I don’t know I’m burnt out in the cycle
- Thread starter DruidTM
- Start date
Pretty easy to recruit to The Cult as well. The players are treated like Greek Gods.
Except both schools have seen recruiting jump by leaps and bounds from the previous staffs to the great staffs they have now. Our coaches just aren't good recruiters.
Have been trying to think of the "Pittsburgh" guys out there that might have enough experience for the job.
Austin
Sunseri
Marvin Lewis
Wanny
Cignetti Jr
Cavanaugh
Moorehead
Todd Haley
Tom Clements
Ben McAdoo
Gattuso
Russ Grimm
Bob Babich
Van Pelt
Jim Haslett
Rip Scherer
Hal Hunter
Can't really think of any more, but how many would you actually want to have the job and how many of those would even consider the job?
Ideally:
From or plugged into the Mid-Atlantic area.
Young.
Offensive minded.
Analytic minded. Even if he doesn’t purely coach by it, somebody that at least knows the numbers say you should go for it on 4th down every time.
Wants to build a young, hungry staff willing to live on the recruiting trail.
From or plugged into the Mid-Atlantic area.
Young.
Offensive minded.
Analytic minded. Even if he doesn’t purely coach by it, somebody that at least knows the numbers say you should go for it on 4th down every time.
Wants to build a young, hungry staff willing to live on the recruiting trail.
You forgot Wanny's .500 record against UConn over 6 years.
C'mon, give it a rest. Wanny NEVER beat anyone better than Pitt (other than 13-9) and frequently lost to teams that were much worse (e.g., Navy, Ohio, Bowling Green, etc.). Narduzzi sucks but for the most part he's won the games he was supposed to win and has occasionally punched above his weight.
You need a head ball coach that HS coaches and great players EVERYWHERE respect and want to play for.
I'd stand 'pat' at least until fairly certain Lyke will stick around. AD's seem to crap out at Pitt soon after a big coaching change.
It seems to me the way sports are going these days it is all about money. Everyone wants a lot and Pitt does not want to pay. Its the same as the Pirates.
It may even be a combination of money and the willingness to brush right up on that line of between being a dirty or clean program. If you look at the top programs, I'm sure they all have skeletons in their closets. We have seen what Penn State was willing to overlook to get there.
But where does the money come from? People blame fans or the alumni, but I think the commitment has to come from Pitt first. No one is going to invest in something that the owner is not fully committed.
It may even be a combination of money and the willingness to brush right up on that line of between being a dirty or clean program. If you look at the top programs, I'm sure they all have skeletons in their closets. We have seen what Penn State was willing to overlook to get there.
But where does the money come from? People blame fans or the alumni, but I think the commitment has to come from Pitt first. No one is going to invest in something that the owner is not fully committed.
Except in the most recent ACC financial disclosures(2016-17) Pitt spent more money on football than Boston College, Duke, Georgia Tech, Lousiville, NC State, UNC, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Wake Forest. The only ACC teams that spent more were Clemson, FSU, and Miami.
During that same year Clemson, FSU, G-Tech, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, UNC, and V-ech all had higher football revenue.
In 2016, Pitt was 4th in spending but 9th in revenue. Stop trying to place all the blame on the administration. Sometimes things just don't work out.
This. It's a tired narrative. The school supplements a ton of the spending as well.
Again, a lot of the decisions made are up for debate, but spending wise, especially compared to the revenues we bring in, Pitt puts in a significant investment.
There are two ways to win in college football.
1. Superior infrastructure. There is a fairly strong correlation between revenue, budget, recruiting, and wins/rankings.
2. Great coach.
#1 helps a lot with #2. We don't have #1. We need to get lucky to get #2. It sucks, but it's an inherently unfair system and is designed to be so. If you want parity, watch pro sports with salary caps.
1. Superior infrastructure. There is a fairly strong correlation between revenue, budget, recruiting, and wins/rankings.
2. Great coach.
#1 helps a lot with #2. We don't have #1. We need to get lucky to get #2. It sucks, but it's an inherently unfair system and is designed to be so. If you want parity, watch pro sports with salary caps.
That’s the cap with the crap coaches we traditionally hire! That’s the key qualification to your comment.
