

Serious question:

If Temple finds $126 million to build a football stadium. How much can Pitt "find," hypothetically? Just curious, would Pitt be able to raise more or less money than Temple?

Mr. Miller, Pitt just cashed out a $250,000,000 muni bond paying 5%. They have not reissued anything in years. If the naming rights for New Pitt Stadium are...let's say...TEPPER STADIUM for 20 years, don't you think David Tepper, Pitt Grad, Appaloosa Mgt, might donate $100,000,000 openers from his 20 Billion net worth? He's sponsored the entire Pitt Hoop team scholarship fund. And he's given CMU a ton of money because he went to B School there. He grew up in East Livery. And guess what, Nordy and Smiley hated him and never tried to bring him in the tent. Guess what. Gallagher says yes, and we build it. It's as simple as that. Sponsoring everything from urinals to seats to gates will raise atleast $10,000,000. Under Armor, Adidas or Nike puts their symbol all over the Stadium and it's another $10,000,000. The money is there. The President of Pitt needs to public ally want it done. Just like Temple.

 

[Team_Pitt_Fan]

Who cares. Heinz works just fine.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Any money Pitt received from the State can be directed to build a new Track and Field Stadium which Pitt actually needs.

A $126 million Stadium would be a pretty much bare bones erector set.

Rutgers recently (a couple years ago) added 10,000 seats to their old stadium and it cost $100 million.

No Thanks

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[Blue Goose]

if they do build a new stadium on the pitt campus, where is the parking going to be? or will the fans be bussed in???? just curious and any thoughts.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

="Dr. von Yinzer, post: 983043, member: 3314"]Who knows? We've never had an athletic director before whose focus was on raising money for projects like that which is being proposed in North Philadelphia. Our former long time athletic director thought he was a general manager, not a fundraiser or even a scheduler. Unreal.
No truer words ever written on the Lair and very good way to put and post it?

I will say this much: if state money is indeed being used to help Temple build a new on-campus stadium, you can rest assured that state money will also be used to help refurbish Beaver Stadium. If that happens, the University of Pittsburgh would be beyond remiss if it failed to take advantage of that once in a lifetime funding opportunity as well.
In the 1960's, when Pitt required a State Bail out, the only way it passed was when Philadelphia Politicians made sure Temple and Penn State and Lincoln also received funding. It would be a surprise if Pitt is not included? At one time, Pitt was 25% State Related, it is now down below 5%.

The time for Pitt to plan is now. That doesn't mean they have to act on their plan necessarily but they do need to have an on campus stadium plan ready to go just in case the opportunity were to present itself in a meaningful way.
Spot on and agree.

It would be tragic if Pitt sat on its hands while all of this money was being doled out and then 5–10 years from now they decided, "Hey, remember what you did for Temple and Penn State a few years ago? Well, we've given that whole thing some thought and we would like some money for our new on campus stadium too." They would get shut out completely and anyone who follows this stuff knows that's completely true.
Great post!

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

As of today, per Phila. Inquirer and well placed politicians in Philadelphia City Council, Temple will get new stadium, Beaver Stadium will be refurbished and THE NEW PITT STADIUM WILL GET BUILT! That is how we roll in Pennsylvania. Book it. The money is there and the money is to be made by the political hacks and corporations. Isn't it funny how reading the post-gazette about news never really happens or is the truth? lolol

http://www.philly.com/philly/educat...but_Temple_will_get_its_way_with_stadium.html

Z #2, Thank you for following this important development and it was great to be informed by the post you linked on the Lair.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

That's a very good question. Frankly, I don't know where the parking would come from or how Pitt would manage it and other infrastructural challenges?

I also don't know in anything approaching practical terms just how much a slightly larger but similar structure would cost in Oakland? It could certainly prove to be cost prohibitive.

In that same vein, I don't know what land is realistically available for such a project? I know what has been speculated on in forums like this one but I don't know the real options available to the University of Pittsburgh?

Further, I don't know what the community's feedback would be, or the fans for that matter? And who knows how the local businesses and politicians would feel about such a large project? So I may see it as a long term boondoggle that would hurt the area while others may see it as an economic engine that if utilized properly could help it?

I would imagine that opinions would be mixed – as they are in this forum – but you never know until you actually get your hands dirty.

That's why, personally speaking, I am not advocating a new on campus football stadium…yet. I definitely see the challenges that we go along with a project of that scope but I also see the opportunities associated with it as well.

