History Repeats Itself

[DiehardPanther]

Walt Harris had Pitt on firm ground and was winning about 8 games a year. That wasn’t good enough. Dave Wannstedt had Pitt on firm ground and was winning about 8 games a year. That wasn’t good enough. The same exact thing is going to happen with Narduzzi. He will get us to about 8 wins next year, but that won’t be good enough. We will then bring in a new coach. He will go backwards before bringing us back to around 8 wins, and then the same merry go round will happen again. I am not sure why so many Pitt fans do not like stability. We are an 8 Win type program because of the lackluster support we receive from our alumni. Instead of withholding support, Pitt fans need to increase their support. Pitt alums want to beat PS in football, but aren’t willing to provide the financial backing that is needed.

 

[BigBird80]

I'll put my $$ on the under for 8 wins next year and the year after also.

 

[Jakey_John]

8 wins would be fine. This regime has only been there half the time. Right now that’s not good enough. Harris moves on because it was widely believed Pitt was in the cusp of something better. Wanny was let go because of SP. At the time and even now he was considered good enough by a lot of the fan base. He never won 8 consistently either. It took him half his time here to reach that mark.

 

[MarySki]

I'll put my $$ on the under for 8 wins next year and the year after also.

Maybe put your $$$ in the program, would help to accomplish our goals.

 

[McKee Place]

Maybe put your $$$ in the program, would help to accomplish our goals.

Maybe if they'd spend the money on what it really takes to win, more would be inclined to do so.

For 30 plus years, Pitt hasn't done so.

Flip flopping coaches every 3 to 5 years is certainly expensive but is not applying money properly.

Most every coach we've had have been fine as far as coaching goes. Talent acquisition is the issue, and it requires different kinds of spending, and admittedly compromise.

More accurately, Pitt itself shouldn't be spending even as much as it does. Over the table anyway.

Effective winning programs have extensive booster networks of gray characters that do the dirty work.

Pitt got foolishly scared off of from that 35 years ago because of local muckrakers and something that happened once to SMu, at the behest of Texas, which the NCAA admitted it would never do again. And the programs have essentially been non competitive from a championship standpoint since.

Having placed those irrefutable facts in proper context with the tired old "blame the customer" rhetoric: Pitt is lucky for the level of money it does get from donors now, frankly. Everyone knows the score. It's good money we throw after bad, or none, in this case.

 

[PITTsburghFAN]

Maybe if they'd spend the money on what it really takes to win, more would be inclined to do so.

For 30 plus years, Pitt hasn't done so.

Flip flopping coaches every 3 to 5 years is certainly expensive but is not applying money properly.

Most every coach we've had have been fine as far as coaching goes. Talent acquisition is the issue, and it requires different kinds of spending, and admittedly compromise.

More accurately, Pitt itself shouldn't be spending even as much as it does. Over the table anyway.

Effective winning programs have extensive booster networks of gray characters that do the dirty work.

Pitt got foolishly scared off of from that 35 years ago because of local muckrakers and something that happened once to SMu, at the behest of Texas, which the NCAA admitted it would never do again. And the programs have essentially been non competitive from a championship standpoint since.

Having placed those irrefutable facts in proper context with the tired old "blame the customer" rhetoric: Pitt is lucky for the level of money it does get from donors now, frankly. Everyone knows the score. It's good money we throw after bad, or none, in this case.

++++++++++++++++++++

These continuous and none-too-thinly-veiled admonitions that Pitt begins (excuse me, RESUMES) the process of cheating by paying recruits are interesting but tiresome. How is the average fan supposed to interpret your posts? We're supposed to believe that virtually every highly-rated recruit that goes to virtually every university is being paid by some shady stream of boosters?

Conspiracy theories are, ad infinitum, disproven because of the incredibly difficult task of keeping all involved parties silent and/or hewing to a false narrative. The larger the conspiracy, the more exponentially difficult it becomes to preserve the act of conspiring. If your theory is true, then ubiquitous cheating via the payment of thousands of recruits by hundreds of universities would then be among the most successful conspiracies of all time.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Maybe if they'd spend the money on what it really takes to win, more would be inclined to do so.

For 30 plus years, Pitt hasn't done so.

Flip flopping coaches every 3 to 5 years is certainly expensive but is not applying money properly.

Most every coach we've had have been fine as far as coaching goes. Talent acquisition is the issue, and it requires different kinds of spending, and admittedly compromise.

More accurately, Pitt itself shouldn't be spending even as much as it does. Over the table anyway.

Effective winning programs have extensive booster networks of gray characters that do the dirty work.

Pitt got foolishly scared off of from that 35 years ago because of local muckrakers and something that happened once to SMu, at the behest of Texas, which the NCAA admitted it would never do again. And the programs have essentially been non competitive from a championship standpoint since.

Having placed those irrefutable facts in proper context with the tired old "blame the customer" rhetoric: Pitt is lucky for the level of money it does get from donors now, frankly. Everyone knows the score. It's good money we throw after bad, or none, in this case.

the whole irony of this is losing a losing a DB recruit to Matt House when 5 years ago Narduzzi took a DB recruit from House.

 

[giveitarest]

Not sure you can compare Walt's and Wanny's records in the Big East to the now in ACC.
Neither won the Big East out right and Walt backed into it. We lost to UCONN, Cincy etc.

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Not sure you can compare Walt's and Wanny's records in the Big East to the now in ACC.
Neither won the Big East out right and Walt backed into it. We lost to UCONN, Cincy etc.

exactly. Wanny's schedule in 2009 was the easiest we have had in years and still finished in 3rd place.

 

[McKee Place]

++++++++++++++++++++

These continuous and none-too-thinly-veiled admonitions that Pitt begins (excuse me, RESUMES) the process of cheating by paying recruits are interesting but tiresome. How is the average fan supposed to interpret your posts? We're supposed to believe that virtually every highly-rated recruit that goes to virtually every university is being paid by some shady stream of boosters?

Conspiracy theories are, ad infinitum, disproven because of the incredibly difficult task of keeping all involved parties silent and/or hewing to a false narrative. The larger the conspiracy, the more exponentially difficult it becomes to preserve the act of conspiring. If your theory is true, then ubiquitous cheating via the payment of thousands of recruits by hundreds of universities would then be among the most successful conspiracies of all time.

It's clearly happening in some way or form, of course. See Arizona basketball, see Louisville, Auburn with Cam Newton, USC with Reggie Bush. Occasionally schools get sloppy and selective wrist slapping has to occur. Reference the infamous SI bagman article. It more than proves widespread incidents of payola, perks, academic fraud etc.all exist. Be proud of Pitt choosing to stink, rather than partake, if you must. It's honorable to be so, in an irrelevant way, I suppose. But don't be delusional that it doesn't happen. It's a filthy system.

 

[McKee Place]

the whole irony of this is losing a losing a DB recruit to Matt House when 5 years ago Narduzzi took a DB recruit from House.

One of those schools certainly seem to have increased their commitment to recruiting since that time, yes. Which proves a point Ive been making all week, that coaching ability and rep often are almost superfluous in the recruiting aspect of the job.

 

[Las Panteras]

the whole irony of this is losing a losing a DB recruit to Matt House when 5 years ago Narduzzi took a DB recruit from House.

I don't know Slick,

Not sure Narduzzi lost him. I mean, the kid had years to express a real interest in Pitt but seemed to always want OSU.

When that didnt come through, he chose between WVU and UK

Might explain why PN didnt go after him as strongly as.many on here think he.should have?

 

[McKee Place]

I don't know Slick,

Not sure Narduzzi lost him. I mean, the kid had years to express a real interest in Pitt but seemed to always want OSU.

When that didnt come through, he chose between WVU and UK

Might explain why PN didnt go after him as strongly as.many on here think he.should have?

This is a real and possibly the more alarming possibility... and maybe similar to the guy from PH who just signed with PSU and people questioned why "Pitt hadnt offered him". Well, maybe we would have, maybe we reached out, but maybe he said in no uncertain terms that he had no interest. It certainly looks like an unfortunate local trend.

 

[BigBird80]

Maybe put your $$$ in the program, would help to accomplish our goals.

Pitt is not my family member who suffers from addiction who I should continue to invest money, love and effort into correcting. Pitt is sports, i'll invest when they give me a product worth investing in.

To some of you, Pitt is family. Good for you, but they are not and never will be for me. I refuse to give Pitt blind support.

 

[paulbl99]

Maybe if they'd spend the money on what it really takes to win, more would be inclined to do so.

For 30 plus years, Pitt hasn't done so.

Flip flopping coaches every 3 to 5 years is certainly expensive but is not applying money properly.

Most every coach we've had have been fine as far as coaching goes. Talent acquisition is the issue, and it requires different kinds of spending, and admittedly compromise.

More accurately, Pitt itself shouldn't be spending even as much as it does. Over the table anyway.

Effective winning programs have extensive booster networks of gray characters that do the dirty work.

Pitt got foolishly scared off of from that 35 years ago because of local muckrakers and something that happened once to SMu, at the behest of Texas, which the NCAA admitted it would never do again. And the programs have essentially been non competitive from a championship standpoint since.

Having placed those irrefutable facts in proper context with the tired old "blame the customer" rhetoric: Pitt is lucky for the level of money it does get from donors now, frankly. Everyone knows the score. It's good money we throw after bad, or none, in this case.

Several times Pitt FB success met resistance and push back from the Pipe Smokers and Eggheads.....

And when they weren’t doing it....jokers like Parachute Petey were doing it for them.

 

[McKee Place]

Several times Pitt FB success met resistance and push back from the Pipe Smokers and Eggheads.....

And when they weren’t doing it....jokers like Parachute Petey were doing it for them.

Yea, it was like the post in the other thread trying to compare Foge (who I met, and liked very much) and Narduzzi. That they were similar, but Foge was a great recruiter. I had to correct that. Great recruits came to Pitt while Foge was there. For sure. But the Golden Panthers were still operating at the time. That was the difference. Foge was a good guy as I said, but there wasn't anything magical about him that Duz doesn't have, or Chryst, Walt etc. Hell, Duz wins as much or more with far less than Foge. As an actual head coach, there's no comparo really. I'd love to see what Duz can do with a booster effort working behind the scenes providing real talent, as it does at other schools now... as it once did at our school.