ADVERTISEMENT

My Honest View

List 5 coaches who would take the job and be an upgrade over Duzz. It could be much worse - we have a lot of evidence to prove that. Unless there is someone VERY good in the hopper, it would be extremely dangerous to get rid of Duzz if finishes with a winning record. It's not as easy to make a change as most assume.

Come on, 5 million many take it tomorrow
 
List 5 coaches who would take the job and be an upgrade over Duzz. It could be much worse - we have a lot of evidence to prove that. Unless there is someone VERY good in the hopper, it would be extremely dangerous to get rid of Duzz if finishes with a winning record. It's not as easy to make a change as most assume.

I see this as very reasonable take. This is indeed a very difficult situation. Like everyone else, I'm very disappointed in Duzz and staff at the moment. But I do also want to see how this entire season plays, as you might agree will all should.
 
Narduzzi teams seem to play better when their backs are against the wall, so we'll probably show some improvement. I expect at least 6-6, most likely 7-5. And that will meet the expert predictions for us, so he'll be back again next year and not on any sort of hot seat.
 
Last edited:
Narduzzi teams seem to play better when their backs are against the wall, so we'll probably show some improvement. I expect at least 6-6, most likely 7-5. And that will meet the expert predictions for us, so he'll be back against next year and not on any sort of hot seat.
Quite frankly, seeing how bad the Coastal appears, I still think we could finish 8-4.
 
IMO retaining Narduzzi at 4-8 seems wildly pro-Narduzzi and out of step with reality. I really think he needs to go on a bit of a tear here. Beating UNH and winning 1 ACC game won't be enough.
I agree. I’m just saying this is the reality. The administration is happy with him. They are not going to fire him unless he has a couple of losing seasons in a row. They don’t view Pitt as a USC where they expect 10 win seasons or they fire the head coach.
 
Steve told him to make coaching changes after the poor season, Wanny told him to F-off. He thought Nordy had his back and was wrong. The SI stuff was a convenient cover for the real reasons of the firing.
Yep totally agree. I think it’s different here. Especially since Duz was hired by the president and not AD. But who knows maybe if Lyke is fed up she can convince Gallagher to let her make a change. I just don’t think she will after this season unless bottom falls out like it did with Stallings.
 
Pitt friends:

Honestly, is anyone shocked by today’s developments? I am not. It was so predictable.

Going into this season, Pitt had the deepest most talented roster we’ve had since the Gottfried days. We had a talented super senior in Kenny Pickett. The schedule was set up for Pitt to start 5-0. Now I have always been patient and supportive of Pitt coaches. I know that for a program like Pitt, it takes time to build.

It’s now year SEVEN in the Narduzzi era and we’re still losing to MAC teams at home… In my opinion, this is unacceptable.

Now some of my fellow poster that I respect, and follow are willing to spin this. I cannot. I am deeply disappointed. When I see teams like Iowa State and Cincinnati ranked in the top 15, it makes me sick knowing that Pitt could be one of those teams.

I could create a list of teams that are on Pitt’s level that have won 10 or more games multiple times in a season since 1981, but I’ve done that for the past two seasons.

I can promise you that a lot of important people will not be happy with today’s results. They are expecting a 9–10-win season and will not accept anything less. This was a game that was circled as a must win.

The question is, what does Pitt do if they fall short? I want to see how the rest of the season unfolds, but if I were Heather, I’d start quietly looking around for possible replacements from now until the end of the season.

I have no confidence now that the season will end well…
Going into this season, Pitt had the deepest most talented roster we’ve had since the Gottfried days.

That’s a false premise that seemed to gain traction on this board over the off season, as far as I could tell based on nothing but hype.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Upg bobcat
USC is a facade. They aren't interested in winning. They are only interested in throwing their fanbase a piece of meat to satisfy their demands for an elite program. They operate on the cheap and they think they can get away with it because they are USC and where they are located.
 
College athletics is 90% about coaching. After 7 years, it is clear we don't have coaching that will get Pitt to the point that generates interest outside the core fan base, or grow it, and the core fan base that is left is subsequently going to continue to wither away. A lack of hope and excitement is going to slowly kill the program.

7 years, 8 weeks in the top 25 and never higher than 21st. Pitt hasn't finished ranked since 2009...that's 11 years. That's not acceptable.
Coaching and recruiting, and I assume you are counting recruiting as part of coaching.
 
List 5 coaches who would take the job and be an upgrade over Duzz. It could be much worse - we have a lot of evidence to prove that. Unless there is someone VERY good in the hopper, it would be extremely dangerous to get rid of Duzz if finishes with a winning record. It's not as easy to make a change as most assume.
Win/loss wise who have we seen that’s all that worse in recent history? Majors 2 and Hackett are the only ones appreciably worse.
 
