Pitt Suspensions/Injuries-Recruiting 4/5 star players is critical

[Panther Al]

As many of you know, I've vented so many times about the on campus stadium and its direct affect on recruiting so I'm going to prove my point again why the current formula doesn't work. Keep in mind there will ALWAYS be underrated 2/3 star players who wind up being top players whether its Revis, Donald, O Neill, Quadree, etc who outperform their High School rating. On the contrast, most 4/5 star players such as Shady, Boyd, Fitz, Whitehead, etc are rated that way because they are can't miss play makers. I would much rather have can't miss players than pray for high ceiling players to develop which usually doesn't work out and Pitt's record proves my point. Look at the recruiting rankings and what schools are always competing for championships year after year because the rankings don't lie.

My point being is most schools who are recruiting 8 to 10 4/5 star recruits PER CLASS year after year have a next man up philosophy because they have elite players as backups. I hope I'm wrong and will gladly admit it this fall, but I've seen over the years when Boyd didn't play or one of those 4/5 star guys was out for us, we had a MAJOR drop off in talent vs other top schools who have depth .

This is suspension is very disappointing/frustrating as a fan however let's say Whitehead got hurt, we would be in the same boat and screwed because we don't have the 4/5 star backups because we only average 2 or 3 per class which isn't good enough to compete for championships. We have ZERO this year. If you aren't aware or counting, PSU has 12. As a result of Whitehead being out, Pitt fans are already calling for 7-5 which is the same nonsense and results YEAR AFTER YEAR. Again, I blame this on atmosphere because the elite 4/5 star players want to play in an elite environment and that's not happening at Heinz. We saw the results after we beat the National Champs last year vs Duke at Heinz. Student turnout was embarrassing and this wouldn't be the case if they walked to the stadium on campus. We also beat Penn State. Heinz was a morgue for the other games.

I listened to Coach Duzz on the radio the other day and when asked about this topic, he was very short and you can tell it annoys him. He said he doesn't look at the fans and he's only focused on the players. I love Coach Duzz but let's get real. Hard to miss those empty yellow seats unless he's colorblind. If we continue at this pace, our head coach will be looking to coach elsewhere and then everyone will be up in arms on why he left and here's the reason why. If he can't recruit the elite players which I blame on Heinz (Steelers have proven to ZERO affect on recruiting-Ben/AB/Bell are all next door-makes no difference), he will eventually say I can't do this and time to move on. Time for Steeler fans who are in favor of Heinz to face the fact that this plan has failed ten times over and will likely produce another mediocre season of 7-5 or 6-6. I'm not a know it all fan and am happy when I'm wrong but these facts are hard to dispute because we see the same results year after year. Time for a change just like in any other business or you will eventually go under. H2P

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

See, I would argue that player retention is a much bigger issue.

We do a terrible job of that and that's why we struggle. Who cares what a player was rated coming out of high school if he's not on your roster by the time he's a senior?

It seems to me like every time we have a player injured or suspended he has replaced by a freshman or sophomore. That's why we struggle.

 

[DiehardPanther]

As many of you know, I've vented so many times about the on campus stadium and its direct affect on recruiting so I'm going to prove my point again why the current formula doesn't work. Keep in mind there will ALWAYS be underrated 2/3 star players who wind up being top players whether its Revis, Donald, O Neill, Quadree, etc who outperform their High School rating. On the contrast, most 4/5 star players such as Shady, Boyd, Fitz, Whitehead, etc are rated that way because they are can't miss play makers. I would much rather have can't miss players than pray for high ceiling players to develop which usually doesn't work out and Pitt's record proves my point. Look at the recruiting rankings and what schools are always competing for championships year after year because the rankings don't lie.

My point being is most schools who are recruiting 8 to 10 4/5 star recruits PER CLASS year after year have a next man up philosophy because they have elite players as backups. I hope I'm wrong and will gladly admit it this fall, but I've seen over the years when Boyd didn't play or one of those 4/5 star guys was out for us, we had a MAJOR drop off in talent vs other top schools who have depth .

This is suspension is very disappointing/frustrating as a fan however let's say Whitehead got hurt, we would be in the same boat and screwed because we don't have the 4/5 star backups because we only average 2 or 3 per class which isn't good enough to compete for championships. We have ZERO this year. If you aren't aware or counting, PSU has 12. As a result of Whitehead being out, Pitt fans are already calling for 7-5 which is the same nonsense and results YEAR AFTER YEAR. Again, I blame this on atmosphere because the elite 4/5 star players want to play in an elite environment and that's not happening at Heinz. We saw the results after we beat the National Champs last year vs Duke at Heinz. Student turnout was embarrassing and this wouldn't be the case if they walked to the stadium on campus. We also beat Penn State. Heinz was a morgue for the other games.

I listened to Coach Duzz on the radio the other day and when asked about this topic, he was very short and you can tell it annoys him. He said he doesn't look at the fans and he's only focused on the players. I love Coach Duzz but let's get real. Hard to miss those empty yellow seats unless he's colorblind. If we continue at this pace, our head coach will be looking to coach elsewhere and then everyone will be up in arms on why he left and here's the reason why. If he can't recruit the elite players which I blame on Heinz (Steelers have proven to ZERO affect on recruiting-Ben/AB/Bell are all next door-makes no difference), he will eventually say I can't do this and time to move on. Time for Steeler fans who are in favor of Heinz to face the fact that this plan has failed ten times over and will likely produce another mediocre season of 7-5 or 6-6. I'm not a know it all fan and am happy when I'm wrong but these facts are hard to dispute because we see the same results year after year. Time for a change just like in any other business or you will eventually go under. H2P

The problem isn't Heinz Field, but instead the lack of alumni support. Pitt is not going to build a new stadium on campus, so the simple answer is to downsize Heinz.

The Pete is an on campus facility, and has had lots of empty seats.

 

[ZetaZetaBeta]

Hail! WWW.NEWPITTSTADIUM.COM

 

[WCSordill]

The problem isn't Heinz Field, but instead the lack of alumni support. Pitt is not going to build a new stadium on campus, so the simple answer is to downsize Heinz.

The Pete is an on campus facility, and has had lots of empty seats.

Let's not downsize Heinz. Let's upsize the fanbase. Win big whilst playing exciting football. Recruits and fans will begin to pay attention and come to see what all the fuss is about.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

The problem isn't Heinz Field, but instead the lack of alumni support. Pitt is not going to build a new stadium on campus, so the simple answer is to downsize Heinz.

The Pete is an on campus facility, and has had lots of empty seats.

You pep talk is great but how do you expect fans to be excited for a team which over its recent history has shot both feet of with musical chair HC's orsuspended players. We got the HC problem fixed but not the suspended player issue. The 4/5 stars you're talking about are taking themselves out of the mix!

 

[Las Panteras]

You blame the problem on heinz field which makes everything else in your post moot.

 

[CorsosRevenge]

Let's not downsize Heinz. Let's upsize the fanbase. Win big whilst playing exciting football. Recruits and fans will begin to pay attention and come to see what all the fuss is about.

We didn't upsize the the fan base when we were national champions and 11-1 three straight years. It ain't gonna happen in the era where watching a game at home is a better experience than in the stadium.

 

[joeydavid]

Yep but he's a nitter so attendance is all that matters to them.

You blame the problem on heinz field which makes everything else in your post moot.

 

[pittdan77]

You've really beaten this horse hard with 48 posts.

But really, your plan is brilliant. Just recruit an all-star team and convince a bunch of elite prospects to ride the pine and ignore the other forty plus P5 programs. I'm really shocked it took this long for someone to figure it out.

 

[MajorMajors]

[QUOTE: I listened to Coach Duzz on the radio the other day and when asked about this topic, he was very short and you can tell it annoys him. He said he doesn't look at the fans and he's only focused on the players. I love Coach Duzz but let's get real. Hard to miss those empty yellow seats unless he's colorblind. If we continue at this pace, our head coach will be looking to coach elsewhere and then everyone will be up in arms on why he left and here's the reason why. Quote]

Agree with the OP that the reason that Coach Duzz will be gone in two years is the lack of support at Heinz. Coach Duzz wants it all and fan support is what he's missing while he's at Pitt.

Unfortunately, building the fanbase is a long-term undertaking that previous ADs have failed at, while trying for quick fixes. There is no quick fix. Pitt coaches and players and former players have to get out in the local communities and sell Pitt football with clinics and chalk-talks and "Hail to Pitt" shirt give-a-ways. Get into the kids heads while they're young. The camps that Boyd did at Clairton and the camp visit to Mel Blount's youth home are the types of things we need way more of, IMHO.

