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.
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.