In partnership with CBSSports.com
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Personally, I don't really see a big name defensive coordinator selling that many more tickets. That angle may work with head coaches, maybe offensive coordinators if going to a high paced offense. But I can't imagine more than like 100 people buying tickets over a defensive coordinator.
And the reason why I blame alumni is b/c when I went to Pitt from 2007 to 2010, the student section was pretty much packed for every game. But when you looked around the stadium, it was embarrassing to see all the empty yellow seats. At other schools, alumni fill the seats. At Pitt, they don't.
firing stevie p saves pitt $600k/yr....and boosts attendance at the same time. its a no-brainer....nordy refuses to fire the guy. its holding the entire program back.
stevie p has zero reason to be at pitt any longer. nobody wants him here and we are paying him big bucks for nothing.
This post was edited by curtismartinfan 17 months ago
I really have a hard time believing the average attendee to a Pitt football game has any idea who SP is, and thus, don't see any factual reason to think his firing would generate any significant attendance boost.
Gotta love the logic where people blame the customers for not buying a product that has been medocre at best and down right putrid for much of the past 30 years or so.
If only the Yugo could have convinced its customers to buy more cars to support its efforts to build a better car............
Given how many in our fan base use this inverse polish logic, I have to think Nordy and company have come to the conclusion that they can put anything out there and the die hards will continue to gobble it up.
Matt house is now a rising star PItt couldnt affort to lose......
A "Real PITT MAN"............get off my porch!
It's not *just* a product. It's much closer to a public good, and many fans are free-riding. That's what stakeholders have incentive to do with public goods
This post was edited by shruggs 17 months ago
Not sure you' ve noticed but BIG time CFB is BIG BUSINESS. It has stopped being a public good long ago and is now a highly marketed product that the Institutions invest tens of millions of dollars investing in.
Perhaps that is the problem...........ie the admin shares the view that Pitt football is a public good and residents of the area have an obligation to support it no matter how awful the product is on the field\\
Im not sure you guys notice but Pittsburgh, not unlike many towns, is a bandwagon fan town.. THe fans come out in droves to support a winner and could care less about losers. It even goes down to HS football. Teams that win fill their stands and those that dont pretty much have support limited to die hards and parents of the players.
Pitts problem is that it has never had any sustained success to build a loyal following like the Steelers. . Heck, even with the blakc and gold, check out games in DEcember when the weather is bad, the opponent is weak and the team is not superbowl quality.
BUt hey keep blaming the fan base. Im sure that will solve the problem associated with putting a crappy product on the field. If only we had fans who enjoyed watching inept coaches and lack luster performances orchestrated by incompetent adminstrators.
Wow, I would love to hear how you equate Pitt football to be a public good and how its even possible for anyone to be a free rider for whatever services Pitt football provides.
I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just trying to adequately characterize the situation.
The scale of the good in question has nothing to do with whether or not it's a public good. The fact that one primary stakeholder buys in more than do others has nothing to do with whether or not it's a public good. The fact that it's marketed has nothing to do with whether or not it's a public good. And, it's not *only* a public good, either; it's obviously a product in that the buy-in is a transaction, blah blah blah. But when you go to the stadium, buy a t-shirt, cheer the team on, whatever...you're paying into the Pitt football community, which generally benefits from that sort of thing (boo-birds notwithstanding). And that success---today, tomorrow, whenever---is something that any Pitt fan, no matter how lazy, can derive pleasure from. So, it's definitely some kind of public good. For many reasons, it's just a bad community to be a part of right now. And, public goods don't imply any obligations (THAT IS KIND OF THE POINT OF THE STUDY OF PUBLIC GOODS IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE BUYING IN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION), and it's doubtful that Nordy and SP are sitting around thinking about what the community owes Pitt football.
The standard chicken-egg endogeneity matter stands, yes. If we won more games, there'd be more butts in seats. There's no disputing that. But moving a very inert program forward right now requires some resources, so it'd be nice if there was a good support base. That's just as commonsensical as the direction you just mentioned, no? It's not even a matter of "blaming" one party or another, which isn't the goal here.
Yeah, it's still uncooked in my head. But I actually think it could be modeled as both public good and standard transaction.
Can't the same be said about most consumer products that are sold and marketed? I.e. there's no obligation to buy any product or attend any sporting or form of entertainment. The job is to put together a product that people Want to buy and market iit over the years to develop brand loyalty. Very few if any schools don't fit the associate business model. Show me a school whose football program has great fan/alumni support and ill show you a program that has put a consistent high quality product on the field.
Absolutely true. And all else equal, you should me a program with good results, and I'll show you a program with good fans. And obviously what you're saying is true.
But what I'm saying is, even though that's true, having Pitt football be good is something fans derive benefit from. We enjoy them more. We have more fun when we go to games. Message board posting is more tolerable. And so on. And the thing that is good about Pitt football winning isn't something you can easily talk about in the terms you're using here. It's much more of a community than it is a market. But yes, it's also a market. That's why I said it wasn't *just* a product in the original post---it's a product, but it's also more. Not a whole lot of people spend time on message boards posting about their coffee machines. You could say that members of the Apple cult do, I guess. But even then: they can't really have an effect on Apple other than to buy their one iPhone and one iPad and one computer every such and such years. But if we go to a game, we have a much more intense impact on Pitt football than any Apple cultist could. Heaven forbid if we donate money. And so on.
I think it's a healthier way to look at it. And, if everybody looked at it that way, we might be better off. OH MAN THE POMPOUSNESS STARTS EARLY TODAY LET ME TELL YOU
So people should reward mismanagement by donating more mone in the hopes that the management will suddenly become competent.
Using that same analogy, pirate fans should donate to the Pirates and hope that the Nuttings and the best management team in all of baseball will suddenly get real results.
Sporting events are entertainment period. The more entertaining the event the more people willing to support the product. Its not all that complicated.
Well now that's oversimplifying. Stakeholders should be ensuring that other stakeholders are doing their jobs, of course. In fact, if you're deriving utility above and beyond that which comes from the on-the-field experience, you have even more reason to be more cognizant of the function that maps your investment into outcomes.
The number one issue is the lack of support from Pitt alumni. It really is sad that more alums do not take pride in their school. With that being said, it is time for SP to go and they should bring in an AD that can spark excitement and revenue into the program.
How is it an oversimplification?
Is PItt football anything other than Entertainment?
How is it different than any other form of sporting enertainment available to people ih the region?
What benefit does anyone who attends a game or follows the team derive from the program other than entertainment?
What has PItts management done over the years to develop brand loyalty to the point where the average fan feels compelled to support the program beyond purchasing a ticket?
Why should anyone be expected to support organizational incompetence?
The first few of these are exactly the questions I was trying to get after with the first proposition. Either you didn't read it that way, or I failed to compel you. HOW WILL I COPE WITH THIS FAILURE I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN
It was stated by a reputable poster on TOS that it is known that Nordy will retire and SP is not welcome to stay after that occurs. He said HCPC has grown tired of SP and sees him as lame duck.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports