Welcome to Paul Zeise’s weekly mailbag, where the Post-Gazette columnist and 93.7 The Fan radio host answers your questions about sports, life and everything in between. If you want to ask Paul a question, tweet him @paulzeise or email him at pzeise@post-gazette.com. This feature will run each Wednesday, so you have a whole week to submit questions.
Let’s get started:
Barb Aveni: Is there any talk about building a new stadium which would be smaller and closer to the campus? It is embarrassing to see an empty stadium when Pitt is on tv. I am sure it is hard to recruit. Who wants to play in an empty stadium?
Zeise: I heard there are plans to build a brand new 44,000-seat stadium right there at Panther Hollow. I’m sure of it this time. ... Sigh. The short answer is no. The long answer is heck no. This Pitt attendance discussion has become silly. The Panthers have never drawn fans. And that’s why this stuff about an on-campus stadium solving attendance ills is nonsense. Pitt couldn’t even fill an on-campus from 1975-82 when it was one of the best teams in football. Pitt needs to do something it hasn’t done since that period — win consistently and win over a period of time.
That’s a start, but a 67,000-seat stadium is too big for the size of Pitt’s fan base and alumni base. Pitt should, as athletic director Heather Lyke suggests it will do, tarp some upper deck sections for most games to reduce the capacity, and then win. Nobody would talk about empty stadiums any more.
The argument that tarping the stadium would make Pitt “small-time” is ridiculous, too. Look up the number of Power 5 schools that play in stadiums of 52,000 seats or less. You will be shocked by the number. Washington State is one of the toughest places to play, and yet, the Cougars never get 40,000 at Martin Stadium. You know why? Because the capacity is 35,117. Therefore, it’s packed and nobody talks about attendance. A 67,000-seat stadium is an albatross for Pitt given the size of its fan base.
Albert Betts: Given the Steelers tendency to take perceived lesser opponents too lightly, do you think facing the Colts without Luck, the Texans without Watson and the Packers without Rodgers could actually present problems for them?
Zeise: The Steelers very well could lose a game or two that they are supposed to win. But the Lions game showed me something. They didn’t play particularly well against a borderline playoff team and found a way to win on the road. Also, this defense looks like it is becoming real and great defenses travel well. I look at the second half schedule and say if the Steelers key players stay healthy, they will go 7-1. And I don’t necessarily think the loss will be to the Patriots, either.
Greg R, @grrib0404: You are Buc GM. Kang returns payroll capped @ 100 million with existing players back. Nutting calls, gives you 20 million to add to payroll (120 mill cap). That gets you 1 20/mill yr player 2 10 mill/yr players or 3 6.7 mill/yr players. What positions or players u going for?
Zeise: I have Kang back and I have $20 million to spend? That is simple. I get a couple of relievers and at least one solid bench player who can hit home runs. And I would probably also go dumpster diving for a resurrection project veteran starter that I can get for $5 million or less. Kang solves a lot of problems on this team, he is the missing piece. And if the Pirates have him back they’d be foolish to trade McCutchen so the outfield is set, too.
Carlo Gambino @Gambino_166: Do you think the Pirates would sign CC Sabathia to a 2 yr deal to provide veteran leadership to staff? This would be similar to when Bucs traded for AJ Burnett.
Zeise: He made $25 million last year, which is obviously out of the Pirates’ league. However, here is an article that has some GMs talking about his value, and one says he’s in the 2-year, $20 million range. At $10 million a year, the Pirates would be getting a veteran who is probably a fourth or fifth starter, stuff-wise, but knows how to win and would be a leader. That’s not far-fetched salary-wise, either. I don’t think they would do it, but it isn’t the worst idea in the world.
First Published: November 8, 2017, 5:14 p.m.