About those who want to fire coaches. Look deeper.

[APanther]

That analysis is fundamentally flawed from the outset.
Here’s why:
You focus on the last loss/current season as dispositive of the current staff’s capabilities. They haven’t produce more W’s so do the obvious solution is to fire one/all of the coaches.
You’re missing the big elephant.
Pitt has followed your prescription since 1982 when the mills shut down. Pitt’s had every variety of HC/Staff/AD in that span. Same mediocre results. Ergo, it’s not this or that HC/Staff/AD. Therefore, it’s structural.
Ie., Pitt is a regional football school that depended on local recruits in the now distant memory glory years before the mills shut down. Since then, there simply are not enough good players locally (even assuming Pitt got all the 4 stars here every year) to be in the hunt, or even competitive.
In short. As time since 1982 has proved, the structural problem is that Pitt is a very difficult place to recruit. Full stop. Period.
The tract you are advocating is no different than going to Vegas and betting on the number. Maybe it hits sometime, but the odds are against it. That’s been the model since ‘82. What’s the definition of stupid, again?
So, here’s another idea (unless you insist on pursuing the canard of catching the “Coach” lighting in a bottle).
Have a coach who will pursue the transfer portal and JC’s leaving a half dozen slots for freshman.
The portal is a big thing and a “surer” thing than betting on whoever three star.
You don’t remain competitive with three stars as evidenced by Pitt’s results.
Changing coaches is just a path to nowhere if you don’t fix recruiting.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

That analysis is fundamentally flawed from the outset.
Here’s why:
You focus on the last loss/current season as dispositive of the current staff’s capabilities. They haven’t produce more W’s so do the obvious solution is to fire one/all of the coaches.
You’re missing the big elephant.
Pitt has followed your prescription since 1982 when the mills shut down. Pitt’s had every variety of HC/Staff/AD in that span. Same mediocre results. Ergo, it’s not this or that HC/Staff/AD. Therefore, it’s structural.
Ie., Pitt is a regional football school that depended on local recruits in the now distant memory glory years before the mills shut down. Since then, there simply are not enough good players locally (even assuming Pitt got all the 4 stars here every year) to be in the hunt, or even competitive.
In short. As time since 1982 has proved, the structural problem is that Pitt is a very difficult place to recruit. Full stop. Period.
The tract you are advocating is no different than going to Vegas and betting on the number. Maybe it hits sometime, but the odds are against it. That’s been the model since ‘82. What’s the definition of stupid, again?
So, here’s another idea (unless you insist on pursuing the canard of catching the “Coach” lighting in a bottle).
Have a coach who will pursue the transfer portal and JC’s leaving a half dozen slots for freshman.
The portal is a big thing and a “surer” thing than betting on whoever three star.
You don’t remain competitive with three stars as evidenced by Pitt’s results.
Changing coaches is just a path to nowhere if you don’t fix recruiting.

Then why has almost every other school around the country had at least one season in which they had less than 3 losses in at least one season since 1982? You can have a Top 25-40 recruiting class and be highly successful with good player development and coaching.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

What’s the definition of stupid, again?

Listening to you?

 

[APanther]

Listening to you?

My post is neither logical nor based in fact? Explain.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

My post is neither logical nor based in fact?

Correct.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

If the administration (both of the athletic department and the school as a whole) feel the same was as you do, that our problems are structural and they simply can't be overcome by hiring the right coach, then they ought to save everyone the trouble and stop playing football.

Fortunately, they (probably) understand that if they did happen to hire the right coach they actually could have some success. Alabama level success? No, almost certainly not. But I don't think that there is anyone, literally anyone, who thinks that's the realistic goal. But the notion that Pitt simply can't do any better than what the parade of mediocrity we've run through the head football coaching position here has brought us is bullshit. Plain and simple, bullshit.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I mean seriously, let's look at our head coaching hires and try to determine if we are hiring top level head coaches and they just can't succeed simply because of structural issues.

Pat Narduzzi was a well respected defensive coordinator who had never been a head coach before. He's a guy who believes that there is one and only one correct way to play the game, and he absolutely refuses to change his system to fit the talent on hand. So while he was well thought of as a defensive coordinator, it's pretty clear that as a head coach he is in over his head. When he leaves here it is extremely unlikely that he will ever succeed at a high level as a head coach anywhere else.

