Grabbed this from another board. In 2013-14, UC's athletic department garnered about eight million more in revenue than Pitt (of the mighty ACC). Wait till we start getting the money from the premium seating in Nippert. Of course, they will get all that money from the CFP.

---------------------------------------------
--- Mountaineer Steve wrote:

<p >It is only going to get worse for the pantyers

<p ><a title="Spitts poor revenue numbers" href="http://pittsburgh.forums.rivals.com/threads/new-athletic-department-financial-info-where-pitt-stands.12351/" rel="nofollow">Spitts poor revenue numbers </a>



---------------------------------------------

I wonder if Pitt's struggles have anything to do with playing at Heinz Field. As I understand, renovating Pitt Stadium would have been very difficult and costly. But our Nippert project is proving you can renovate an antiquated stadium and generate revenue.

(05-31-2015 04:28 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I wonder if Pitt's struggles have anything to do with playing at Heinz Field. As I understand, renovating Pitt Stadium would have been very difficult and costly. But our Nippert project is proving you can renovate an antiquated stadium and generate revenue.

I hear this every so often... Remember, that Heinz is a JOINT project between the Steelers (the Rooney family), The University of Pittsburgh, and UPMC. So, Pitt is not "renting." They are co-owners of Heinz Field.

Now was it a "good" idea to move out of Pitt Stadium? I don't know... Oakland is an incredibly tight neighborhood and from everything I hear, traffic in and out of Oakland on Pitt home games was impossible. Old Pitt Stadium was also really hemmed in...almost as badly as Nippert....so expanding it was virtually impossible. (Remember, old Pitt Stadium was already a 50K, full bowl structure.) Also, it was a structure that was aging badly, so you're not just talking a "renovation" but something more like a complete REBUILD, like Cal's stadium...which turned out to be a huge over-run. So, when the opportunity came to team up with the Steelers (and UPMC) for a new, professional stadium with Interstate and mass transit access and a built in, state-of-the-art training facility... Well, you can see where the Pitt administration was at least tempted. I think the "logic" was that most of the Pitt FB fanbase was not "local" anyway (ie, they weren't walking to the games) and so a new and improved stadium with more amenities, capacity, and easier access would INCREASE the attendance at the games because it would make it easier for more people to come.

Whatever the reasons, the reality hasn't exactly matched expectations.

Or it could have something to do with the fact that Pitt football sucks and has nothing to do with the venue.

(05-31-2015 05:20 PM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  Or it could have something to do with the fact that Pitt football sucks and has nothing to do with the venue.

I think it's both...Pitt football sucks ballz and playing in an NFL stadium sucks even worse.

I guess now that they are in the ACC, they don't need to lie anymore?

(05-31-2015 05:51 PM)Brian_Johnson Wrote:  I guess now that they are in the ACC, they don't need to lie anymore?

Exactly. They lied about attendance more than any other school. It was ridiculous.

(05-31-2015 05:26 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 05:20 PM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  Or it could have something to do with the fact that Pitt football sucks and has nothing to do with the venue.

I think it's both...Pitt football sucks ballz and playing in an NFL stadium sucks even worse.

Without a doubt, all of the coaching changes have done nothing but make it worse. Cant say I feel sorry for them.

(05-31-2015 05:26 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 05:20 PM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  Or it could have something to do with the fact that Pitt football sucks and has nothing to do with the venue.

I think it's both...Pitt football sucks ballz and playing in an NFL stadium sucks even worse.

These revenue figures comes from more than football ticket sales. Among other things it includes alumni donations and merchandise sales.

I have mentioned it before but I have family in Pittsburgh. Pitt does not move the needle in that town any more than UC does in Cincinnati. In fact from my experience UC might have a leg up on them because the pro sports in that town are over so big.

(05-31-2015 04:46 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 04:28 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I wonder if Pitt's struggles have anything to do with playing at Heinz Field. As I understand, renovating Pitt Stadium would have been very difficult and costly. But our Nippert project is proving you can renovate an antiquated stadium and generate revenue.

I hear this every so often... Remember, that Heinz is a JOINT project between the Steelers (the Rooney family), The University of Pittsburgh, and UPMC. So, Pitt is not "renting." They are co-owners of Heinz Field.

They don't own the stadium, they are co-operators along with the Steelers just like the Bungles operate PBS. The Sports & Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County owns Heinz Field.

(05-31-2015 08:28 PM)RedRocker Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 04:46 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 04:28 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I wonder if Pitt's struggles have anything to do with playing at Heinz Field. As I understand, renovating Pitt Stadium would have been very difficult and costly. But our Nippert project is proving you can renovate an antiquated stadium and generate revenue.

I hear this every so often... Remember, that Heinz is a JOINT project between the Steelers (the Rooney family), The University of Pittsburgh, and UPMC. So, Pitt is not "renting." They are co-owners of Heinz Field.

They don't own the stadium, they are co-operators along with the Steelers just like the Bungles operate PBS. The Sports & Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County owns Heinz Field.

Fair enough... My point is merely that often I hear people evaluate the Pitt stadium situation as "Well, Pitt rents..." (as in "they don't own their own stadium") which is not exactly true. Pitt is not Miami, USF, or even UC playing at PBS or Riverfront, where they are secondary tenants in a stadium clearly built for someone else.

It still may have been a bad idea to move off campus. But the reasons they did so were at least understandable. And as such, we can learn from them.

Oh, and I agree... UC>Pitt. I don't see Pitt or Miami ever regaining the prominence of "the glory days." I think UC's days are still ahead.

(05-31-2015 06:47 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 05:26 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-31-2015 05:20 PM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  Or it could have something to do with the fact that Pitt football sucks and has nothing to do with the venue.

I think it's both...Pitt football sucks ballz and playing in an NFL stadium sucks even worse.

Without a doubt, all of the coaching changes have done nothing but make it worse. Cant say I feel sorry for them.

The Heinz thing probably works to Pitt's advantage. After all, the only people in the stands for their games are Steelers fans who came a day early thinking it was Sunday already.