Win/loss wise who have we seen that’s all that worse in recent history? Majors 2 and Hackett are the only ones appreciably worse.


"We can't make a change because instead of mediocre we might be bad" is the way that losers think.

You know what? If you fire mediocre and in a few years it becomes apparent that you replaced mediocre with bad you get rid of bad and you try again.

Or more likely, your replacement tries again.
 
"We can't make a change because instead of mediocre we might be bad" is the way that losers think.

You know what? If you fire mediocre and in a few years it becomes apparent that you replaced mediocre with bad you get rid of bad and you try again.

Or more likely, your replacement tries again.

Mediocre coaching can win at a good program. Pitt isn't a good program. Recruiting base is mediocre. Recruiting budget is mediocre. Support is mediocre.

It's mediocre in every way. Until they pump some money and support into the program, they will remain mediocre.
 
"We can't make a change because instead of mediocre we might be bad" is the way that losers think.

You know what? If you fire mediocre and in a few years it becomes apparent that you replaced mediocre with bad you get rid of bad and you try again.

Or more likely, your replacement tries again.
I know it is a pet peeve of yours (and mine) when people say something can’t get any worse. Obviously it can and often does. But stating we have seen way worse than Narduzzi recently is just false, all of Pitt’s coaches in recent history have been pretty much indistinguishable record wise going back multiple tenures.
 
I know it is a pet peeve of yours (and mine) when people say something can’t get any worse. Obviously it can and often does. But stating we have seen way worse than Narduzzi recently is just false, all of Pitt’s coaches in recent history have been pretty much indistinguishable record wise going back multiple tenures.

We had 3 coaches in 3 years and they avg 6 wins a season, that's a myth, Duzz is done here
 
Mediocre coaching can win at a good program.


I mean I guess it depends on how you are defining "win". Pat Narduzzi at Alabama is not, over the long term, a championship contender. Would he win nine or ten games there most years? Yeah, sure, he probably could. It would also get him fired.

Mediocre coaching keeps programs from reaching their potential. Pitt's potential isn't perennial national championship contender, but it certainly is higher than seven wins per season. Seven-ish wins per season might be Narduzzi's potential, but it's not Pitt's potential.
 
I mean I guess it depends on how you are defining "win". Pat Narduzzi at Alabama is not, over the long term, a championship contender. Would he win nine or ten games there most years? Yeah, sure, he probably could. It would also get him fired.

Mediocre coaching keeps programs from reaching their potential. Pitt's potential isn't perennial national championship contender, but it certainly is higher than seven wins per season. Seven-ish wins per season might be Narduzzi's potential, but it's not Pitt's potential.

This shouldn't be hard to comprehend
 
I mean I guess it depends on how you are defining "win". Pat Narduzzi at Alabama is not, over the long term, a championship contender. Would he win nine or ten games there most years? Yeah, sure, he probably could. It would also get him fired.

Mediocre coaching keeps programs from reaching their potential. Pitt's potential isn't perennial national championship contender, but it certainly is higher than seven wins per season. Seven-ish wins per season might be Narduzzi's potential, but it's not Pitt's potential.
Wow, that last line sounds like a mantra. It really is true when we talk about the limitations of the program.
 
I know it is a pet peeve of yours (and mine) when people say something can’t get any worse. Obviously it can and often does. But stating we have seen way worse than Narduzzi recently is just false, all of Pitt’s coaches in recent history have been pretty much indistinguishable record wise going back multiple tenures.


I did it before and I'm not going to do it again, but if you go through all the Pitt coaches back to Foge Fazio Pitt hasn't hired one good coach in the lot. It's all mediocrity or worse, as is evidenced by what those people have done when they left Pitt. The only guy that you can argue was anything better than mediocre anywhere after he left Pitt was Paul Chryst, and lucky for us, we got his three years of on the job training and none of the benefits from that training.
 
And what Pitt football is doing is not good enough for the school’s other sports. Athletic director Heather Lyke has made that abundantly clear by forcing out coaches in other sports that long went disregarded before her and predecessor Scott Barnes arrived. Lyke has placed an emphasis on winning at every level and the sort of middle-of-the-pack mentality is not where she wants a program as prominent as the football program. No athletic director does because, for most schools, it’s the cash cow.
 
I mean I guess it depends on how you are defining "win". Pat Narduzzi at Alabama is not, over the long term, a championship contender. Would he win nine or ten games there most years? Yeah, sure, he probably could. It would also get him fired.

Mediocre coaching keeps programs from reaching their potential. Pitt's potential isn't perennial national championship contender, but it certainly is higher than seven wins per season. Seven-ish wins per season might be Narduzzi's potential, but it's not Pitt's potential.

That depends on what kind of non-conference schedule Pitt wants to play. On paper, Pitt's potential is middle of the pack ACC or slightly above. Their isn't an abundance of talent in their backyard and they don't compete for enough of the high end guys.