Paul Chryst, again, a pretty well respected assistant coach but never a head coach anywhere. And with the way the situation played out we got to be the place where he did all his on the job training and ended up getting none of the potential benefits from that.

Todd Graham (and the whole process that got him here), well, the less said about him the better.

Dave Wanstedt had a losing record as an NFL coach. He hadn't coached in college in years. No one, literally no one, other than Pitt would have hired him to be a P5 level head coach. And then he did here exactly what one should have expected someone with his resume to do here. He was a little better than mediocre. And after he left here he's never coached anywhere else again, and there is no indication at all that anyone ever gave him any serious consideration.

Walt Harris actually was a head coach someplace else before he came to Pitt. He was the head coach at Pacific. They went 11-24 under Harris. And he turned out to be the best of this motley crew. But he left Pitt to go to Stanford and was a disaster there, so it's not just Pitt.

Keep going? OK, before that was Johnny Majors II. Damn, I love the guy, but it was pretty obvious right from the get go that he had lost more than just one step. To his credit he came into a really bad situation and was at least able to stabilize things somewhat. But that hire had no chance at all to succeed (in terms of wins and losses) right from day one. And he obviously never coached again.

Before that it was Paul Hackett. Again, never a head coach before he came here. And a guy who got the job not because of anything that made anyone think that he was a great coach, but because he told the administration that he could win even if (and when) they tied both hands behind his back. Turns out he wouldn't have won if he had four hands, let alone two tied behind his back. Although he was able to fool a school that takes football a lot more seriously than Pitt does too, so I guess we shouldn't feel too bad that his sweet talking incompetence got us as well? But in any event, if you can't win at USC you aren't going to win at Pitt either, and that's not structural.

And now we are already back 30 years? Do you need me to continue? I hope not, because the urge to beat my head against the wall is getting pretty strong. But in any event, the problem isn't structural (or at least isn't mostly structural). The problem is that we continue to hire the wrong people.

 

[PittMiamiRivalry]

That analysis is fundamentally flawed from the outset.
Here’s why:
You focus on the last loss/current season as dispositive of the current staff’s capabilities. They haven’t produce more W’s so do the obvious solution is to fire one/all of the coaches.
You’re missing the big elephant.
Pitt has followed your prescription since 1982 when the mills shut down. Pitt’s had every variety of HC/Staff/AD in that span. Same mediocre results. Ergo, it’s not this or that HC/Staff/AD. Therefore, it’s structural.
Ie., Pitt is a regional football school that depended on local recruits in the now distant memory glory years before the mills shut down. Since then, there simply are not enough good players locally (even assuming Pitt got all the 4 stars here every year) to be in the hunt, or even competitive.
In short. As time since 1982 has proved, the structural problem is that Pitt is a very difficult place to recruit. Full stop. Period.
The tract you are advocating is no different than going to Vegas and betting on the number. Maybe it hits sometime, but the odds are against it. That’s been the model since ‘82. What’s the definition of stupid, again?
So, here’s another idea (unless you insist on pursuing the canard of catching the “Coach” lighting in a bottle).
Have a coach who will pursue the transfer portal and JC’s leaving a half dozen slots for freshman.
The portal is a big thing and a “surer” thing than betting on whoever three star.
You don’t remain competitive with three stars as evidenced by Pitt’s results.
Changing coaches is just a path to nowhere if you don’t fix recruiting.

The huge wipeouts Penn State, Central Florida, and Notre Dame (along with Oklahoma State) are worse than any losses by Wannstedt or Harris after year 3. I agree about recruiting, but this team is very poorly coached.

 

[Pittx9]

Why should Narduzzi reap the benefits of those mistakes when he can’t even get the program anywhere near the levels guys like Walt and Wanny had it at?

In 6 years Narduzzi has faced a ranked opponent 18 times, we have been ranked for one of those matchups exactly 1 time. This season, against Louisville. A pandemic stricken season with no fans and 3 P5 conferences playing, hardly your normal top-25 matchup.

In Narduzzi’s sixth year with a very experienced roster, we are entering November below .500. I mean yeah, we should not continue to go through a cycle of coaches every few years. But we went to a BCS bowl, and still decided that wasn’t enough. We finally had a 10-win season, nope still not good enough.