The Alums are a different story - all you need to do to get them hooked is win while they're in school. Another thing that previous ADs, with their hiring decisions and coaching turnover, have failed at...

Go Pitt.

 

[Jpripper88]

See, I would argue that player retention is a much bigger issue.

We do a terrible job of that and that's why we struggle. Who cares what a player was rated coming out of high school if he's not on your roster by the time he's a senior?

It seems to me like every time we have a player injured or suspended he has replaced by a freshman or sophomore. That's why we struggle.

Completely normal in college football, ESPECIALLY for top programs.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Roster turnover and attrition is completely normal. The level at which Pitt has had roster turnover has been abnormally high.

I've seen it for years. A player gets hurt or suspended and we are forced to play a freshman in his place. That's not normal.

Look at the Whitehead thing. He's the biggest loss. Who's going to play in his place? It's going to be a freshman. It may start with Briggs, but it probably won't end that way. It will be Garner or Ford (if he qualifies).

Now, fortunately, that's one position where an inexperienced player can probably come in and do pretty well. Basically, that, running back, receiver, sometimes corner. Those are the positions where young talented guys can come in and contribute right away. However, we are going to severely miss Whitehead - there's no doubt about that.

I will say that with more coaching stability, we are improving the situation for the first time in many, many years. However, it's still not where it should be.

That is also why Cincinnati and Connecticut beat us back in the Big East. They each had older, more experienced upperclassmen in their reserve positions than we had. That was the difference.

I well remember looking that up at the time and being shocked at the difference in age between the programs. It was striking - and yet nobody was talking about it.

People talk about stars all the time and talent is obviously important. However, they tend to completely discount the experience factor and experience is a HUUUUUUUUUGE determinant in who wins and who does not. There is a big deal in the big difference between a 22 year-old man and an 18 year-old kid.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

Completely normal in college football, ESPECIALLY for top programs.

The level that PITT has suspensions and off season issues isnt normal. Compare them to our ACC rivals, the Hoopies or Nitters! PITT isnt a top program with the depth to replace senior starters, or 4 n 5 stars who get suspended.
These players should be first more responsible and second smarter??

 

[Jpripper88]

Roster turnover and attrition is completely normal. The level at which Pitt has had roster turnover has been abnormally high.

I've seen it for years. A player gets hurt or suspended and we are forced to play a freshman in his place. That's not normal.

Look at the Whitehead thing. He's the biggest loss. Who's going to play in his place? It's going to be a freshman. It may start with Briggs, but it probably won't end that way. It will be Garner or Ford (if he qualifies).

Now, fortunately, that's one position where an inexperienced player can probably come in and do pretty well. Basically, that, running back, receiver, sometimes corner. Those are the positions where young talented guys can come in and contribute right away. However, we are going to severely miss Whitehead - there's no doubt about that.

I will say that with more coaching stability, we are improving the situation for the first time in many, many years. However, it's still not where it should be.

That is also why Cincinnati and Connecticut beat us back in the Big East. They each had older, more experienced upperclassmen in their reserve positions than we had. That was the difference.

I well remember looking that up at the time and being shocked at the difference in age between the programs. It was striking - and yet nobody was talking about it.

People talk about stars all the time and talent is obviously important. However, they tend to completely discount the experience factor and experience is a HUUUUUUUUUGE determinant in who wins and who does not. There is a big deal in the big difference between a 22 year-old man and an 18 year-old kid.

No, that is normal. Usually the backups are going to be FR to RS SO for all teams. There are very few teams with 4th year players as capable and immediate backups at multiple positions. Those players tend to transfer on their own or get pushed out if they still aren't playing by that time. That is even truer the better your team and talent.

 

[kma0043]

The fact is that the city of Pittsburgh sports fans/casual fans are all about "events". They'll pack a place if a team is elite or it's a big event. If the home team isn't playing for first place, or the game isn't an "event", then most area fans will choose to stay home. Sad but true.

 

[cashisking884]

No, that is normal. Usually the backups are going to be FR to RS SO for all teams. There are very few teams with 4th year players as capable and immediate backups at multiple positions. Those players tend to transfer on their own or get pushed out if they still aren't playing by that time. That is even truer the better your team and talent.

Exactly. It's normal for every program. This is one reason why the "grad transfer" is starting to blow up in college football. Because EVERY team is faced with this situation.
Many teams are just able to recruit an extremely high level. So positions that traditionally were a death sentence if you had to start freshmen, have now started to see true freshmen make an major impact. Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc. have all started true freshmen on the OL the last few years. Those true freshmen just all happened to be ELITE prospects.
This is why if you ever read Phil Steele's college football magazine, he will frequently call for a position group to be better even though the experience is gone. Because the position group has added superior talent compared to the more experienced group of the previous year. And he's frequently right.
Having to replace players or position groups, either due to graduation, transfer, the draft, suspensions, injury, or some combination, is a part of college football. The bluebloods stack chips, so they always have a "next man up." And they always go out and sign elite talent in the immediate class before the season to come in and compete with the stacked chips (see FSU's RB class this past year, see FSU losing the best safety in the country last year and not complaining about "why us!?!?!?").

 

[Saboteur]

[QUOTE: I listened to Coach Duzz on the radio the other day and when asked about this topic, he was very short and you can tell it annoys him. He said he doesn't look at the fans and he's only focused on the players. I love Coach Duzz but let's get real. Hard to miss those empty yellow seats unless he's colorblind. If we continue at this pace, our head coach will be looking to coach elsewhere and then everyone will be up in arms on why he left and here's the reason why. Quote]

Agree with the OP that the reason that Coach Duzz will be gone in two years is the lack of support at Heinz. Coach Duzz wants it all and fan support is what he's missing while he's at Pitt.

Unfortunately, building the fanbase is a long-term undertaking that previous ADs have failed at, while trying for quick fixes. There is no quick fix. Pitt coaches and players and former players have to get out in the local communities and sell Pitt football with clinics and chalk-talks and "Hail to Pitt" shirt give-a-ways. Get into the kids heads while they're young. The camps that Boyd did at Clairton and the camp visit to Mel Blount's youth home are the types of things we need way more of, IMHO.

The Alums are a different story - all you need to do to get them hooked is win while they're in school. Another thing that previous ADs, with their hiring decisions and coaching turnover, have failed at...

Go Pitt.

Are any of you familiar with MSUs attendance history? If so, then you will note that apart from their marquee games before current coach, they had tons of empty seats. Pitt choose to take WVU off the schedule. Huge mistake. Rivalries make college football. Plain and simple.
Duzz has been here before. Get rivals on schedule and empty seats disappear.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

No, that is normal. Usually the backups are going to be FR to RS SO for all teams. There are very few teams with 4th year players as capable and immediate backups at multiple positions. Those players tend to transfer on their own or get pushed out if they still aren't playing by that time. That is even truer the better your team and talent.

Disagree.

 

[Panther Parrothead]

Are any of you familiar with MSUs attendance history? If so, then you will note that apart from their marquee games before current coach, they had tons of empty seats. Pitt choose to take WVU off the schedule. Huge mistake. Rivalries make college football. Plain and simple.
Duzz has been here before. Get rivals on schedule and empty seats disappear.

What you say is true, but you omitted one key fact: MSU is the state university of Michigan. That alone offers it a huge advantage in perception, media coverage, and above all: numbers of loyal fans. It's the same advantage that Nit U has, and is why Pitt is playing against a stacked deck when we compete against them.

Pitt has a regional following at best, and that will never change.

 

[Jpripper88]

Disagree.

Ok. You aren't right, at all, but ok.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Disagree.

Ok. You aren't right, at all, but ok.

Fair enough...Still disagree though. I'm certain I'm right.

 

[Jpripper88]

Fair enough...Still disagree though.

What are the examples of top programs who have their depth chart (not even considering what would actually happen with long term injuries to starters) littered with mostly JR and SR backups?

Clemson: https://www.shakinthesouthland.com/...son-football-releases-2017-summer-depth-chart

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I'm not interested in traveling down this rabbit hole about every roster in the country. I've already done this and when I conclusively prove my point, people then move the goalposts, intentionally mischaracterize my position or complain that I'm too long-winded or arrogant.

Whatever. I can never win.

However, for shits and giggles, here's an example of a team that is on our schedule that is built differently. They are the defending champion of the Big Ten conference, Penn State.

http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/penn-state/91671

According to Our Lads, Penn State's two-deep (O, D and ST) includes 1 first year player, 9 second year players, 13 third year players, 19 fourth year players and 6 fifth year players.

