Solution for Pitt Football — Two Stadiums (Part I)

(Note: This is Part I of a three-part series proposing a new on-campus stadium for the University of Pittsburgh. Super long, right? But if you read this and are interested in soldiering on, check out Part II and Part III.)

Whether Pitt fans want to accept it or not, the team has an attendance problem. Or at least an optics problem.

Heinz Field was more yellow than a Terrible Towel factory last night. In front of a national ESPN audience (albeit one that was paying more attention to Jets-Patriots, the NLCS and the return of the NHL), Pitt fans were seen as unwilling to show up for a primetime game.

Don’t get me wrong: I will accept any reason you had for not attending Pitt vs. Virginia Tech on Thursday night. It was raining. The Penguins were playing. You don’t want to pay to watch a team on a three-game losing streak.

Actually, you don’t even need to give me a reason! It’s your money and time, and I won’t shame you for not spending it on college football.

But this is the problem for the University of Pittsburgh and its athletic department: In 75% of Pitt’s games over the last decade, fans filled less than 75% of the stadium.

Put another way, the vast majority of Pitt football home games see at least a quarter of the seats sitting empty. Bright yellow. It’s not a good look for an ACC program, especially when the Steelers are about to expand Heinz Field to 68,000 seats and exacerbate Pitt’s problem.

Rob Rossi of the Tribune-Review was right to bring up the issue in his column, though unfortunately he spent little space on how to implement his solution: a new Pitt Stadium in Oakland.

Some Pitt fans agreed with Rossi. Many did not. Those who didn’t most commonly replied, “a new stadium isn’t a solution. Winning is a solution.” Or something close.

That is absolutely fair. Pittsburghers will flock to see a winning football team, thus solving Pitt’s attendance issue. But back up one second. How much winning does it take to fill Heinz Field?

Over the last decade, there has only been one season in which Pitt needed 52,000 seats for more than two games — the 2009 campaign, in which the Panthers were a Cincinnati comeback away from the BCS.

So yes, winning is a solution. If Pitt can win 10 games every year, reach the AP Top 10 every year, and be a legitimate playoff contender every year, fans will fill an NFL stadium.

The only snag in that plan is you would have to be delusional to think it will happen. This is not the 1970’s and 80’s. Pitt will not be a perennial championship contender in the new millennium of college football, in which every FBS school is in an arms race to make the playoffs.

Can they win? Absolutely. In fact, the program has made six straight bowl games and 11 bowls in the last 14 seasons. That is excellent! Thus, here’s the reality for Pitt: the school has a winning program, but not a championship-contending one like Oregon, Alabama, Florida State, Ohio State, etc.

———————————–

Pitt needs a stadium solution that matches its reality as a program. Here is my concept: build a 41,000-seat on-campus stadium. Use it for the majority of home games, then play one or two big games each year at Heinz Field.

Look at how Stanford attacked the problem of its too-big stadium:

StanfordStadium2004

Doesn’t it look a little like old Pitt Stadium? Massive, all-bowl, bleachers, track around the field…

Well Stanford re-built its stadium on the same site after the 2005 season, and the results are stunning:

1280px-2008-1115-006-USC-Stanford-PAN

Stanford dropped the capacity down to 50,000 in its practically-brand-new stadium, and the program is far better for it. I have been there — it is an intimate venue in a beautiful setting. When it’s packed, it is loud. When it’s not full, the optics are not as bad as an empty Heinz Field.

I know you have questions. I’ll try to read your mind and guess them. Put your forehead right up on the screen.

  • Why 41,000 seats?

Two reasons.

1. Pitt has needed less than 41,000 seats for the majority of its games over the last decade.

Consider that 56% of Pitt’s home games have had a paid attendance below 46,000. Subtract 10% for no-shows to those games (which is probably generous. I would guess it is more than 10%) and you get 41,000. It is the ideal size for your run-of-the-mill game against conference foes past and present — think Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Virginia, Louisville, Connecticut.

graph

Keep in mind, this is *paid* attendance. Subtract 10 to 15 percent for the actual butts-in-seats number for most home games.

And as Pitt basketball has proven, sellouts are a good event for the program. Sellouts can become the rule for Pitt football too, instead of the exception.

2. It fits the current trend of new stadiums on campus.

Since 2003, Division I FBS schools have built 10 new stadiums. They range from 30,000 for non-BCS schools (Akron, Florida Atlantic, Tulane) to just above 50,000 seats (Minnesota and Stanford).

The average new stadium size? 39,211 seats. If you want to design in a few thousand more seats or build with the possibility to expand, that’s cool. The idea here is to build a venue that suits Pitt’s needs but is not so large that it overwhelms the Oakland neighborhood in footprint, traffic and parking.