But now.... the guy with multiple losses with teams he built that were so bad you’d show highlights if you were trying to convince someone to put a mercy rule in FBS.

His only notable accomplishment is winning the division, they went 7-7 that season and was possibly the least impressive of the crowning mediocre accomplishment between he, Walt, and Wanny.

He has coached in 2 games where anyone who isn’t a diehard Pitt fan even took notice of Pitt in, and one was the renewal of Pitt-PSU so really all he had to do was show up with a Pitt football team behind him.

So what on earth would ever make anyone think this is the guy to settle on? The program is considerably worse than it was the day he took over, and he took over a program that was literally the poster child for mediocrity.

 

[Burgh15]

That analysis is fundamentally flawed from the outset.
Here’s why:
You focus on the last loss/current season as dispositive of the current staff’s capabilities.

You lost me here because this definitely is not it.

 

[APanther]

You lost me here because this definitely is not it.

Ok. Explain why Pitt has had every variety of coach/staff/AD for 30 years and keeps producing mediocre results?

 

[APanther]

The huge wipeouts Penn State, Central Florida, and Notre Dame (along with Oklahoma State) are worse than any losses by Wannstedt or Harris after year 3. I agree about recruiting, but this team is very poorly coached.

Penn State, ND are national programs. UCF, like Pitt, are regional however UCF is in a hotbed of recruiting. You get the distinction, right?

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Ok. Explain why Pitt has had every variety of coach/staff/AD for 30 years and keeps producing mediocre results?

Marcus Freeman
- 34 years old
- Smart
- Great Leadership Qualities
- Good Coach
- Good Recruiter
- Winner
- Played D1 football and in the NFL
- African American

When did we hire someone like this?

 

[APanther]

Marcus Freeman
- 34 years old
- Smart
- Great Leadership Qualities
- Good Coach
- Good Recruiter
- Winner
- Played D1 football and in the NFL
- African American

When did we hire someone like this?

Never, meeting all your criteria. However, no coach who has been in the playoffs, let alone conference champions, has either.
What’s your next point?

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Never, meeting all your criteria. However, no coach who has been in the playoffs, let alone conference champions, has either.
What’s your next point?

I’m tired of your Woe is Me - Pitt Has Tried Everything BS. I just told you who Pitt should hire and they’ve never hired someone like him. There’s your damn answer to the question. Losers make excuses and winners find ways to win.

 

[pittmeister]

That analysis is fundamentally flawed from the outset.
Here’s why:
You focus on the last loss/current season as dispositive of the current staff’s capabilities. They haven’t produce more W’s so do the obvious solution is to fire one/all of the coaches.
You’re missing the big elephant.
Pitt has followed your prescription since 1982 when the mills shut down. Pitt’s had every variety of HC/Staff/AD in that span. Same mediocre results. Ergo, it’s not this or that HC/Staff/AD. Therefore, it’s structural.
Ie., Pitt is a regional football school that depended on local recruits in the now distant memory glory years before the mills shut down. Since then, there simply are not enough good players locally (even assuming Pitt got all the 4 stars here every year) to be in the hunt, or even competitive.
In short. As time since 1982 has proved, the structural problem is that Pitt is a very difficult place to recruit. Full stop. Period.
The tract you are advocating is no different than going to Vegas and betting on the number. Maybe it hits sometime, but the odds are against it. That’s been the model since ‘82. What’s the definition of stupid, again?
So, here’s another idea (unless you insist on pursuing the canard of catching the “Coach” lighting in a bottle).
Have a coach who will pursue the transfer portal and JC’s leaving a half dozen slots for freshman.
The portal is a big thing and a “surer” thing than betting on whoever three star.
You don’t remain competitive with three stars as evidenced by Pitt’s results.
Changing coaches is just a path to nowhere if you don’t fix recruiting.

Narduzzi, isn't going to change... PERIOD. There are some coaches that are good at adapting to their players strengths and game planning around those strengths. There are also coaches that are good at adjusting to the flow of the game and make changes when things are not working as planned. Narduzzi is not good at either...

Narduzzi is a system coach. He has a system and he will use it. He is a Barry Switzer type coach. The only difference is that Switzer could recruit at a high level. He usually won most of his games because he had great talent, not because he was a great coach...Narduzzi is not a dynamic recruiter.

