History repeats itself because...

[Spindler]

nobody was listening the first time. Pitt athletics has learned nothing from the debacles of Gottfried and Wanny, and now Jamie Dixon. We always concern ourselves with what others think rather than believing in Pitt. Mike G. was steady at 8-3 and 7-4 year in and year out beating everybody he was supposed to beat and never failing to win one or more games against PSU, WV, and ND each year (the only schools that we appear to sell out for so that means that mattered). But personal matters and national college football prominence rather than what we knew Pitt stood for influenced our actions.
Wanny was Pitt, a blue collar guy that had Pitt's best interest at heart. He won 27 games during the final 3 years yet we let national perspective with off the field incidents that truly did not represent what Pitt is about, cloud our judgment . Wanny's shortcomings as a day game coach could have been corrected with a better OC and DC letting him wonder the sidelines on game day while allowing him to handle his strength which was recruiting.
Now we come to Jamie. He ran a clean program, was a great game day coach, produced successful seasons never experienced before at Pitt. He even saved a woman from a burning automobile. But he altered his typical recruiting process going after higher profile players like Birch, Adams, Young, and Artis rather that the blue collar players like Troutman, Wanamaker, Patterson,and Robinson. He needed to get back to his type of players who contributed once they were experienced juniors and seniors but we didn't give him the time to bring the program around. Barnes didn't like Jamie having so much autonomy with the basketball program. Barnes didn't know what Pitt stands for nor what Jamie stood for otherwise Jamie would have been given the chance (something he earned) to bring Pitt basketball back. UVA certainly shown us that blog ball can win in the ACC.
Stallings first season had 4 returning players from an NCAA tournament losing James Robinson, any coach including Jamie knew to find that one piece (Robinson) through the Juco or grad transfer ranks.
Jamie would have made it 12 tournament appearances in 14 years Stallings didn't.
Jamie should be at Pitt and his signature should be on the court. Bottom line Pitt always concerns itself with what others may think rather than believing in Pitt and history repeated itself for a third time with Pitt athletics.

 

[Deer Head]

One of the finest posts I have seen on this message board.

I would also add Purdue gave Matt Painter some time through a similar spell and you can see how that is going. That is what steady leadership is all about.

 

[Jakey_John]

The revisionist history regarding Dave Wannestedt on this board is more powerful than Hitler’s propaganda machine. His first three years were absolutely atrocious and his second year was disgusting. Add 2009 into the mix and it should be no wonder even to the most ardent supporter why he was canned. His termination only proved to be a failure because of the comedy of errors that followed it. Only now is the FB program slightly recovering.

I’m not one to delude muse into thinking Pitt will ever be a prominent contender on the national scene but Wanny failed enough that it was no longer a mistake. It was a pattern.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

nobody was listening the first time. Pitt athletics has learned nothing from the debacles of Gottfried and Wanny, and now Jamie Dixon. We always concern ourselves with what others think rather than believing in Pitt. Mike G. was steady at 8-3 and 7-4 year in and year out beating everybody he was supposed to beat and never failing to win one or more games against PSU, WV, and ND each year (the only schools that we appear to sell out for so that means that mattered). But personal matters and national college football prominence rather than what we knew Pitt stood for influenced our actions.
Wanny was Pitt, a blue collar guy that had Pitt's best interest at heart. He won 27 games during the final 3 years yet we let national perspective with off the field incidents that truly did not represent what Pitt is about, cloud our judgment . Wanny's shortcomings as a day game coach could have been corrected with a better OC and DC letting him wonder the sidelines on game day while allowing him to handle his strength which was recruiting.
Now we come to Jamie. He ran a clean program, was a great game day coach, produced successful seasons never experienced before at Pitt. He even saved a woman from a burning automobile. But he altered his typical recruiting process going after higher profile players like Birch, Adams, Young, and Artis rather that the blue collar players like Troutman, Wanamaker, Patterson,and Robinson. He needed to get back to his type of players who contributed once they were experienced juniors and seniors but we didn't give him the time to bring the program around. Barnes didn't like Jamie having so much autonomy with the basketball program. Barnes didn't know what Pitt stands for nor what Jamie stood for otherwise Jamie would have been given the chance (something he earned) to bring Pitt basketball back. UVA certainly shown us that blog ball can win in the ACC.
Stallings first season had 4 returning players from an NCAA tournament losing James Robinson, any coach including Jamie knew to find that one piece (Robinson) through the Juco or grad transfer ranks.
Jamie would have made it 12 tournament appearances in 14 years Stallings didn't.
Jamie should be at Pitt and his signature should be on the court. Bottom line Pitt always concerns itself with what others may think rather than believing in Pitt and history repeated itself for a third time with Pitt athletics.

