Well, ok, but the issue at the heart of the debate is that there is a middle ground between changing coaches every 4 years and giving a HC an extension that makes it impossible to buy him out if and when he proves he’s a flop. At some point, providing an extension of the length given Narduzzi is an implicit statement that the best way to avoid the difficult decision of replacing someone is to contractually ensure one can’t afford to do it. Is that sound thinking? Add to that, at what point does Pitt or any other university revisit their approach to filling a personnel role when they have repeatedly failed at the task?
Goodpoints. Bottom line is that Pitt is committed to fielding a competitive football team . . . up to a point. Otherwise, how do you explain moving it completely off campus, giving a lucrative long term contract to a coach that struggles with hitting the .500 mark, let alone being in the top 25 or 30, consistently, and failed to retain people like Sherrill, and, more recently, Jordan Addison. The point is that Pitt is satisfied with the the FB program as it is in its current state. On the other hand, I do not think that Pitt is satisfied with the MBB program and is willing to go all-in with MBB. Ironically, I think that your points apply to MBB, given my belief that Pitt is satisfied generally with FB, but not MBB. Heather boxed Pitt into a corner in terms of MBB by giving Capel a long term lucrative contract and committing a huge sum of money to VH without actually having even 10% of the money in hand. We are stuck for a while unless a sugar daddy or mommy with few or no heirs comes along soon who wants to spend major bucks on FB and MBB at Pitt. It happened recently at UVA. Personally, as a Pitt alum, I am somewhat uncomfortable with devoting so much money to just those two sports, which are now populated with professional athletes.