So if Pitt is a difficult place to recruit, then you need to change your scheme. Kansas State is a VERY difficult place to recruit as well, but they are in the top 20 and moving up. They have had seven 10 win seasons, while Pitt has had only one 10 win season in the same time span...

 

[pierre93]

Marcus Freeman
- 34 years old
- Smart
- Great Leadership Qualities
- Good Coach
- Good Recruiter
- Winner
- Played D1 football and in the NFL
- African American

When did we hire someone like this?

I'm definitely on board the Freeman train!!!

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Ok. Explain why Pitt has had every variety of coach/staff/AD for 30 years and keeps producing mediocre results?

I explained it to you, in pretty good detail (if I must say so myself). And you obviously didn't get it, so let me dumb it down to a level that even you might be able to understand. Over the last 30 years we have hired seven head coaches (eight if you want to count Mike Haywood). All seven of them (or eight, if you want to count Mike Haywood) were mediocre at best head coaches. When you continue to hire mediocre coaches you will continue to get mediocre results.

It's hilarious that you think that the parade of mediocrity that we've had through the last 30 years here would have been wildly successful if it wasn't for some sort of structural issues with being a football program in Pittsburgh. Cincinnati is more successful than us. Kansas State is more successful than us. Oklahoma State has been more successful than us. Lots of other schools that have way more "structural problems" than us somehow manage to have more success than we have had.

Why, exactly, is that, if the structural issues are what really matters?

 

[Burgh15]

Ok. Explain why Pitt has had every variety of coach/staff/AD for 30 years and keeps producing mediocre results?

What does that have to do with focusing on the latest loss? I'm focusing on the entire tenure of Narduzzi not getting the job done.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

I mean seriously, let's look at our head coaching hires and try to determine if we are hiring top level head coaches and they just can't succeed simply because of structural issues.

Pat Narduzzi was a well respected defensive coordinator who had never been a head coach before. He's a guy who believes that there is one and only one correct way to play the game, and he absolutely refuses to change his system to fit the talent on hand. So while he was well thought of as a defensive coordinator, it's pretty clear that as a head coach he is in over his head. When he leaves here it is extremely unlikely that he will ever succeed at a high level as a head coach anywhere else.

Paul Chryst, again, a pretty well respected assistant coach but never a head coach anywhere. And with the way the situation played out we got to be the place where he did all his on the job training and ended up getting none of the potential benefits from that.

Todd Graham (and the whole process that got him here), well, the less said about him the better.

Dave Wanstedt had a losing record as an NFL coach. He hadn't coached in college in years. No one, literally no one, other than Pitt would have hired him to be a P5 level head coach. And then he did here exactly what one should have expected someone with his resume to do here. He was a little better than mediocre. And after he left here he's never coached anywhere else again, and there is no indication at all that anyone ever gave him any serious consideration.

Walt Harris actually was a head coach someplace else before he came to Pitt. He was the head coach at Pacific. They went 11-24 under Harris. And he turned out to be the best of this motley crew. But he left Pitt to go to Stanford and was a disaster there, so it's not just Pitt.

Keep going? OK, before that was Johnny Majors II. Damn, I love the guy, but it was pretty obvious right from the get go that he had lost more than just one step. To his credit he came into a really bad situation and was at least able to stabilize things somewhat. But that hire had no chance at all to succeed (in terms of wins and losses) right from day one. And he obviously never coached again.

Before that it was Paul Hackett. Again, never a head coach before he came here. And a guy who got the job not because of anything that made anyone think that he was a great coach, but because he told the administration that he could win even if (and when) they tied both hands behind his back. Turns out he wouldn't have won if he had four hands, let alone two tied behind his back. Although he was able to fool a school that takes football a lot more seriously than Pitt does too, so I guess we shouldn't feel too bad that his sweet talking incompetence got us as well? But in any event, if you can't win at USC you aren't going to win at Pitt either, and that's not structural.

And now we are already back 30 years? Do you need me to continue? I hope not, because the urge to beat my head against the wall is getting pretty strong. But in any event, the problem isn't structural (or at least isn't mostly structural). The problem is that we continue to hire the wrong people.