What I am advocating is that Pitt conducts a legitimate feasibility study on the possibility of building a new on campus football stadium. Questions like these are why you do a thorough feasibility study – to get some concrete answers, not yet more idle speculation.

If they're not able to navigate these waters, then they have their answer. However, you won't know until you actually dip your canoe in the water.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Did you even read the article that you linked? It in no way states as fact what you are trying to state in your original post that Temple is definitely getting a stadium. It is an opinion column that makes flawed comparisons to the Liacouras Center project 30 years early which had pre-existing state-earmarked money when the Commonwealth was in a much better financial position as opposed to the one it is now in with a $2 billion budget deficit and gridlocked legislature. Pennsylvania had $100s of millions in annual budget surpluses in the mid-1990s when these stadium and infrastructure projects were being funded. That was a very different atmosphere than what exists today. I can't see how college stadium projects get significant state money in this atmosphere.

City Council President Darrell Clarke is not on board if the community does not support it.

"If they get to a point where the community is comfortable with a potential stadium, then we'll have further discussion on the legislative level," Clarke said.

Mayor Kenney said Clarke calls the shots on zoning, because the stadium is in his Council district.

But he has told Temple it has to address existing concerns from neighbors before he is willing to discuss the stadium.

"You can't just jam it on people and say, just accept it and to hell with the other problems you've had before and here's 35,000 more," Kenney said.

State Rep. W. Curtis Thomas said he hasn't heard from Temple about the project, which will require significant state aid.

"Right now, there's this growing tension and distrust and a feeling by people that they are being pushed out through no fault of their own," said Thomas, who does not think the project could currently win the support of the Philadelphia delegation to the state General Assembly.

Sharif Street, son of former Mayor John Street, is the apparent front-runner to replace the retiring state Sen. Shirley Kitchen.

Street said he lives "less than 200 feet" from the proposed stadium site.

"I don't think something like that should be built over the protests of the community," he said. "We'd have to have a robust discussion. Right now, I'm not satisfied with the level of community engagement that has taken place."

As far as your statements about municipal bonds and Tepper, who has donated millions to Pitt and is annually among the top donors to the athletic department for years, they are at best inaccurate. You fantasy relies on people and corporations dropping $100s million donations for a stadium, which would historically be among the largest such gifts at any university, as a matter of assured fact. Remember Bill Dietrich, on his deathbed, earmarked $125 million in endowment support for the entire School of Arts & Sciences.

BTW, Pitt does not issue bonds through municipalities. Pitt has the power to issue its own bonds which is one of the (dwindling) benefits of being designated as an instrumentality of the state. UPMC is the one that has to issue bonds through municipalities like Monroeville, and has about $3 billion in outstanding debt. Pitt currently has about $1 billion in outstanding bonds. It just issued about $100 million in new bond debt in 2014 which won't come due for another 20 years. None of these are for singular infrastructure projects like you are talking about and doing so would mark a significant departure from how the university has been managed for the past two decades. What you are likely mistakenly talking about are $100 million in Panther Notes which were one year higher ed tax exempt notes that are largely (~75%) used to pay the prior year's Panther notes. This is regularly done for upfront cash for equipment etc and to keep Pitt's credit rating. These are not the type of long term debt issuances that you are suggesting they are.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Personally, I think there is a very good reason why so many urban schools who had been playing at off-campus venues have moved their home games back on campus. I don't believe that is a coincidence but rather a trend.

Also, I don't think the Pitt can consistently fill a 65-68,000 seat stadium. I just don't think that's a realistic goal and I think it hurts us left and right.

I believe the game day atmosphere is Pitt's primary recruiting disadvantage. Even when the Panthers about good seasons, our game day atmosphere completely stinks. Go do other college football games and that reality will become immediately clear to you. Our games just have a small time feel to them and a major reason for that is because we are playing in the stadium that is simply way too big for our needs.

We draw 45,000 fans in a cavernous 68,000 seat stadium – dominated by highlighter yellow seats – and it feels like there are 18-23,000 fans there. Similarly, Baylor draws the exact same number of fans to their new right-sized stadium and College Football Gameday is calling it "one of the best environments in college football." That's what I'm talking about: dramatically improving our game day atmosphere by right-sizing our stadium and maybe putting it where the students happen to be located.

Personally, I think a lot of these challenges are overstated and/or able to be overcome. Pittsburgh is not the only city with older buildings and shitty infrastructure and Pitt is not the first urban school to face these dilemmae.

Please note that is not to say that these would be the best use of the university's resources. Again, I would need a lot more information to make an intelligent choice on that matter. Pitt could conduct a study and conclude that all of those issues are workable but it's still not in the university's best long-term interest to build a new on-campus stadium. Also, that may be the right decision?

However, no information is needed to say that the university should keep its ear to the ground regarding Temple's new on campus football stadium. If it does indeed go through, that will definitely have a financial impact on Pitt, Penn State and Lincoln as well.

 

[pittdan77]

Most of the political scandal in PA happens east of the Alleghenies. Therefore, that's where all the money gets divided. Don't believe me? Take a ride east. They have back roads nicer than the parkway.

 

[CrazyPaco]

="Dr. von Yinzer, post: 983043, member: 3314"]Who knows? We've never had an athletic director before whose focus was on raising money for projects like that which is being proposed in North Philadelphia. Our former long time athletic director thought he was a general manager, not a fundraiser or even a scheduler. Unreal.
No truer words ever written on the Lair and very good way to put and post it?
False. Petersen Events Center, Petersen Sports Complex, major addition and renovations to Fitzgerald Field House, gymnastics training facility, other various renovations (including to Pitt Stadium prior to '99)...that money didn't come out of thin air and represents the some of the biggest facilities upgrades Pitt had seen since 1951. Yes, the bar was set incredibly low by those that preceded him. Could he have done better? Sure, but he did historically well for Pitt. People don't have to like him, and he wasn't likable to many, but one can't rewrite historical fact because of personal opinions.

I will say this much: if state money is indeed being used to help Temple build a new on-campus stadium, you can rest assured that state money will also be used to help refurbish Beaver Stadium. If that happens, the University of Pittsburgh would be beyond remiss if it failed to take advantage of that once in a lifetime funding opportunity as well.
In the 1960's, when Pitt required a State Bail out, the only way it passed was when Philadelphia Politicians made sure Temple and Penn State and Lincoln also received funding. It would be a surprise if Pitt is not included? At one time, Pitt was 25% State Related, it is now down below 5%.
False: Penn State and Temple both had state-related status prior to Pitt. Lincoln didn't receive the status until 1972. The "bail-out", in the form of granting Pitt state-related status, was in lieu of creating a new state research university in Western Pennsylvania (or alternative plans to elevate IUP to such status). Pitt is still the same percentage state related as it has been since 1966. What has dropped is the % support of its annual budget from ~33% to <9%. Pitt's current % public budget support is less than the % it received pre-1966 when it was fully private. However, Pitt still has 33% (matching the original budget support %) of its board seats appointed by the legislature and governor.

The time for Pitt to plan is now. That doesn't mean they have to act on their plan necessarily but they do need to have an on campus stadium plan ready to go just in case the opportunity were to present itself in a meaningful way.
Spot on and agree.
True: Pitt had back up plans for stadiums almost from the moment Pitt Stadium was torn down. I'm the one that posted the architectural renderings for this for the first time probably now what is over a decade ago. Believe it or not, the people in charge of billion and multi-million dollar institutions aren't as dumb as message board posters think. However, having contingency plans is a lot different than implementing said plans irresponsibly or without a need to do so.

It would be tragic if Pitt sat on its hands while all of this money was being doled out and then 5–10 years from now they decided, "Hey, remember what you did for Temple and Penn State a few years ago? Well, we've given that whole thing some thought and we would like some money for our new on campus stadium too." They would get shut out completely and anyone who follows this stuff knows that's completely true.
Great post!
True: If money is earmarked for other state-related schools for facility infrastructure plans, Pitt (and the Western PA delegations to the PA legislature) better make sure Pitt gets its share. However, that does not mean that the best use of this money would be to plow it into a stadium, which likely wouldn't be "on-campus" anyway. Pitt has to think strategically because as has been pointed out in many prior posts, it is very different physically, geographically, and politically than both PSU and Temple and most other FBS schools, including Baylor and Minnesota, if one is actually honest about such things. And often neglected is the fact that a 35K seat stadium like Temple is proposing will not adequately serve Pitt unless Pitt somehow fell out of the current Power 5 conference structure.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Like Doc said, if Temple gets state money and PSU gets state money, so will Pitt. There's your start. Now go get some donations and start looking at issuing some munis. At the Town Hall, Barnes showed a slide showing that we have the least amount of debt servicing in the ACC and said we have opportunity there (ie we can borrow money to do things). I think it showed something like debt servicing accounted for less than 1% of our expenses while it accounted for 14% of GT's.

 

[NTOP]

Mr. Miller, Pitt just cashed out a $250,000,000 muni bond paying 5%. They have not reissued anything in years. If the naming rights for New Pitt Stadium are...let's say...TEPPER STADIUM for 20 years, don't you think David Tepper, Pitt Grad, Appaloosa Mgt, might donate $100,000,000 openers from his 20 Billion net worth? He's sponsored the entire Pitt Hoop team scholarship fund. And he's given CMU a ton of money because he went to B School there. He grew up in East Livery. And guess what, Nordy and Smiley hated him and never tried to bring him in the tent. Guess what. Gallagher says yes, and we build it. It's as simple as that. Sponsoring everything from urinals to seats to gates will raise atleast $10,000,000. Under Armor, Adidas or Nike puts their symbol all over the Stadium and it's another $10,000,000. The money is there. The President of Pitt needs to public ally want it done. Just like Temple.

And if Pitt is dumb enough to do that...I hope it doesn't talk to the cartoonist who did your "renderings". Better to hire Legos.

 

[NTOP]

Did you even read the article that you linked? It in no way states as fact what you are trying to state in your original post that Temple is definitely getting a stadium. It is an opinion column that makes flawed comparisons to the Liacouras Center project 30 years early which had pre-existing state-earmarked money when the Commonwealth was in a much better financial position as opposed to the one it is now in with a $2 billion budget deficit and gridlocked legislature. Pennsylvania had $100s of millions in annual budget surpluses in the mid-1990s when these stadium and infrastructure projects were being funded. That was a very different atmosphere than what exists today. I can't see how college stadium projects get significant state money in this atmosphere.



As far as your statements about municipal bonds and Tepper, who has donated millions to Pitt and is annually among the top donors to the athletic department for years, they are at best inaccurate. You fantasy relies on people and corporations dropping $100s million donations for a stadium, which would historically be among the largest such gifts at any university, as a matter of assured fact. Remember Bill Dietrich, on his deathbed, earmarked $125 million in endowment support for the entire School of Arts & Sciences.

BTW, Pitt does not issue bonds through municipalities. Pitt has the power to issue its own bonds which is one of the (dwindling) benefits of being designated as an instrumentality of the state. UPMC is the one that has to issue bonds through municipalities like Monroeville, and has about $3 billion in outstanding debt. Pitt currently has about $1 billion in outstanding bonds. It just issued about $100 million in new bond debt in 2014 which won't come due for another 20 years. None of these are for singular infrastructure projects like you are talking about and doing so would mark a significant departure from how the university has been managed for the past two decades. What you are likely mistakenly talking about are $100 million in Panther Notes which were one year higher ed tax exempt notes that are largely (~75%) used to pay the prior year's Panther notes. This is regularly done for upfront cash for equipment etc and to keep Pitt's credit rating. These are not the type of long term debt issuances that you are suggesting they are.

Thanks, Paco.....but we're wasting our time on these guys. Instead, let's find $4-5 million for a T&F site.

 

[Jeismeister]

A $126 million Stadium would be a pretty much bare bones erector set.



HAIL TO PITT!!!!

Pretty much:

 

[cbpitt2]