There are at least 6 other ACC programs with a higher ceiling than Pitt.

How many other coaches are championship contenders at Bama that aren't Nick Saban?

Honestly, it's hard to say Pitt's potential is much more than 7-ish wins a year in the ACC when recruiting is so putrid. We haven't even signed one top 15 class in almost 30 years. It's pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Announcers are as dumb or dumber than coaches. BYU just scored to go up 10 late on ASU and knelt on the ball rather than trying the extra point. The one announcer said that makes no sense why would they do that it’s a 2 score game anyways. Even after his partner said well if they block it and return all the way it would be an 8 point lead and only a one possession game this idiot said well what is the chance of that happening.

How do guys like that have a job? No clue about math or how the game works yet they are employed on national television.
 
Announcers are as dumb or dumber than coaches. BYU just scored to go up 10 late on ASU and knelt on the ball rather than trying the extra point. The one announcer said that makes no sense why would they do that it’s a 2 score game anyways. Even after his partner said well if they block it and return all the way it would be an 8 point lead and only a one possession game this idiot said well what is the chance of that happening.

How do guys like that have a job? No clue about math or how the game works yet they are employed on national television.


I just laughed, it's been a funny day, especially with the Hoopies and Peds both winning
 
Last edited:
I just laughed, it's been a funny day, especially with the Hoopies and Peds both winning
Yeah I’m with you on that. Just couldn’t believe the guy said that, his statement was ridiculous and when challenged on it he doubled down on his stupidity. Where do they get these guys?
 
Who are their corners?? Thet have one safety that is proven .....they actually are unproven
Mathis was a starter before injured. Williams has played well. Woods came on very strong at the end of last seaso,

Hallett and Hill played very well at the end of last season.

Maybe Battle should have been left as a corner. maybe Devonshire is not ready.
 
I mean I guess it depends on how you are defining "win". Pat Narduzzi at Alabama is not, over the long term, a championship contender. Would he win nine or ten games there most years? Yeah, sure, he probably could. It would also get him fired.

Mediocre coaching keeps programs from reaching their potential. Pitt's potential isn't perennial national championship contender, but it certainly is higher than seven wins per season. Seven-ish wins per season might be Narduzzi's potential, but it's not Pitt's potential.

So what you are saying is that Pitt's potential is mediocre?
 
Mediocre coaching can win at a good program. Pitt isn't a good program. Recruiting base is mediocre. Recruiting budget is mediocre. Support is mediocre.

It's mediocre in every way. Until they pump some money and support into the program, they will remain mediocre.
They pump enough money into Nardizzle's pocket to make him the 24th highest paid coach in the country.
 
Going into this season, Pitt had the deepest most talented roster we’ve had since the Gottfried days.

That’s a false premise that seemed to gain traction on this board over the off season, as far as I could tell based on nothing but hype.
I completely agree with this ... We may have a little bit more depth than in past years, but also probably less stars, so it probably amounts to a wash. Nothing I saw in weeks 1 and 2 made me think that we suddenly had the depth of top caliber program, and you could tell we missed some of our NFL draftees/signees. We still couldn't run the ball well in weeks 1 and 2 and the lack of a running game definitely haunted us in week 3.
 
I completely agree with this ... We may have a little bit more depth than in past years, but also probably less stars, so it probably amounts to a wash. Nothing I saw in weeks 1 and 2 made me think that we suddenly had the depth of top caliber program, and you could tell we missed some of our NFL draftees/signees. We still couldn't run the ball well in weeks 1 and 2 and the lack of a running game definitely haunted us in week 3.

That’s what I’ve noticed as well. I pointed it out in the secondary, but it’s true across a lot of units. There just aren’t a lot of high talent guys at too many positions. Forget 4* and 5* players. There’s not a lot of “low ceiling, high floor” 3* types.
 
So what you are saying is that Pitt's potential is mediocre?


What I am saying is that as long as Pitt continues to employ a mediocre coach and recruiter like Pat Narduzzi that yes, absolutely, Pitt's potential is mediocre.

The fact that you somehow think that Pitt just can't possibly ever do better than a mediocre coach doesn't make it so.

The day that Pitt hires a good coach is the day that Pitt has the potential to be more than mediocre. Pitt's potential, with a good coach, is not national championship contender, but it absolutely is to be a contender for the Coastal division title most years and win it sometimes, and it is absolutely to finish in the top 25 at least semi-regularly. The notion that is it simply not possible for Pitt to finish the season in the top 25 is ridiculous.
 
Announcers are as dumb or dumber than coaches. BYU just scored to go up 10 late on ASU and knelt on the ball rather than trying the extra point. The one announcer said that makes no sense why would they do that it’s a 2 score game anyways. Even after his partner said well if they block it and return all the way it would be an 8 point lead and only a one possession game this idiot said well what is the chance of that happening.