Or another way of putting it -

Maybe it’s time Pitt finally hires someone who is a proven winner* as a head coach

*Someone who is coming off a 10+ win season and has multiple 10+ win seasons even if it’s at a lower tier program.

 

[APanther]

What does that have to do with focusing on the latest loss? I'm focusing on the entire tenure of Narduzzi not getting the job done.

Assume Pitt beat ND yesterday. There would be no cry for Narduzzi to be fired. None. The memory span of a Pitt football fan (or any college football fan for that matter) extends to the last game. No further.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Assume Pitt beat ND yesterday. There would be no cry for Narduzzi to be fired. None. The memory span of a Pitt football fan (or any college football fan for that matter) extends to the last game. No further.

There is 6 years of evidence to clearly demonstrate he isn’t the answer.

 

[Pittx9]

Assume Pitt beat ND yesterday. There would be no cry for Narduzzi to be fired. None. The memory span of a Pitt football fan (or any college football fan for that matter) extends to the last game. No further.

I kinda remember him losing the game before that. And the game before that. And the game before that.

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

There is 6 years of evidence to clearly demonstrate he isn’t the answer.

It’s astounding how myopically some of these people are trying to present this.

If anyone thinks this is about one game, you’re not very bright. Maybe yesterday was icing on the cake, but even removing yesterday’s game, there’s plenty of reason to s-can him.

 

[BFo8]

I keep trying to look deeper as the OP said, but I keep coming back to Narduzzi not recruiting well enough, coaching well enough, or managing games well enough.

 

[pittmeister]

The only reason Narduzzi is not canned is because they can’t pay the buyout.

I’m sure that Heather has already discussed Narduzzi’s contract with donors before yesterday’s debacle.

The writing is on the wall. Nobody believes Pitt will be better next year. You saw what kind of QB’s we have coming back.

 

[Burgh15]

Assume Pitt beat ND yesterday. There would be no cry for Narduzzi to be fired. None. The memory span of a Pitt football fan (or any college football fan for that matter) extends to the last game. No further.

1. Yes there would have because people were calling for him to be fired after last season.
2. They didn't beat Notre Dame so this is irrelevant.

 

[APanther]

The only reason Narduzzi is not canned is because they can’t pay the buyout.

I’m sure that Heather has already discussed Narduzzi’s contract with donors before yesterday’s debacle.

The writing is on the wall. Nobody believes Pitt will be better next year. You saw what kind of QB’s we have coming back.

Next year will be very, very ugly.
That said, you always know that the “This year is different! We’re going 9-0 out of the box”!
Seen this movie for last 30 years.
You’ll see.

 

[pittmeister]

Next year will be very, very ugly.
That said, you always know that the “This year is different! We’re going 9-0 out of the box”!
Seen this movie for last 30 years.
You’ll see.

I’m the biggest optimist in the world. I always believe Pitt will be better than the previous year. But I can’t say that after this season.

In addition, I always defend the head coach to a fault, but I can’t defend the head coach any longer after what I’ve seen the last few weeks...

 

[sonofabit]

Marcus Freeman
- 34 years old
- Smart
- Great Leadership Qualities
- Good Coach
- Good Recruiter
- Winner
- Played D1 football and in the NFL
- African American

When did we hire someone like this?

That Freddie Kruger guy comes to mind...

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

That Freddie Kruger guy comes to mind...

Why do you say Freddie Kruger? What exactly do they have in common?

 

[TD_6082]

Then why has almost every other school around the country had at least one season in which they had less than 3 losses in at least one season since 1982? You can have a Top 25-40 recruiting class and be highly successful with good player development and coaching.

Lol. No you can't. Not in a P5 conference that is worth a crap.

 

[pittdan77]

I can think of $14 million reasons why these conversations are pointless. At least for a couple more years until it's closer to $8 million reasons.