But, but, there's no land in Oakland.
But, but, there's no room in Oakland.
But, but, there's no parking in Oakland.
But, but, they'll only use it seven times a year.
But, but, oh the traffic!
What other small-minded excuses am I missing?????
Forbes Field. Three Rivers Stadium. The Syria Mosque. Buildings come and go.
If we can cure polio, we damn well can put a stadium wherever we damn well please.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Part I:
"CrazyPaco, post: 984173, member: 160 quote in red"
CaptainSidneyReilly said: ↑
="Dr. von Yinzer, post: 983043, member: 3314"]Who knows? We've never had an athletic director before whose focus was on raising money for projects like that which is being proposed in North Philadelphia. Our former long time athletic director thought he was a general manager, not a fundraiser or even a scheduler. Unreal.
No truer words ever written on the Lair and very good way to put and post it?
False. Petersen Events Center, Petersen Sports Complex, major addition and renovations to Fitzgerald Field House, gymnastics training facility, other various renovations (including to Pitt Stadium prior to '99)...that money didn't come out of thin air and represents the some of the biggest facilities upgrades Pitt had seen since 1951.
I agree and stand corrected not being more clear. Your info is also spot on and no problem acknowledging it. Have always said, all University Sports Revivals start with the Chancellor's Vision and their Actions. Nordenberg's intention on rebuilding Pitt Sports far exceeded the prior Pitt Chancellor. Choosing Pederson's First Tenure was very good and he and Nordenberg did rebuild Pitt Athletics and return both Football and Basketball to winning. Additionally, after Pederson left for NU, Nordenberg did choose Jamie Dixon that built on Howland's success that was Pederson choice. Nordy brought in Wannstedt to advance Football like Dixon was doing in Basketball. As well as working towards ACC Invitation with Pederson's Return, his name is on the A.D. Department gets credit to be fair.

Yet, DRVY's description on Pederson's Management Style was just accurate and as CP points out, not well liked. Pederson second tenure was not as successful at Nebraska or Pitt to build a Top 25 Football Program and it was time to go. NU President Pearlman fired him in 5 minutes for that reason and Pederson never learned to adjust that style that caused him to fail at NU and Pitt later to make both Programs better. He did help get Pitt into the ACC, to be fair.

But CP is far more correct, in his timeline and times and when the Commonwealth had such money to build Infrastructure Statewide. Yet, nobody wants Pederson back either at Pitt or NU or anywhere. Times change and new ways to dream take hold by thinking and then doing them. I always thought Pederson was a Good Rebuilding A.D. and could be a Great Conference Commissioner, but was not good A.D. once a Program was built up like NU and even his return to Pitt. Nordenberg felt he needed him and Nordenberg did many great things at Pitt, and it is always the Chancellor vision that wins out and so be it.

Just glad Gallagher (Another Nordenberg Recommendation) felt otherwise and his changes to build upon Nordenberg foundation in Athletics and in the ACC. Gallagher can now build on Nordenberg and like Minnesota can look to the future to build and that won't be easy either, but can be done.
Yes, the bar was set incredibly low by those that preceded him.
Very true, and quite accurate, and change is never easy but credit goes where credit is due and thank you to remind all too.

Could he have done better? Sure, but he did historically well for Pitt.
Agree on First Tenure and was Athletic Director of the Year. Nordenberg chose pretty good and SP was paid very well in doing it and earned it. SP did do it to be his own jumping stone to bigger A.D. Job at Nebraska. SP did prove he was not capable of running a Top 25 Program at NU, or building a Top 25 Program into one in Football at Pitt. But as stated, Pitt did return to winning like you said, and on shoestrings budgets. Pederson was well paid for it too, but refused to change a few things that could have made him more successful too at NU & Pitt later, but like you say just an opinion!

People don't have to like him, and he wasn't likable to many, but one can't rewrite historical fact because of personal opinions.
Absolutely true, and good reminder and again thank you, and Nordenberg was there all along with Rooney's Hillman's, Jubelierer, and many too, and not all Pederson to be more fair. There was a movement to move Pitt Stadium even in 1972 when Cas was A.D. and he resisted it, but that was another era and another time and not 1996.

I will say this much: if state money is indeed being used to help Temple build a new on-campus stadium, you can rest assured that state money will also be used to help refurbish Beaver Stadium. If that happens, the University of Pittsburgh would be beyond remiss if it failed to take advantage of that once in a lifetime funding opportunity as well.
In the 1960's, when Pitt required a State Bail out, the only way it passed was when Philadelphia Politicians made sure Temple and Penn State and Lincoln also received funding. It would be a surprise if Pitt is not included? At one time, Pitt was 25% State Related, it is now down below 5%.
False: Penn State and Temple both had state-related status prior to Pitt. Lincoln didn't receive the status until 1972.
Temple became state related in 1965? Pitt in 1966? So correct again but in and near the same years, but Pitt was in need of a bailout a few years before both those events happen. A political agreement in Harrisburg did happen at the same time. Lincoln followed much with help of Kirkland Leroy Irvis.
The "bail-out", in the form of granting Pitt state-related status, was in lieu of creating a new state research university in Western Pennsylvania (or alternative plans to elevate IUP to such status). Pitt is still the same percentage state related as it has been since 1966.
Very good info and appreciate it very much and all done together about the same years.