In comparison, Pitt's two-deep (O, D and ST) includes 2 first year players, 13 second year players, 9 third year players, 16 fourth year players and 7 fifth year players.

Take a wild guess at which team has more experience?

And that's a Penn State program that still considers itself a little on the green side - they keep telling anyone who will listen how young they still are - and a Pitt program that I think most would agree is more stable than it has been in many years.

You just can't constantly have the type of turnover we have had for a long time now and expect that to not destroy your program. That's just plain foolish reasoning.

We have had way, way, WAAAAY too much coaching turnover and it has bit us in the ass more than many seem to realize.

 

[Jpripper88]

I'm not interested in traveling down this rabbit hole about every roster in the country. I've already done this and when I conclusively prove my point, people then move the goalposts, intentionally mischaracterize my position or complain that I'm too long-winded or arrogant.

Whatever. I can never win.

However, for shits and giggles, here's an example of a team that is on our schedule that is built differently. They are the defending champion of the Big Ten conference, Penn State.

http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/penn-state/91671

According to Our Lads, Penn State's two-deep (O, D and ST) includes 1 first year player, 9 second year players, 13 third year players, 19 fourth year players and 6 fifth year players.

In comparison, Pitt's two-deep (O, D and ST) includes 2 first year players, 13 second year players, 9 third year players, 16 fourth year players and 7 fifth year players.

Take a wild guess at which team has more experience?

And that's a Penn State program that still considers itself a little on the green side - they keep telling anyone who will listen how young they still are - and a Pitt program that I think most would agree is more stable than it has been in many years.

You just can't constantly have the type of turnover we have had for a long time now and expect that to not destroy your program. That's just plain foolish reasoning.

We have had way, way, WAAAAY too much coaching turnover and it has bit us in the ass more than many seem to realize.

And the 4th and 5th year players aren't backups, but overwhelmingly are starters. That is a different argument. You said the difference was experienced upper classmen being backups stepping up for injuries or suspensions.

BTW, even your example of the 2 deeps are 25 4-5 year players for PSU and 23 for Pitt. Your issue is over 2 players?

 

[gmandingo]

I'm not interested in traveling down this rabbit hole about every roster in the country. I've already done this and when I conclusively prove my point, people then move the goalposts, intentionally mischaracterize my position or complain that I'm too long-winded or arrogant.

Whatever. I can never win.

However, for shits and giggles, here's an example of a team that is on our schedule that is built differently. They are the defending champion of the Big Ten conference, Penn State.

http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/penn-state/91671

According to Our Lads, Penn State's two-deep (O, D and ST) includes 1 first year player, 9 second year players, 13 third year players, 19 fourth year players and 6 fifth year players.

In comparison, Pitt's two-deep (O, D and ST) includes 2 first year players, 13 second year players, 9 third year players, 16 fourth year players and 7 fifth year players.

Take a wild guess at which team has more experience?

And that's a Penn State program that still considers itself a little on the green side - they keep telling anyone who will listen how young they still are - and a Pitt program that I think most would agree is more stable than it has been in many years.

You just can't constantly have the type of turnover we have had for a long time now and expect that to not destroy your program. That's just plain foolish reasoning.

We have had way, way, WAAAAY too much coaching turnover and it has bit us in the ass more than many seem to realize.

You had to pick Penn St as an example smh I nearly pooped my pants

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

And the 4th and 5th year players aren't backups, but overwhelmingly are starters. That is a different argument. You said the difference was experienced upper classmen being backups stepping up for injuries or suspensions.

BTW, even your example of the 2 deeps are 25 4-5 year players for PSU and 23 for Pitt. Your issue is over 2 players?

I don't think you're getting it. Whether you were doing it intentionally or otherwise, you're not seeing what should be very obvious.

When you look strictly at the back ups, the issue becomes even more pronounced. What I was giving you made us look closer than we are.

According to the links I provided, which was the first one that came up when I typed in the words "depth chart," Penn State has 18 players that are in at least their third year in the program – which means they're not underclassmen physically or mentally.

Conversely, Pitt has 10 back ups that are in their third year or more (was 11 but Tipton is out). Obviously, that's a substantial difference.

And remember, Pitt is becoming mature program, which means that we are doing better than we have for a very long time because of the added stability.

Also, I am telling you, when you watch Penn State games this year they're going to tell everyone that they are still young program and are about a year or two away. What do you think they're talking about when they say they are "a year or two away?" They're talking about having experienced depth throughout their roster.

Player retention has been Pitt's greatest problem for a very long time and has not received nearly enough attention.

As you correctly asserted, some attrition is to be expected and is a natural part of the roster building process. However, the level of attrition which we have consistently sustained is absolutely a bigger problem than the quality of athletes we are bringing in in the first place.

I mean, let's be honest. There's a reason why we have become so reliant on these fifth year graduate transfer students and it's not because we're doing a great job of building our own depth.

 

[ThePanthers]

Let's not downsize Heinz. Let's upsize the fanbase. Win big whilst playing exciting football. Recruits and fans will begin to pay attention and come to see what all the fuss is about.

We had one of the most exciting offenses in the nation last year, beat our rival PSU, beat the eventual national champs Clemson, and when the Panthers came home for their last two games, they had the smallest crowds of the year.

That doesn't help.

 

[Jpripper88]

I don't think you're getting it. Whether you were doing it intentionally or otherwise, you're not seeing what should be very obvious.

When you look strictly at the back ups, the issue becomes even more pronounced. What I was giving you made us look closer than we are.

According to the links I provided, which was the first one that came up when I typed in the words "depth chart," Penn State has 18 players that are in at least their third year in the program – which means they're not underclassmen physically or mentally.

Conversely, Pitt has 10 back ups that are in their third year or more (was 11 but Tipton is out). Obviously, that's a substantial difference.

And remember, Pitt is becoming mature program, which means that we are doing better than we have for a very long time because of the added stability.

Also, I am telling you, when you watch Penn State games this year they're going to tell everyone that they are still young program and are about a year or two away. What do you think they're talking about when they say they are "a year or two away?" They're talking about having experienced depth throughout their roster.

Player retention has been Pitt's greatest problem for a very long time and has not received nearly enough attention.

As you correctly asserted, some attrition is to be expected and is a natural part of the roster building process. However, the level of attrition which we have consistently sustained is absolutely a bigger problem than the quality of athletes we are bringing in in the first place.

I mean, let's be honest. There's a reason why we have become so reliant on these fifth year graduate transfer students and it's not because we're doing a great job of building our own depth.

Except that isn't true in college football and definitely is not true for this PSU team. It is a myth, perpetuated by old guys from when the game didn't even let Freshman play. Alabama was worlds younger last year than PSU is this year. They were one missed pass interference call away from another National Championship.

Pitt's issue has been talent and coaching, not experience. We need to recruit better and that is the bottomline. The coaching carousel does hurt retention, but the bigger problem is amassing the waves of talent, not experience. Our retention numbers are pretty normal, but the problem is we aren't losing those 3rd and 4th year players to the draft or because they are stuck behind supremely talented starters. We are losing them because they suck.

Pitt is currently cycling in the talent for their new coach, in his 3rd year. There is going to be a lack of upper classmen in the depth chart, but the numbers are not drastic and the turnover isn't uncommon. The problem is actual talent. More than anything, though, these depth charts are just guides, but (as you pointed out early) rarely are teams actually turning longterm jobs over to the rare JR or SR listed as a backup if an injury or suspension happens. Why? Because there is usually a more talented player behind them who is going to play and provides far more upside.

Alabama takes 5th year transfers and Juco players every year. That is part of the landscape now. Teams who don't are going to get lapped.

 

[cashisking884]

Experience matters. But it matters more to teams that don't bring in elite recruiting classes. They idea that the same teams that seem to dominate college football every year, are doing it because they are experienced every year, is just silly. They dominate every year because they unleash a heard of 4 and 5 star players that your talent level can't match.

 

[88Pitt88]

DR VY and Jripp, I can see both of your arguments. I think in many ways you are both correct. Much like our BB program when Dixon was here, we were never going to bring in the talent the blue-bloods did, but, we were competitive because we retained and developed players. That is what is starting to happen with Narduzzi and the Football progam.

As the DR pointed out, the coaching carousel was part of our problem, but we were not recruiting players of the level that Duzz is, under Chryst and the Fraud. Ripp, was right to say that most of the talent sucked, save a few O linemen.

What is encouraging for our Panthers is the stability the Duzz has brought here. We are no longer recruiting guys with strictly MAC offers like in the past. In fact, most of our recruits now, have plenty of decent to good P5 ofers. So while I believe your arguments are both correct, the nice thing is, the longer the Duzz is here, the more likely it is these problems slowly disappear.

