Is it better to have a bad coach
- Thread starter pittman71
- Start date
I was looking at that 2002 season specifically in regards to ND. We also played A&M during that time. The Big East was much better 2001-2003 than 2008-2010. Much better. I don't think it is debatable.
Edwards at BYU was probably the last time a great coach won with average to below average talent. And BYU never should have been voted NC.
On other end of the spectrum guys like Larry Coker, Gene Chizik, Llyod Carr, Gene Stallings, Phillip Fulmer, Les Miles, and Mac Brown have all won national championships since 1990. Those are all average (Carr, Miles, Folmer) to horrible coaches (Coker, Chizik).
Talent will take you further than coaching.
On other end of the spectrum guys like Larry Coker, Gene Chizik, Llyod Carr, Gene Stallings, Phillip Fulmer, Les Miles, and Mac Brown have all won national championships since 1990. Those are all average (Carr, Miles, Folmer) to horrible coaches (Coker, Chizik).
Talent will take you further than coaching.
Never mind the great recruiter statement, I think the funniest thing in this thread is the insinuation that Wannstedt would increase attendance. I sat in plenty of vacant home games during tenure, even when the team was actually good.
I actually don't begrudge the 2008 season against him. The conference was strong that particular year, and Pitt did beat several good teams. Unfortunately, they had to play Cincy in Cincy, and they played a near perfect game. Cincy caught breaks the rest of the year. It happens.
The other years were the problem. They weren't remotely competitive the first three years, finishing 4th, 7th, and 7th.
In 2009 & 2010 they caught their breaks in that the Big East got a lot weaker, and they didn't have to beat WVU to Win it. Pitt and Wannstedt still failed.
I could go on, but you know, dead horse.....
A&M was 6-6 in 2002. It was better in 2001- 2003 because of Miami.
Last edited:
Pitt was incredible in 2002. They had 2 loses going into the Miami game and lead at the half. Then they nearly came back. 2003 was supposed to be the year then Toledo happened because the defense would not adjust. (where have I heard that before?) That team was #12 in the preseason polls and were a legit NC contender coming into the season. Even with all of the diss appointments that year Pitt only had to beat Miami at home in freezing cold temps for the orange bowl. Unfortunately we know what happened after the following season. Still those 02 and 03 teams were stacked. They just underachieved.
I will share this story again;
On a flight to Chicago a few years ago, i sat next to the HC of a P5 Powerhouse school with multiple national championships. We talked football, defense, recruiting.
His comment to me:
"outrecruiting your opponents wins you seven games, what you do with those recruits determines the other 5"
Does this not seem true? Wanny outrecruited almost everyone in the BE....couldn't coach much and Pitt was a 7-9 win program.
I am a firm believer in this approach and think it a very reasonable and accurate measure.
So put me down for recruiting matters more than coaching
On a flight to Chicago a few years ago, i sat next to the HC of a P5 Powerhouse school with multiple national championships. We talked football, defense, recruiting.
His comment to me:
"outrecruiting your opponents wins you seven games, what you do with those recruits determines the other 5"
Does this not seem true? Wanny outrecruited almost everyone in the BE....couldn't coach much and Pitt was a 7-9 win program.
I am a firm believer in this approach and think it a very reasonable and accurate measure.
So put me down for recruiting matters more than coaching
Pitt will never be a consistent recruiting heavy. Those days are LONG gone and the college football trends of the past 20 years have just further ensured that.
Adjust your expectations accordingly.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up WVU. They usually are in the 30's recruiting wise, and then usually outperform their rankings because as much of a prick holgerson might be, he is a good coach and runs an offensive system that can mask talent deficiencies.
I will take a good coach at Pitt over a recruiter, because pitt will never be able to be a powerhouse recruiting. This is why I wanted chryst to say, because at Wisconsin they never blew anything away recruiting wise, but somehow managed to be a top team in the big ten.
I think Pitt could have constant top 20 to 25 classes with the right coach and money to hire top asst. I agree with you, if you are saying , Pitt is cheap, recruiters use PAT buses to visit recruits, and that won't change.
Similar threads