What I read in The History of The University of Pittsburgh book way back in the 1980s, talked about the Alan Scaife's being Big Booster with Plans for UPitt but died unexpectedly in 1958, and that great loss as a benefactor for UPitt hurt Pitt very much, do you know anything on that aspect?

As well as, the Mellon's offer to leave a Big Endowment in early 1960s to avoid IRS Charges on Mellon Institute Research for Mellon Owned Corporations leading, came to Pitt and asked to change the name to Mellon University of Pittsburgh, and make it Ivy League, but Trustees refused. The President of Carnegie Tech came a calling and saying it would be glad to change the name by merging the Mellon Institute and CMU formed in 1967??? CP any accurate info you have on that too being true in details?

What has dropped is the % support of its annual budget from ~33% to <9%. Pitt's current % public budget support is less than the % it received pre-1966 when it was fully private.
Agree, and you are far more accurate and always defer to your superior knowledge on Pitt and enjoy it very much and no problem being corrected, it is the way to learn with the content you put up here. Thanks again.

However, Pitt still has 33% (matching the original budget support %) of its board seats appointed by the legislature and governor.
My info came from two sources, once I sat at The University of Pittsburgh Table for Prince Andrew at the Convention Center in 1990s on Marshall Scholarships. An Englishmen asked, how much Pitt was State-Related, and a Pitt Women replied it was 25% now down to 5%, but that is info long time ago and glad you straighten that out today.

The State has been withdrawing support for some time for all PA Colleges.

 

[giveitarest]

OK so how and where do you resolve all the SMALL minded excuses? Since they are real.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

PART II CONTINUED:
"CrazyPaco, post: 984173, member: 160 quote in red"
CaptainSidneyReilly said: ↑
="Dr. von Yinzer, post: 983043, member: 3314"]
The time for Pitt to plan is now. That doesn't mean they have to act on their plan necessarily but they do need to have an on campus stadium plan ready to go just in case the opportunity were to present itself in a meaningful way.
Spot on and agree.
True: Pitt had back up plans for stadiums almost from the moment Pitt Stadium was torn down. I'm the one that posted the architectural renderings for this for the first time probably now what is over a decade ago. Believe it or not, the people in charge of billion and multi-million dollar institutions aren't as dumb as message board posters think. However, having contingency plans is a lot different than implementing said plans irresponsibly or without a need to do so.
I remember you putting that up and your info is always great on Pitt.

It would be tragic if Pitt sat on its hands while all of this money was being doled out and then 5–10 years from now they decided, "Hey, remember what you did for Temple and Penn State a few years ago? Well, we've given that whole thing some thought and we would like some money for our new on campus stadium too." They would get shut out completely and anyone who follows this stuff knows that's completely true.
Great post!
True: If money is earmarked for other state-related schools for facility infrastructure plans, Pitt (and the Western PA delegations to the PA legislature) better make sure Pitt gets its share. However, that does not mean that the best use of this money would be to plow it into a stadium, which likely wouldn't be "on-campus" anyway. Pitt has to think strategically because as has been pointed out in many prior posts, it is very different physically, geographically, and politically than both PSU and Temple and most other FBS schools, including Baylor and Minnesota, if one is actually honest about such things.
CP, Excellent post and glad you put it up, this shows why discussions on many topics related to CFB & Programs, and Universities and great content to learn from others is important to share and learn on the Lair.

And often neglected is the fact that a 35K seat stadium like Temple is proposing will not adequately serve Pitt unless Pitt somehow fell out of the current Power 5 conference structure.
My thoughts are that Temple is actually moving to expand its Facilities so they attract continued support and build upon the success in their Football & Basketball Programs. In order to become attractive to be invited into a Power Conference. Or if there is an Reorganization on CFB among the Top 5 Power Conferences or a creation towards a Profit League?

I was there last year for first time in 10 years and what they have done in expanding the Liacouras Center and added Parking while developing the area is pretty amazing. We shall see?

CrazyPaco, I appreciate your time and corrections, and clarifications. Thank You very much.

