Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

March 4, 1999

Faculty reaction mixed to possibility of moving games

Faculty reaction mixed to possibility of moving games

Student Government Board members urged Faculty Assembly members this week to support their fight to save Pitt Stadium.

But except for agreeing that University officials should consult with students in deciding whether to move Pitt football games to a planned North Side stadium, Assembly members' responses were mixed.

University Senate Vice President Deborah Rougeux said: "The day I have to go off campus to go to my home team's football game is the day I give up my season tickets."

Professors James Holland and Phil Wion noted the possible financial and political advantages of moving to a state-of-the-art stadium and freeing up the Pitt Stadium site for student housing and the convocation center.

Of Pitt's two so-called revenue-producing sports, the football program has been losing about $3 million annually while the men's basketball program has been generating about $300,000 in annual revenues, said Wion, who reviews athletics department financial data as a member of the University Planning and Budgeting Committee.

"If either or both [of the programs] could improve their financial standing, that would have positive implications for the rest of the University," Wion said.

Holland pointed out that some Oakland residents oppose building the convocation center on the current planned site adjacent to Pitt Stadium. Constructing the center on the stadium site might be an easier sell to the community and to the City Planning Commission, he said.

"Moreover, Pitt has a policy of building more on-campus student housing. Unfortunately, it does not have more on-campus space to do it in," Holland said. "Add up all of the factors, and it may not add up to [re]moving the stadium. But a reasonable analysis is appropriate."

In a March 3 Campus Update, Chancellor Mark Nordenberg outlined the administration's actions and reasoning in considering whether to abandon Pitt Stadium.

"Despite the memorable moments that many of us can associate with past games played at Pitt Stadium, the facility itself is no longer an asset to the program," Nordenberg wrote. "Instead, by virtually any standard of measure, it is no longer 'in the same league' as the stadiums of our competitors, whether measured by the impressions of recruits or the expectations of fans.

"Comparatively speaking, games are not well attended, and those fans present on game-day not only miss out on the amenities that have become customary in most modern stadiums but must struggle for access to even basic facilities. Those loyal supporters who not only choose to meet that challenge on a regular basis but who may consider those characteristics of the facility to be part of its charm deserve a great deal of credit. Unfortunately, they are not, and never have been, a very large group."

— Bruce Steele


Leave a Reply