 

[DiehardPanther]

DR VY and Jripp, I can see both of your arguments. I think in many ways you are both correct. Much like our BB program when Dixon was here, we were never going to bring in the talent the blue-bloods did, but, we were competitive because we retained and developed players. That is what is starting to happen with Narduzzi and the Football progam.

As the DR pointed out, the coaching carousel was part of our problem, but we were not recruiting players of the level that Duzz is, under Chryst and the Fraud. Ripp, was right to say that most of the talent sucked, save a few O linemen.

What is encouraging for our Panthers is the stability the Duzz has brought here. We are no longer recruiting guys with strictly MAC offers like in the past. In fact, most of our recruits now, have plenty of decent to good P5 ofers. So while I believe your arguments are both correct, the nice thing is, the longer the Duzz is here, the more likely it is these problems slowly disappear.

Correct - the alums and administration need to step up financially and keep this staff in tact.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I don't think you're getting it. Whether you were doing it intentionally or otherwise, you're not seeing what should be very obvious.

When you look strictly at the back ups, the issue becomes even more pronounced. What I was giving you made us look closer than we are.

According to the links I provided, which was the first one that came up when I typed in the words "depth chart," Penn State has 18 players that are in at least their third year in the program – which means they're not underclassmen physically or mentally.

Conversely, Pitt has 10 back ups that are in their third year or more (was 11 but Tipton is out). Obviously, that's a substantial difference.

And remember, Pitt is becoming mature program, which means that we are doing better than we have for a very long time because of the added stability.

Also, I am telling you, when you watch Penn State games this year they're going to tell everyone that they are still young program and are about a year or two away. What do you think they're talking about when they say they are "a year or two away?" They're talking about having experienced depth throughout their roster.

Player retention has been Pitt's greatest problem for a very long time and has not received nearly enough attention.

As you correctly asserted, some attrition is to be expected and is a natural part of the roster building process. However, the level of attrition which we have consistently sustained is absolutely a bigger problem than the quality of athletes we are bringing in in the first place.

I mean, let's be honest. There's a reason why we have become so reliant on these fifth year graduate transfer students and it's not because we're doing a great job of building our own depth.

Except that isn't true in college football and definitely is not true for this PSU team. It is a myth, perpetuated by old guys from when the game didn't even let Freshman play. Alabama was worlds younger last year than PSU is this year. They were one missed pass interference call away from another National Championship.

Pitt's issue has been talent and coaching, not experience. We need to recruit better and that is the bottomline. The coaching carousel does hurt retention, but the bigger problem is amassing the waves of talent, not experience. Our retention numbers are pretty normal, but the problem is we aren't losing those 3rd and 4th year players to the draft or because they are stuck behind supremely talented starters. We are losing them because they suck.

Pitt is currently cycling in the talent for their new coach, in his 3rd year. There is going to be a lack of upper classmen in the depth chart, but the numbers are not drastic and the turnover isn't uncommon. The problem is actual talent. More than anything, though, these depth charts are just guides, but (as you pointed out early) rarely are teams actually turning longterm jobs over to the rare JR or SR listed as a backup if an injury or suspension happens. Why? Because there is usually a more talented player behind them who is going to play and provides far more upside.

Alabama takes 5th year transfers and Juco players every year. That is part of the landscape now. Teams who don't are going to get lapped.

Again, I'm not sure what's going on here? This is silly.

This will be my last foray on this topic because I'm not sure that you're getting it and I'm not interested in chasing my tail.

What do you think is more realistic for a program like Pitt, suddenly recruiting nationally elite athletes throughout our roster - like Alabama does every single year - or doing a better job of retaining our upperclassmen?

I think the answer is pretty obvious but maybe to others it's not so apparent? I don't know?

We are never going to recruit like Alabama or Clemson or Florida State or USC or LSU or Miami, so that is not the template I would pursue.

To compete with teams like that we must have more discipline and experience than they do. That's how you beat more talented teams – with discipline and experience.

That is not to say that you can be UNTALENTED but disciplined and experienced and still win big. That is not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that lesser talented teams can and often do beat more talented teams because they are more disciplined and more experienced.

That's why we hired Narduzzi in the first place – because he had already done this exact same thing at Michigan State, which was in a comparable position to Pitt. Hell, that's why I have always liked this hire.