 

[ThePanthers]

But, but, there's no land in Oakland.
But, but, there's no room in Oakland.
But, but, there's no parking in Oakland.
But, but, they'll only use it seven times a year.
But, but, oh the traffic!
What other small-minded excuses am I missing?????
Forbes Field. Three Rivers Stadium. The Syria Mosque. Buildings come and go.
If we can cure polio, we damn well can put a stadium wherever we damn well please.

What is this supposed to show us? That there was some nice flat land and space for Washington to build a new stadium? Because that is what I see.

 

[Swervin27]

What is this supposed to show us? That there was some nice flat land and space for Washington to build a new stadium? Because that is what I see.

moreso how shortsighted pitt fans are.

 

[ThePanthers]

moreso how shortsighted pitt fans are.

What am I saying that is wrong?

There is being shortsighted, and then there is realistic problems that realizing that not every scenario is the same.

Again, show me on the Pitt campus where you can put a stadium with the surrounding infrastructure that is necessary in Oakland that is REALISTIC.

 

[Swervin27]

What am I saying that is wrong?

There is being shortsighted, and then there is realistic problems that realizing that not every scenario is the same.

Again, show me on the Pitt campus where you can put a stadium with the surrounding infrastructure that is necessary in Oakland that is REALISTIC.

I don't have the answers but IF this is a priority, smarter men than you or I will find a way.. Again, shortsightedness.. If Marriott and holiday inn can build a chain hotel every 30 minutes in Oakland, there is a way. I know, stadiums are bigger than hotels..

 

[Jakey_John]

If it's feasible then I think it will be reasonably considered by the new admin but it will take a lot log leg work to determine that it is a possibility.

 

[ThePanthers]

I don't have the answers but IF this is a priority, smarter men than you or I will find a way.. Again, shortsightedness.. If Marriott and holiday inn can build a chain hotel every 30 minutes in Oakland, there is a way. I know, stadiums are bigger than hotels..

HAHAHAHAHA. Comparing building a stadium to a building that takes up a block. HAHAHAHA.

There are people much smarter than me that have been trying to cure cancer for a century, and can't do it as of yet. The answer isn't always "there is a way".

Let's build a hover board and flying cars that work in the manner in Back to the Future 2. I don't have answers but there is a way! (and let's make it cheap too).

 

[Swervin27]

HAHAHAHAHA. Comparing building a stadium to a building that takes up a block. HAHAHAHA.

There are people much smarter than me that have been trying to cure cancer for a century, and can't do it as of yet. The answer isn't always "there is a way".

Let's build a hover board and flying cars that work in the manner in Back to the Future 2. I don't have answers but there is a way! (and let's make it cheap too).

you've obviously made up your mind on the situation, others haven't.. great post though, thanks for your insightful post..

 

[bobfree]

Has anyone been able to discern why the use of different color text is being used?

Captain you could write prose so captivating that it would make my eyes weep but I would never know because your colored font and quotation usage is borderline nauseating

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

This is a very complex issue. I don't blame anyone for seeing parts of this issue - or even all of this issue - differently than I do. There are a lot of moving parts here and I don't think anyone knows what the future holds?

My only beef is when people oversimplify things (on either side of the divide). I think that's when the conversation typically derails and ends up in a strange place.

Honestly, I have no idea how much a new stadium would cost of if building a stadium on campus would be worth the cost? How could anyone possibly know that without any actual numbers/plans to analyze?

I just know that it is not nearly an impossibility and I would just like to see Pitt be prepared to move should money become available to build one. As has already been established, state budgets are variable. A good climate 10 years ago has turned into a bad financial climate today. Perhaps 10 years from now, things will change yet again? If it does, I would much rather be prepared to act than unprepared.

That's not too radical is it?

 

[giveitarest]

Perhaps a better use of money could go to help contain costs and limit tuition increase and the debt that burdens the future grads.

 

[PittPanthers90]

We should keep playing in Heinz field and promote the positives of being next to the Steelers.
A few less fans shouldn't trump the ability to get pointers from professionals.

 

[UPitt '89]

As of today, per Phila. Inquirer and well placed politicians in Philadelphia City Council, Temple will get new stadium, Beaver Stadium will be refurbished and THE NEW PITT STADIUM WILL GET BUILT! That is how we roll in Pennsylvania. Book it. The money is there and the money is to be made by the political hacks and corporations. Isn't it funny how reading the post-gazette about news never really happens or is the truth? lolol

http://www.philly.com/philly/educat...but_Temple_will_get_its_way_with_stadium.html

Lol.