  • Which games would Pitt play at Heinz Field?

The Panthers would only need Heinz Field’s larger capacity for one or two games each season. Only 10 times over the past decade has Pitt’s paid attendance been higher than 55,100, and 7 of those games were against either West Virginia or Notre Dame.

Sounds easy enough. Schedule Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami and Penn State games at Heinz Field. If the Backyard Brawl ever returns, put those games at Heinz as well. Have Heinz Field available for the season’s final home game if Pitt is competing for an ACC title. Even all that makes up a minority of the Panthers’ schedule, an example of why a new, smaller stadium better serves the program.

  • Why go back on campus if Panthers fans couldn’t even fill Pitt Stadium?

Look, I never attended Pitt stadium. The school tore it down when I was seven years old. From how it looked though, Pitt Stadium was built for 60,000 fans, had stands way too far from the field, and as Bob Smizik wrote in 1999, “backless seats, inadequate restrooms, insufficient concessions and invisible parking.”

New Pitt Stadium would be smaller, leaner and serve the entire university. That’s because on-campus stadium does not need to be empty the 360 days per year that the Panthers are not playing.

Look to Notre Dame as an example. The university is spending $400 million to construct three new buildings on the sides of Notre Dame Stadium. ND’s new stadium will offer “space for student organizations, a recreation center and career center… anthropology and psychology departments and a digital media center… the Department of Music… [and] some 3,000 to 4,000 premium seats for the football stadium with supporting club amenities.”

New Pitt Stadium would not be just for the athletic department, but for the whole school. Intramurals and summer concerts on the field, career festivals and parents’ weekend events in the concourses, and academic facilities on the sides of the stadium. New Pitt Stadium could be the center of Pitt campus life, expanding on the success of the Petersen Events Center.

  • Where would it go? Where would people park?

That we will explore in Part II, coming up tomorrow. But rest assured, there is space available for a 41,000-seat stadium and attached facilities.

Read Part II, with my New Pitt Stadium site concept, right here.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Solution for Pitt Football — Two Stadiums (Part I)

  1. The two-stadium solution sounds like what Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State used to do. They had smaller “on-campus” stadiums and then much larger stadiums in the “capital” (Little Rock and Jackson) for big games.

  2. Pingback: New Pitt Stadium site concept… and a heck of a view (Part II) | James Santelli

  3. Pingback: Parking and Traffic for New Pitt Stadium? No Problem (Part III) | James Santelli

  4. I see so many problems with this idea, in particular with underestimating the space and overestimating the university’s ability to pay.

    Let’s start with 41,000 seats. You can’t dismiss the 10% that are no shows since a season ticket holder that doesn’t show up still occupies a seat. If the games where they currently claim 46,000 are the ones you want on campus, then you have to build a 46,000 seat stadium. If you really want to add 3,000 more seats for students, you better make that 49,000. Replacing full price tickets with students is not a good option since the student ticket comes out to just over $4 per seat and students aren’t spending on parking, merchandise, or food. Even with those numbers, 3 out of every 7 games would have to be played at Heinz Field since according to your own numbers 46% of the games have had higher attendance. Of course, there is always the option of reducing the number of students going to the game or charging more for tickets in the smaller stadium, but that defeats the purpose of moving the stadium back to campus in the first place.

    Onto parking. There’s 5,400 parking spots on Pitt and CMU owned lots. Great. What happens when CMU has a football game? Why would they be giving up their lot? How many of those spots are occupied on weekends by students living on campus with a parking pass? How many for faculty who don’t always take Saturdays off? How many are available for gameday parking at 4:00 on a Thursday when classes are still in session? I wouldn’t count on that hospital parking either since hospitals don’t shut down on Saturdays.

    Finally let’s look at traffic. If you don’t allow any cash parking in any lot in Oakland, where exactly are people who aren’t going to the game supposed to park? Parking on the streets of Oakland is at a premium and requires a permit in South Oakland.

    Then there’s the cost. Unless the ACC has brought about a dramatic change in Pitt’s income, the athletic department is not self sufficient. It relies on spending from tuition and/or activity fees to cover the cost of Olympic sports that aren’t covered by football and basketball. Assuming the Petersen family doesn’t have another large eight figure sum they want to donate, where does a school with a $50 million athletic budget find $120 million to build a stadium that will be used 4 times a year? If you are relying on cutting prices in the stadium, selling jerseys at a discount,and paying local bars to give specials as a way of reducing traffic, you eating into the revenue being generated by the game.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s