Great post and agree 100%. The facts are the facts. These coaches understood Pitt in their respective sports and Pitt insisted on change just to satisfy a very small contingent of Pitt supporters and because the Pitt administration was so concerned with what people thought. Now we're faced with trying to find a new basketball coach because a few big mouths got in Barnes' ear and pushed Dixon out. How dumb was that? The whole country realizes how dumb that was. That is also a FACT. Except for a few numbnuts Pitt fans here, I'm sure the majority of the Pitt fanbase also realizes how dumb we were in these moves, especially with Dixon. Just no justifiable reason for any of these moves.

I'm hoping we have learned from these egregious past mistakes, especially the most recent ones with Dixon and Stallings. I'll believe it when I see it with a good hire this time. But the odds are against it and history says we'll blow it again.

 

[doubleAA's]

nobody was listening the first time. Pitt athletics has learned nothing from the debacles of Gottfried and Wanny, and now Jamie Dixon. We always concern ourselves with what others think rather than believing in Pitt. Mike G. was steady at 8-3 and 7-4 year in and year out beating everybody he was supposed to beat and never failing to win one or more games against PSU, WV, and ND each year (the only schools that we appear to sell out for so that means that mattered). But personal matters and national college football prominence rather than what we knew Pitt stood for influenced our actions.
Wanny was Pitt, a blue collar guy that had Pitt's best interest at heart. He won 27 games during the final 3 years yet we let national perspective with off the field incidents that truly did not represent what Pitt is about, cloud our judgment . Wanny's shortcomings as a day game coach could have been corrected with a better OC and DC letting him wonder the sidelines on game day while allowing him to handle his strength which was recruiting.
Now we come to Jamie. He ran a clean program, was a great game day coach, produced successful seasons never experienced before at Pitt. He even saved a woman from a burning automobile. But he altered his typical recruiting process going after higher profile players like Birch, Adams, Young, and Artis rather that the blue collar players like Troutman, Wanamaker, Patterson,and Robinson. He needed to get back to his type of players who contributed once they were experienced juniors and seniors but we didn't give him the time to bring the program around. Barnes didn't like Jamie having so much autonomy with the basketball program. Barnes didn't know what Pitt stands for nor what Jamie stood for otherwise Jamie would have been given the chance (something he earned) to bring Pitt basketball back. UVA certainly shown us that blog ball can win in the ACC.
Stallings first season had 4 returning players from an NCAA tournament losing James Robinson, any coach including Jamie knew to find that one piece (Robinson) through the Juco or grad transfer ranks.
Jamie would have made it 12 tournament appearances in 14 years Stallings didn't.
Jamie should be at Pitt and his signature should be on the court. Bottom line Pitt always concerns itself with what others may think rather than believing in Pitt and history repeated itself for a third time with Pitt athletics.

Yes, any normal, rational Pitt fan sees this. However, the psu media and flamers stir the pot with any hire, then the weak-minded of us Pitt fans start wavering, and the underswell rises and they get rid of good coaches that have success. Happens all the time.
The media will be negative constantly with Pitt over everything. Conversely, the hire homers for psu and they are covered positively in every regard. As we all know, even the penn state child rape scandal went lightly covered in our papers.
Has an effect on the weak minded Pitt fans. You see the constant negative fans on these boards all the time. They all cant be flamers (although we all know the same one or 2 have about 30 screen names).
I have always said, Pitt needs to invest, and pay for a beat writer to the PG. Other schools do this, keep the narrative positive.