The delusion is strong with you, Z#2.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

But, but, there's no land in Oakland.
But, but, there's no room in Oakland.
But, but, there's no parking in Oakland.
But, but, they'll only use it seven times a year.
But, but, oh the traffic!
What other small-minded excuses am I missing?????
Forbes Field. Three Rivers Stadium. The Syria Mosque. Buildings come and go.
If we can cure polio, we damn well can put a stadium wherever we damn well please.

I wonder if you realize that Huskie Stadium was actually built in 1920? And that what you see today was from a complete renovation of the existing stadium and not some sort of new construction done at a new site? Oh, and that renovating a stadium that was already there on a site that needed no land acquisition or infrastructure (ie roads, sewers, etc.) improvements still cost the University of Washington $261 million?

The University of Washington would actually be a great example if Pitt Stadium still existed. But it doesn't, and hasn't for a long time. So for people who are looking at costs, take the number the Washington spent, add in how ever many years worth of construction inflation it will be before Pitt builds, and then add on whatever it will cost to acquire all the land in Oakland, prepare that land for construction, and add in whatever infrastructure costs will come from building a stadium somewhere where one does not currently exist.

Unless, of course, you'd rather play in a crappy dump of a stadium just so you could say it was on campus. Isn't that what we used to have?

 

[Z #2]

Did you even read the article that you linked? It in no way states as fact what you are trying to state in your original post that Temple is definitely getting a stadium. It is an opinion column that makes flawed comparisons to the Liacouras Center project 30 years early which had pre-existing state-earmarked money when the Commonwealth was in a much better financial position as opposed to the one it is now in with a $2 billion budget deficit and gridlocked legislature. Pennsylvania had $100s of millions in annual budget surpluses in the mid-1990s when these stadium and infrastructure projects were being funded. That was a very different atmosphere than what exists today. I can't see how college stadium projects get significant state money in this atmosphere.



As far as your statements about municipal bonds and Tepper, who has donated millions to Pitt and is annually among the top donors to the athletic department for years, they are at best inaccurate. You fantasy relies on people and corporations dropping $100s million donations for a stadium, which would historically be among the largest such gifts at any university, as a matter of assured fact. Remember Bill Dietrich, on his deathbed, earmarked $125 million in endowment support for the entire School of Arts & Sciences.

BTW, Pitt does not issue bonds through municipalities. Pitt has the power to issue its own bonds which is one of the (dwindling) benefits of being designated as an instrumentality of the state. UPMC is the one that has to issue bonds through municipalities like Monroeville, and has about $3 billion in outstanding debt. Pitt currently has about $1 billion in outstanding bonds. It just issued about $100 million in new bond debt in 2014 which won't come due for another 20 years. None of these are for singular infrastructure projects like you are talking about and doing so would mark a significant departure from how the university has been managed for the past two decades. What you are likely mistakenly talking about are $100 million in Panther Notes which were one year higher ed tax exempt notes that are largely (~75%) used to pay the prior year's Panther notes. This is regularly done for upfront cash for equipment etc and to keep Pitt's credit rating. These are not the type of long term debt issuances that you are suggesting they are.

 

[Z #2]

Crazy, please stop. You are being rude and unknowledgable. Read the information and process it. We have relied on your fact posting, but it seems that you are more angry about the new Pitt Stadium then anything else in the Pitt Athletics Universe. It was you who posted images of the New Pitt Stadium on the OC Lot that is a part of the Pitt GSPIA Study. Why so angry? If it's is good for Pitt Athletics support it, don't rail against as some reason to back Pitt Basketball. You are completely biased in that respect. You make ad hominem comments when you might really better understand that putting the two arenas together would benefit hoops tremendously. Simply put, the money is there. It's always been there. Please read the articles posted for your personal understanding and please stop attacking everybody on this board regarding this issue. It's like your bitterness is just mid life crisis creeping up on you. Come on my friend, you have always been better than that. Hail To Pitt.

 

[We_All_We_Got]

Has anyone been able to discern why the use of different color text is being used?

Captain you could write prose so captivating that it would make my eyes weep but I would never know because your colored font and quotation usage is borderline nauseating

Base Font --------------------> Von Yinzer's post
Dark Gray/Green / Black --> Captain's response to Von Yinzer
Burgandy --------------------> Paco response to Captain
Purple -------------------------> Captain response to Paco