 

[lilspainishflea]

That analysis is fundamentally flawed from the outset.
Here’s why:
You focus on the last loss/current season as dispositive of the current staff’s capabilities. They haven’t produce more W’s so do the obvious solution is to fire one/all of the coaches.
You’re missing the big elephant.
Pitt has followed your prescription since 1982 when the mills shut down. Pitt’s had every variety of HC/Staff/AD in that span. Same mediocre results. Ergo, it’s not this or that HC/Staff/AD. Therefore, it’s structural.
Ie., Pitt is a regional football school that depended on local recruits in the now distant memory glory years before the mills shut down. Since then, there simply are not enough good players locally (even assuming Pitt got all the 4 stars here every year) to be in the hunt, or even competitive.
In short. As time since 1982 has proved, the structural problem is that Pitt is a very difficult place to recruit. Full stop. Period.
The tract you are advocating is no different than going to Vegas and betting on the number. Maybe it hits sometime, but the odds are against it. That’s been the model since ‘82. What’s the definition of stupid, again?
So, here’s another idea (unless you insist on pursuing the canard of catching the “Coach” lighting in a bottle).
Have a coach who will pursue the transfer portal and JC’s leaving a half dozen slots for freshman.
The portal is a big thing and a “surer” thing than betting on whoever three star.
You don’t remain competitive with three stars as evidenced by Pitt’s results.
Changing coaches is just a path to nowhere if you don’t fix recruiting.

This is weak. Kansas had a 12 win season. Minnesota has had 2 double-digit seasons. Wake had 1. Pretty much everyone in the country except us and Indiana (who doesn't even try) has pulled it off. I get the argument that Pitt is no longer a Tier 1 or even Tier 2 team but there's no reason we can't have things come together once if the Kansas Jayhawks could pull it off.

 

[lilspainishflea]

I keep trying to look deeper as the OP said, but I keep coming back to Narduzzi not recruiting well enough, coaching well enough, or managing games well enough.

We had enough talent to beat an 11-3 team that played in the Rose Bowl AND the national champion in the same season and we somehow lost to Northwestern so I don't really think talent was always the problem.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Lol. No you can't. Not in a P5 conference that is worth a crap.

We play in the Coastal freaking Division. There are years in which it doesn’t even produce a Top 25 team.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

This is weak. Kansas had a 12 win season. Minnesota has had 2 double-digit seasons. Wake had 1. Pretty much everyone in the country except us and Indiana (who doesn't even try) has pulled it off. I get the argument that Pitt is no longer a Tier 1 or even Tier 2 team but there's no reason we can't have things come together once if the Kansas Jayhawks could pull it off.

Every P5 team (and most G5 teams) have had at least 1 season with 2 or fewer regular season losses in the last 40 years except Pitt, Indiana, and Vanderbilt. Pitt has accomplished something that is nearly impossible.

 

[IamHeisenberg]

That analysis is fundamentally flawed from the outset.
Here’s why:
You focus on the last loss/current season as dispositive of the current staff’s capabilities. They haven’t produce more W’s so do the obvious solution is to fire one/all of the coaches.
You’re missing the big elephant.
Pitt has followed your prescription since 1982 when the mills shut down. Pitt’s had every variety of HC/Staff/AD in that span. Same mediocre results. Ergo, it’s not this or that HC/Staff/AD. Therefore, it’s structural.
Ie., Pitt is a regional football school that depended on local recruits in the now distant memory glory years before the mills shut down. Since then, there simply are not enough good players locally (even assuming Pitt got all the 4 stars here every year) to be in the hunt, or even competitive.
In short. As time since 1982 has proved, the structural problem is that Pitt is a very difficult place to recruit. Full stop. Period.
The tract you are advocating is no different than going to Vegas and betting on the number. Maybe it hits sometime, but the odds are against it. That’s been the model since ‘82. What’s the definition of stupid, again?
So, here’s another idea (unless you insist on pursuing the canard of catching the “Coach” lighting in a bottle).
Have a coach who will pursue the transfer portal and JC’s leaving a half dozen slots for freshman.
The portal is a big thing and a “surer” thing than betting on whoever three star.
You don’t remain competitive with three stars as evidenced by Pitt’s results.
Changing coaches is just a path to nowhere if you don’t fix recruiting.

Every aspect of your thesis is amazingly flawed.

 

[thebadby2]

Assume Pitt beat ND yesterday. There would be no cry for Narduzzi to be fired. None. The memory span of a Pitt football fan (or any college football fan for that matter) extends to the last game. No further.

We’ve had 6 years of “last games” to refer back to now. There’s a lot of bad performances in there-including the last 4 straight weeks.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

Do people forget PSU embarrassed us 51-6? It’s not ONE GAME