You all need to excuse CrazyPaco and SoufOaklin4Life, as they are both disciples of Steve from their days as students/young alums, and still under his influence. The result is that both of these gentlemen will argue against almost every decision that would reverse something Steve has been responsible for or heavily involved with, i.e. moving football back onto campus, using the script, etc.
Paco, why don't you make your case against some of the more well thought out posts like that of Dr. Von Yinzer, instead of always attempting to attack what you perceive as the lower hanging fruit posts in every stadium thread?
I don't have a problem with what Von Yinzer is calling for or saying for the most part, not that the public would likely ever see the results of such a study, which for all anyone knows has already been done. We know architectural plans were rendered for a replacement stadium and other athletic and non-athletic projects that have never gotten off the ground for various reasons including the results of feasibility studies. If a study hasn't been done, it should be, because there always should be contingency plans. I know that there have been contingency plans so it doesn't worry me.
And by the way, we've had people post on here through the years with actual experience in development and construction projects in Oakland and Pittsburgh, but they were flippantly dismissed by those with absolutely no insight or experience since what was shared simply didn't mesh with whatever self-invented narrative was being bandied about that day. So I don't see how a study would quell the masses or satisfy anything.
There is not a single Pitt person on this board or elsewhere, that I am aware of, that actually believes that in a Pitt utopia we'd wouldn't have an on-campus, refurbished, Pitt Stadium. Personally, I guarantee I have more souvenirs of Pitt Stadium in my collection than 99% of people on this board. However, some of us like to deal with reality and facts and discuss actual probably solutions to issues...and sometimes we feel compelled to explain why things are how they are and why things are likely to be how they are going to be (although that is has proven essentially futile on these boards the past few years). We don't have Bigelow Blvd closed down either, and there are reasons for that have nothing to do with a lack of commitment or trying or vision. There is a reason there is no on-campus stadium on the horizon too.
In the mean time, Narduzzi is out there trying to sell what we do have, which is pretty substantial in its own unique right, although some fans refuse to get behind the vision he is trying (and in fact has no choice but) to sell. People need to understand what we have and what we are as a university and athletic department, including the advantages that we can leverage. Squawking about greener grass all the time only undermines the sale, and frankly, changes nothing.
The "low hanging fruit" that you refer to is low hanging because it is either flat out wrong or based on ignorance, and years of experience have taught me, unfortunately, that much like trying to have a conversation with a JoeBot about institutional responsibility, that it is equally worthless to have a conversation with a Stadiumbot or Stevebot, where the facts and data are routinely ignored in the name of a commitment to basing the center of one's universe on all things anti-Pederson or anti-Heinz. These people are often pushing a narrative that is also detrimental to the athletic department because, frankly, they don't know what Pitt is, has, or doesn't have and are unwilling to learn. Perhaps if people were rationale, or perhaps had just reasonable comprehension skills, instead of singular minded obsessions that seek to qualify any deliverer of fact that contradicts their invented narratives as pro this or anti that, then they might see the difference.