How do guys like that have a job? No clue about math or how the game works yet they are employed on national television.


I was watching that too and I was thinking to myself, man, is this guy so dumb that he doesn't understand that 10-2=8, and that 8 points is a one score game?

And in the end I think that's exactly what it was. He didn't understand the second grade math (or is it first grade math) that it would take to understand what BYU was doing.
 
That’s what I’ve noticed as well. I pointed it out in the secondary, but it’s true across a lot of units. There just aren’t a lot of high talent guys at too many positions. Forget 4* and 5* players. There’s not a lot of “low ceiling, high floor” 3* types.
Big dropoff at both DE spots as well. The real hard work of a good DE isn’t visible to most fans. Sacks and pressures are the splash plays but their job is much more involved than just pressuring the QB. Contain, setting the edge, gap integrity, keeping the blocker from turning yoi inside the play, etc, those are the play in, play out things that DEs do really influence the performance of the D as a whole. Similarly interceptions and pass breakups are the splash plays for DBs, but their job entails a lot more than just those things, most of which is not visible to the average fan. The DEs and SBs we lost from last year were a lot more technically sound than their replacements are proving to be.

Weaver was as technically sound of a DE as you could hope to find.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Upg bobcat
What I am saying is that as long as Pitt continues to employ a mediocre coach and recruiter like Pat Narduzzi that yes, absolutely, Pitt's potential is mediocre.

The fact that you somehow think that Pitt just can't possibly ever do better than a mediocre coach doesn't make it so.

The day that Pitt hires a good coach is the day that Pitt has the potential to be more than mediocre. Pitt's potential, with a good coach, is not national championship contender, but it absolutely is to be a contender for the Coastal division title most years and win it sometimes, and it is absolutely to finish in the top 25 at least semi-regularly. The notion that is it simply not possible for Pitt to finish the season in the top 25 is ridiculous.
Your last paragraph is just a different level of mediocrity. You're basically saying Pitt needs to get a really good hire to get mediocre results.
 
Your last paragraph is just a different level of mediocrity. You're basically saying Pitt needs to get a really good hire to get mediocre results.


No, I'm not saying that. YOU are saying that, and then pretending that what I say is agreeing with you even when it's obvious that I don't.

It's as if you think there are only three level of teams (or programs). National championship contenders, mediocre teams, and bad teams. So like maybe a half a dozen contenders, what, probably a couple dozen bad teams, and then 100+ mediocre ones. That's a definition that no one else would agree with, and yet that's the only definition that makes your position make any sense at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WannyandWalt
The fact that you somehow think that Pitt just can't possibly ever do better than a mediocre coach doesn't make it so.

The day that Pitt hires a good coach is the day that Pitt has the potential to be more than mediocre. Pitt's potential, with a good coach, is not national championship contender, but it absolutely is to be a contender for the Coastal division title most years and win it sometimes, and it is absolutely to finish in the top 25 at least semi-regularly. The notion that is it simply not possible for Pitt to finish the season in the top 25 is ridiculous.


Its not just thinking it at this point, they really have not in 30 years.
That's not ever, but that's a long time to keep going on a notion that they will.
 
Its not just thinking it at this point, they really have not in 30 years.
That's not ever, but that's a long time to keep going on a notion that they will.


That's a great point.

Assuming that you think that the same people who made all those poor coaching choices are going to be the people making the next coaching hire.

"Well those other people couldn't get it right, so obviously there is no way I could possibly get it right. Or anyone else, for that matter."
 
  • Like
Reactions: WannyandWalt
No, I'm not saying that. YOU are saying that, and then pretending that what I say is agreeing with you even when it's obvious that I don't.

It's as if you think there are only three level of teams (or programs). National championship contenders, mediocre teams, and bad teams. So like maybe a half a dozen contenders, what, probably a couple dozen bad teams, and then 100+ mediocre ones. That's a definition that no one else would agree with, and yet that's the only definition that makes your position make any sense at all.

That is an oversimplification. It's a little more complicated. A lot depends on the context. I think there is a distinction between the program, the program's potential and the on-field performance in any given year. But yeah, basically if a program doesn't have the potential to compete for a National Title, it's mediocre. That doesn't mean they can't have really good years occasionally, maybe even a string together multiple good years

And yes, my position makes perfect sense. We're talking about a sport that has 130 freaking teams, (half of which aren't even allowed to compete for the championship) massive revenue discrepancies, a broken governing body, where a conference with 14 teams calls itself the Big 10, where cheating is rampant, backroom deals are the norm, all hiding behind the guise of higher education. Not only does my position make perfect sense, it's also fluid & subject to change on a whim.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT