So much negativity. There must be a lot of unhappy people on this board. Maybe some guys that continually bitch about anything on a daily basis just like being controversial and can't see the forest because of all the trees. lol.
I’m not thrilled about this, but hoping for the best!
- Thread starter Pittfan85
- Start date
So much negativity. There must be a lot of unhappy people on this board. Maybe some guys that continually bitch about anything on a daily basis just like being controversial and can't see the forest because of all the trees. lol.
But they aren't opinions. They are opinions only if you choose to ignore the high correlation between recruiting class rankings and success. Which you're free to do. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to pretend like we don't know how these 3* recruits are going to turn out.
Recruiting is a big issue right now with Duzz , how many verbals did we get from the last few weeks of visits with higher end kids btw?
Yes you could. And if you started to have a high % of hits on your recruiting class ranking, people would start to distinguish you from the rest of the people that put up a shingle.
People that like to pretend like there isn't a massive correlation between recruiting class rankings and on the field success, are delusional. It's overwhelming at this point. As one would expect. Customer demand combined with technology combined with the sheer number of camps combined with football being played at some level year round, has made diamonds in the rough less and less common.
But most 3* guys aren't successful though. You're right that most tend to be 3* players, but most teams are middle of the road teams, they have no chance of playing for anything meaningful. I would say our recruiting is middle of the road even by 3* standards though. You can hold out hope that CPN is just smarter than everybody else at it, but: 1. you're hoping against the odds, and 2. there's no evidence for that.
I don't want to keep making the same post over and over again, but it's simply not true that a team like TCU is good at identifying 3* guys that aren't actually 3* guys. Instead they themselves just don't play many teams that recruit above a 3* level. They play OU and Texas, and that's it. And Texas has been a massive dumpster fire that has completely mitigated it's 4* recruiting. But when TCU plays OU, they lose generally. The reason? OU recruits at a 4* level, and those 3* players that TCU recruits are actually only 3* players. TCU's saving grace is the rest of the Big 12 recruits at the same middle of the road level as they do.
I'm not going to argue stars because I'd much prefer a team heavy in 4* guys. It increases your probabilities when you've got a finite number of ships to give. Recruiting is really about hit rates.
But I also understand it's not realistic at Pitt because there are only 10-15 teams that can consistently recruit at a 3.5 star average or higher. The ACC happens to have 3 of them and two reside in Florida.
Duzz has averaged 3.08 and 3.04 his first two full classes. The current class sits at 3.0 right now. I'll wait to see how his guys perform before passing judgement.
We shall also see where it stands on LOI day. I think it will still be over 3.00 with a couple of late 4 stars and a few more 3 stars to finish. The overall class ranking will also get better simply because having a class size of 18+ will score higher than a class of only 13.
For perspective on the average stars per class issue—
Walt Harris has multiple classes that averaged well below 3-stars (2.4 to 2.75). Wannstadt’s classes never went above 3.4–maybe 2-3?were over 3.1-ish. We probably have not had anything like a 3.5+ class equivalent since the 1980s.
For perspective on the average stars per class issue—
Walt Harris has multiple classes that averaged well below 3-stars (2.4 to 2.75). Wannstadt’s classes never went above 3.4–maybe 2-3?were over 3.1-ish. We probably have not had anything like a 3.5+ class equivalent since the 1980s.
On the class ranking issue—we are currently #58. If we had same average stars but 19 in class we would be roughly between #25-30. See Wisconsin at #26 with 19 in class and average stars 3.05 for example.
Glad the extension as been signed, we need the stability.
But to say it's good for recruiting? Narduzzi is not a good recruiter. The hope I take from it is that he will have more money to pay assistants that are good at recruiting. Time will tell if this was a good move, but if he goes 5-7 again next season, he's going to be on the hot seat.
But to say it's good for recruiting? Narduzzi is not a good recruiter. The hope I take from it is that he will have more money to pay assistants that are good at recruiting. Time will tell if this was a good move, but if he goes 5-7 again next season, he's going to be on the hot seat.
I think more people are upset that they're losing reasons to complain than anything. You got your script. You got your coaching stability. You might be getting the old colors back. Now you want to complain this might be an overreach? Go argue over tarps. Please.
What do you define as good recruiting and a good recruiter?
If it is 3.5 star average classes that is inherently impossible for Pitt in the current era of a diminished Western PA population with its accompanying overall decline in WPIAL and PA high school football depth of talent. There is no coach Pitt could hire to immediately produce such classes.
The only way to do it would be to land lots of 4 and 5 Star recruits from other states and regions. That could happen only if the stars align and a couple of consecutive 10+ win seasons happen with 3-Star laden rosters and the resulting success attracts the out of area 4-5 stars to Pitt.
Narduzzi has as a good a chance of accomplishing that scenario as anyone else willing to Coach Pitt.
But none of those guys got 7 year extensions.
People want to say, "well, these guys never recruited well" as if that means something in itself. There are other factors that would go into justifying a 7 year extension, but looking at it strictly from a recruiting perspective, the question would be: is Narduzzi recruiting at a level that would justify a 7 year extension? How Walt recruited is irrelevant to that question, at least to me.
We are on pace to not sign a single 4* player in this class. I don't see how that isn't setting off all kinds of alarms for people. I don't care how small a class is. In year 3 of recruiting, there should be some kind of bell cow a class is centered around.
It's simply not true that winning creates recruiting. The opposite is true.
Look at Gundy and Patterson in the Big XII. They are regarded by everybody concerned as ELITE coaches. They win a ton. And yet, their recruiting has never taken off, which has prevented their teams from ever reaching that next level. They both basically go into the season with a loss to OU, because OU recruits at a higher level. When it comes to recruiting, you either have it or you don't. And they don't have it.
I think it's not unreasonable to expect to bring in a small core of 4* players with every class, combined with some high ceiling 3* players. Every 4 or so years, you get a high enough hit rate on those players that they make up a good amount of your two deep, and that's when you make your ACCC run.
I mostly agree with your post, lots of good stuff there. But in the particular situation of Pitt, could we recruit a couple more of the top 10 Pennsylvania players every year if we won more? I think so. But obviously conjecture.
Well, since Narduzzi is now under contract til 2024, defacto, no matter what our negative fans think, he is NOT really going to be on a hot seat for about 5 years. Pitt simply can't afford to buy out a 7-year contract.
The deal is done. People wanted Pitt to step up. They did. Now we sit back and watch.
Please don't tell Pitt fans to sit back and watch since they already do that in their homes instead of being in Heinz field on a Sat or Thurs night watching a game.
I think winning can allow recruiting to improve to some degree, I just don't think that degree is very great. Recruiters, recruit. Everybody knows who has "it." Look at Willie Taggart. He never had elite classes bcause he was at Western Kentucky and USF, but everybody knew that man was dangerous on the recruiting trail, and just needed to be at a P5 school. His first year at Oregon and he had them recruiting at a higher level than the school had ever experienced, even with all that winning Chip Kelly did. Recruiters, recruit.
What winning largely does is prevent you from get turned into a used car salesman. Somebody that everybody knows can sell, but they avoid you because they don't want to be talked into buying what you are selling. That's when you start to enter Ron Zook territory.
Yeah I agree, I think another way to put it is that recent winning is further down the list behind both "infrastructure" (fans, budget, facilities) and coaches. I am not sure if i would rank infrastructure or coaches higher for importance because they're both such big factors. But recent winning is on the list at least somewhere, probably around right around playing time, academics, and conference. And probably below geography.
I get your point, but frankly, I'd just as soon have our fans sit passively, even at home, rather than consistently and publicly bash the school, program and coaches. Being actively negative about everything hurts the program.
Actually attendjng at Heinz IS much better, but as this thread is showing, there are still a significant number of our "fans" who remain unsatisfied with a guy who is arguably the best candidate we have hired in many years. Generally, our fans are worse than our program.
If Narduzzi fails, it is actually difficult to comprehend who and where we could go to find a better candidate. He's a reasonably local guy who espouses a coaching philosophy consistent with what most Pittsburghrrs want. He does pretty much exactly what we want a coach to do. Except, so far, win the ACC and go to the CFP.
We're not PSU or tOSU. Duzz is pretty much what we are.
Just to clarify-It is not a 7 year extension. It is a 3 year extension of the current contract out to a total of 7 year’s.
Ugh, I'm NOT arguing against the point you just made, I agree with it. A team that is mostly able to recruit 4 and 5 star guys will beat a team that mostly has 3 star guys, more often than not. Got it?
My point is that few teams can or will be able to recruit mostly 4-5 star guys. Pitt isn't one that can. We're going to get a few of those highly ranked guys each year, but most of our guys will be 3 star guys. That's the reality. We need a coach who can succeed with mostly 3-star recruits (ala Wisky/TCU) and not one who will fail (ala Illinois).
If you want to leave Narduzzi hanging without an extension, and lose him, in hopes that we'll be able to find a guy who can recruit -- AT PITT -- at that level, well, I'm don't think its going to happen. Look what Tennessee just went through, now that they've made their HC job so demanding that nobody wants it anymore. Who exactly would be attracted by the Pitt job, at what Pitt is willing to pay, if Narduzzi were fired for not winning enough? Answer that one. Then think about whether extending PN's contract was a good idea or not.
Right, so a 7 year extension. His contract now goes 7 years. Glad we all know we are on the same page.
Whom are we losing him to? This is Pitt bidding against themselves. Narduzzi literally wasn't mentioned for a single one of the string of jobs that came open this season. He is not in demand. At best what we're saying is, "Well, it's possible he puts together the kind of seasons taht will make him in demand, so this will only help."
But we don't know that. All we can say right now is, "The results on the field have been mixed. And the recruiting is too early to judge, but its possible he is in that small minority that (people mistakenly believe) is able to defy the recruiting rankings." You don't lock the school into that contract with a coach that is still a massive question mark in terms of what direction he's taking the program in.
Because these coaches don't care. All of these major universities have the kind of money to pay whatever buyout you think deters them from poaching CPN. They laugh at it. If they want him, they are going to get him. But now he's too expensive for Pitt to move on from. So all that has happened is Pitt, for better or worse, is stuck with a coach that is still an unknown going into year 4.
Last edited:
OK, the reason to NOT sign him to an extension would be that it will be easier to fire him if things go south. In not signing a coach to an extension, particularly after a 5-7 season tells the world that his seat is getting warm, if not hot. This is where several on this board think he should be.
At this point of his tenure, you have a choice to make as an AD. Either you decide things are headed in the wrong direction, and its probably best to fire the guy now and move on (although, good luck finding someone better with the coin Pitt has to spend), OR, come to the conclusion that things are on the right path, and make an investment in the guy, and let recruits and others know he's here to stay. Pitt's chosen the latter.
However, doing neither and leaving him on a warm/hot seat is a very bad blow to the coach's chances of recruiting success, devastating perhaps. Its a downward spiral from there.
At this point of his tenure, you have a choice to make as an AD. Either you decide things are headed in the wrong direction, and its probably best to fire the guy now and move on (although, good luck finding someone better with the coin Pitt has to spend), OR, come to the conclusion that things are on the right path, and make an investment in the guy, and let recruits and others know he's here to stay. Pitt's chosen the latter.
However, doing neither and leaving him on a warm/hot seat is a very bad blow to the coach's chances of recruiting success, devastating perhaps. Its a downward spiral from there.
Buyouts don't necessarily deter, but they do compensate the team that loses the coach. And if you don't think $5m - $10m is important to Pitt then you aren't paying attention.
Maybe he is known to Pitt and they are happy with what they know. Maybe they have no plans to move on from HCPN. Maybe they are happy to buy low. There are plenty of unknowns on many sides.
I find it hard to classify this a bad business decision. I don't see any reason to believe that HCPN will tank the football program. I think worst case is they are mediocre like they have been and the upside is they're better. How much better we don't know.
Well, we're subsidizing the Athletic Department at something like $13MM, or about $3MM more than we ever did in the BE while our season ticket revenue from both major sports is dropping like Thelma and Louise.
It would appear that we can't afford to buy out Stallings and will let hoops revenues drop even further.
If we have money to spend, we have an awfully strange way to show it.
The biggest issue with the recruiting, in terms of just our class and not the criticality of comparison to our competition, is needing top talent. On average, if we have a HC we believe in, I will definitely take the class with 4 4*, 12 3*, and 4 2* over the class with 20 3*. Ideally that talented is also spread across impact positions. Having all the best prospects be S and the lowest probabilities at WR doesn't work. Sprinkle in some 2* TE, FB, etc. projects, but supplement it with high end talent and you have a much better chance. MOST of these players aren't going to hit anyway because there is limited playing time, but the high end talent is much more likely to hit and hot big.
Pitt's sports revenue is much smaller that many other schools, even after the big increase since joining the ACC. And they've shown no inclination to offer anything close to what the top schools pay. Revenues, history, and not wanting to be known as a football first school strongly suggests that Pitt won't go try to hire a Saban, or anything close to that.
I agree, but they can pay 3 to 4 especially if the Hoopies can. We at times give Pitt the benefit of the doubt and make excuses for Pitt when they don't deserve them , especially after 35 years of being cheap and not caring
On the other hand, the hoopie fans show up for their games, and donate to their athletic programs. Pitt fans don't as much, so blaming the administration all of the time isn't really fair. We can blame the administration for hiring S Peterson the second time, which did set athletic donations back, and fan interest back as well.
Actually we are subsiding a little less than we were in the Big East (and that's not inflation adjusted) according to the Snyder reports.
Yes, when recruits choose other schools, I think its rare that the reason is that they don't like the staff. Usually, "liking the staff" is the first thing the recruits mention when finishing a visit at Pitt. They choose other schools for other reasons. I remember Jeter saying that the hardest thing about choosing another school was having to call Narduzzi and letting him know.
Latest posts
-
There are a lot of people that owe an apology to Kenny pickett- Latest: Panther Parrothead
-
-