 

[NCanton Panther]

nobody was listening the first time. Pitt athletics has learned nothing from the debacles of Gottfried and Wanny, and now Jamie Dixon. We always concern ourselves with what others think rather than believing in Pitt. Mike G. was steady at 8-3 and 7-4 year in and year out beating everybody he was supposed to beat and never failing to win one or more games against PSU, WV, and ND each year (the only schools that we appear to sell out for so that means that mattered). But personal matters and national college football prominence rather than what we knew Pitt stood for influenced our actions.
Wanny was Pitt, a blue collar guy that had Pitt's best interest at heart. He won 27 games during the final 3 years yet we let national perspective with off the field incidents that truly did not represent what Pitt is about, cloud our judgment . Wanny's shortcomings as a day game coach could have been corrected with a better OC and DC letting him wonder the sidelines on game day while allowing him to handle his strength which was recruiting.
Now we come to Jamie. He ran a clean program, was a great game day coach, produced successful seasons never experienced before at Pitt. He even saved a woman from a burning automobile. But he altered his typical recruiting process going after higher profile players like Birch, Adams, Young, and Artis rather that the blue collar players like Troutman, Wanamaker, Patterson,and Robinson. He needed to get back to his type of players who contributed once they were experienced juniors and seniors but we didn't give him the time to bring the program around. Barnes didn't like Jamie having so much autonomy with the basketball program. Barnes didn't know what Pitt stands for nor what Jamie stood for otherwise Jamie would have been given the chance (something he earned) to bring Pitt basketball back. UVA certainly shown us that blog ball can win in the ACC.
Stallings first season had 4 returning players from an NCAA tournament losing James Robinson, any coach including Jamie knew to find that one piece (Robinson) through the Juco or grad transfer ranks.
Jamie would have made it 12 tournament appearances in 14 years Stallings didn't.
Jamie should be at Pitt and his signature should be on the court. Bottom line Pitt always concerns itself with what others may think rather than believing in Pitt and history repeated itself for a third time with Pitt athletics.

Haven’t read the replies to your post yet but my guess is you’re making it tough on many to give you a full thumbs up seeing how there are likely a good number of Jamie supporters herein that also jumped up and down with glee when Wanny got canned.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Mike G. was steady at 8-3 and 7-4 year in and year out beating everybody he was supposed to beat

Maryland - 10, Pitt - 7
Temple - 19, Pitt - 13
Temple - 24, Pitt - 21 (that was a 3 win Temple team)
Boston College - 13, Pitt - 10 (that was a 5 win BC team, and one of the other 5 was Temple)
Boston College - 34, Pitt - 31 (that was a 3 win BC team)

Mike G's problem was that while he did do OK against Penn State, Notre Dame and West Virginia he also lost games on a relatively frequent basis that we should have easily been winning. He most certainly did not beat everybody he was supposed to beat. Not even close.

And well, yeah, not the only problem. One of them.

 

[OriginalEther]

The revisionist history regarding Dave Wannestedt on this board is more powerful than Hitler’s propaganda machine. His first three years were absolutely atrocious and his second year was disgusting. Add 2009 into the mix and it should be no wonder even to the most ardent supporter why he was canned. His termination only proved to be a failure because of the comedy of errors that followed it. Only now is the FB program slightly recovering.

I’m not one to delude muse into thinking Pitt will ever be a prominent contender on the national scene but Wanny failed enough that it was no longer a mistake. It was a pattern.

2010, though your point otherwise stands

 

[doubleAA's]

Maryland - 10, Pitt - 7
Temple - 19, Pitt - 13
Temple - 24, Pitt - 21 (that was a 3 win Temple team)
Boston College - 13, Pitt - 10 (that was a 5 win BC team, and one of the other 5 was Temple)
Boston College - 34, Pitt - 31 (that was a 3 win BC team)

Mike G's problem was that while he did do OK against Penn State, Notre Dame and West Virginia he also lost games on a relatively frequent basis that we should have easily been winning. He most certainly did not beat everybody he was supposed to beat. Not even close.

And well, yeah, not the only problem. One of them.

This is exactly the issue with fans. Almost every coach in America would be fired each year if they lost to teams they should have beat. Look at the scores above. Every game was super close there.

 

[LeftCoastPanther]

Agree with the bad losses, but by 1989 I think Gottfried was going to be past losing to those type of teams. We'll never know.

 

[Panther_in_Kentucky]

Maryland - 10, Pitt - 7
Temple - 19, Pitt - 13
Temple - 24, Pitt - 21 (that was a 3 win Temple team)
Boston College - 13, Pitt - 10 (that was a 5 win BC team, and one of the other 5 was Temple)
Boston College - 34, Pitt - 31 (that was a 3 win BC team)

Mike G's problem was that while he did do OK against Penn State, Notre Dame and West Virginia he also lost games on a relatively frequent basis that we should have easily been winning. He most certainly did not beat everybody he was supposed to beat. Not even close.

And well, yeah, not the only problem. One of them.

Pitt 42 - Ohio State 10. That occurred under Gottfried as well.

 

[Deer Head]

College football is about winning the big games and avoiding the more than the occasional WTF loss.Narduzzi = A+

 

[Atch]

Bottom line Pitt always concerns itself with what others may think rather than believing in Pitt and history repeated itself for a third time with Pitt athletics.

You have 228 posts which tells me that either you have not been a Pitt fan for very long or you haven't been on the Lair very long. It's more then the third time that history has repeated itself.
"Short term thinking has always has long dominated, and always damaged Pitt athletics. Over 70 years of stupidity from shooting themselves in the foot."

 

[ThatPittGuy]

College football is about winning the big games and avoiding the more than the occasional WTF loss.Narduzzi = A+

Exactly! Each win equals one W in the column, but some are worth so much more than others in hearts and minds.

By winning when the lights are brightest, Narduzzi is delivering big time. This is where momentum comes from. Punching above your weight class often enough is how you level up.

Looking only at the raw record is missing so much. WHEN are you winning? WHEN are you losing. March is a terrible month to slump.

 

[Panther_in_Kentucky]

College football is about winning the big games and avoiding the more than the occasional WTF loss.Narduzzi = A+

Really? You mean like playing a Top 10 Oklahoma State squad at home before a nice crowd on a beautiful Saturday and giving up 49 points and nearly 500 yards passing - IN THE FIRST HALF!! Killing the day. Did I get it right?

 

[HailToPitt1985]

Take it to the football board. We're trying to talk about basketball here. Football season isn't here for 6 months.

 

[IamHeisenberg]

nobody was listening the first time. Pitt athletics has learned nothing from the debacles of Gottfried and Wanny, and now Jamie Dixon. We always concern ourselves with what others think rather than believing in Pitt. Mike G. was steady at 8-3 and 7-4 year in and year out beating everybody he was supposed to beat and never failing to win one or more games against PSU, WV, and ND each year (the only schools that we appear to sell out for so that means that mattered). But personal matters and national college football prominence rather than what we knew Pitt stood for influenced our actions.
Wanny was Pitt, a blue collar guy that had Pitt's best interest at heart. He won 27 games during the final 3 years yet we let national perspective with off the field incidents that truly did not represent what Pitt is about, cloud our judgment . Wanny's shortcomings as a day game coach could have been corrected with a better OC and DC letting him wonder the sidelines on game day while allowing him to handle his strength which was recruiting.
Now we come to Jamie. He ran a clean program, was a great game day coach, produced successful seasons never experienced before at Pitt. He even saved a woman from a burning automobile. But he altered his typical recruiting process going after higher profile players like Birch, Adams, Young, and Artis rather that the blue collar players like Troutman, Wanamaker, Patterson,and Robinson. He needed to get back to his type of players who contributed once they were experienced juniors and seniors but we didn't give him the time to bring the program around. Barnes didn't like Jamie having so much autonomy with the basketball program. Barnes didn't know what Pitt stands for nor what Jamie stood for otherwise Jamie would have been given the chance (something he earned) to bring Pitt basketball back. UVA certainly shown us that blog ball can win in the ACC.
Stallings first season had 4 returning players from an NCAA tournament losing James Robinson, any coach including Jamie knew to find that one piece (Robinson) through the Juco or grad transfer ranks.
Jamie would have made it 12 tournament appearances in 14 years Stallings didn't.
Jamie should be at Pitt and his signature should be on the court. Bottom line Pitt always concerns itself with what others may think rather than believing in Pitt and history repeated itself for a third time with Pitt athletics.

He left.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Pitt Pitting. It is what we do.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Look at the scores above. Every game was super close there.

So what you are saying is that he couldn't win the close ones, even if it was against bad teams?

Yeah, that wouldn't be a point in his favor.

 

[Deer Head]

Oklahoma St. is a rogue program from a non recruiting area and the week after State Penn. It was the dumbest possible series that could be played. No one cares about Oklahoma St.