A lack of experienced depth has ABSOLUTELY been this program's primary shortcoming for a long time now. Honestly, from where I sit, the issue is so glaringly obvious that it is beneath further debate.

Obviously, we also need to recruit better players and you have to have a good coach to make it all work. Also, we need to draw more fans, play more interesting opponents and string together more successful seasons. All of those things are definitely true. However, it is equally obvious that whenever we have a senior go down, we can't replace him with a true freshman and expect that to work out well for us because Alabama pulled it off.

I have a friend who is a passionate Pirates fan and he simply can't understand why the Pirates can't spend money like the Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, etc.? He reasons that Bob Nutting is a billionaire and can afford to take the loss. However, Nutting is a billionaire precisely because he doesn't take unnecessary losses.

Can he spend more freely on the Bucs than he typically has? Of course he can. However, he's never going to be able to match the payrolls of the big market teams – the system simply won't allow it.

It's very much the same with Pitt in college football. Pitt is a LOT like the Pirates and they can't ever compete with the big boys on the recruiting front. Those days are long, long gone. They have to play "Moneyball" - as it were and you do that with experienced depth and added discipline. That still may not be enough but it's your only realistic chance.

And when people say it can't be done, I say bullshit. We've seen plenty of teams do it including Michigan State, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, Iowa, Wake Forest, etc.

 

[Jpripper88]

Again, I'm not sure what's going on here? This is silly.

This will be my last foray on this topic because I'm not sure that you're getting it and I'm not interested in chasing my tail.

What do you think is more realistic for a program like Pitt, suddenly recruiting nationally elite athletes throughout our roster - like Alabama does every single year - or doing a better job of retaining our upperclassmen?

I think the answer is pretty obvious but maybe to others it's not so apparent? I don't know?

We are never going to recruit like Alabama or Clemson or Florida State or USC or LSU or Miami, so that is not the template I would pursue.

To compete with teams like that we must have more discipline and experience than they do. That's how you beat more talented teams – with discipline and experience.

That is not to say that you can be UNTALENTED but disciplined and experienced and still win big. That is not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that lesser talented teams can and often do beat more talented teams because they are more disciplined and more experienced.

That's why we hired Narduzzi in the first place – because he had already done this exact same thing at Michigan State, which was in a comparable position to Pitt. Hell, that's why I have always liked this hire.

A lack of experienced depth has ABSOLUTELY been this program's primary shortcoming for a long time now. Honestly, from where I sit, the issue is so glaringly obvious that it is beneath further debate.

Obviously, we also need to recruit better players and you have to have a good coach to make it all work. Also, we need to draw more fans, play more interesting opponents and string together more successful seasons. All of those things are definitely true. However, it is equally obvious that whenever we have a senior go down, we can't replace him with a true freshman and expect that to work out well for us because Alabama pulled it off.

I have a friend who is a passionate Pirates fan and he simply can't understand why the Pirates can't spend money like the Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, etc.? He reasons that Bob Nutting is a billionaire and can afford to take the loss. However, Nutting is a billionaire precisely because he doesn't take unnecessary losses.

Can he spend more freely on the Bucs than he typically has? Of course he can. However, he's never going to be able to match the payrolls of the big market teams – the system simply won't allow it.

It's very much the same with Pitt in college football. Pitt is a LOT like the Pirates and they can't ever compete with the big boys on the recruiting front. Those days are long, long gone. They have to play "Moneyball" - as it were and you do that with experienced depth and added discipline. That still may not be enough but it's your only realistic chance.

And when people say it can't be done, I say bullshit. We've seen plenty of teams do it including Michigan State, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, Iowa, Wake Forest, etc.

I don't agree. I don't think Pitt has a chance to beat those kind of programs consistently, but every once in awhile when the talent lines up with a good to great QB and we get lucky? Yeah, we have a shot. We can't amass the same amount of deep talent, but first and foremost we have to get much more talent, not worry about getting 4th and 5th year contributors vs. just having the most talent possible.

Also, I'd only qualify 2 of those latter programs as succeeding. Wake certainly doesn't qualify. GT has won the ACC once in the last 20 years and only has one other season they were better than average. Iowa had a 3 year run of success, but only 2 other good seasons in 20 and those were predicated on a lucky B1G draw.

As for "experienced depth being the obvious problem" I think that opinion is unbelievably archaic. It just isn't the reality. Was it in 1976? Sure. In 2017? Nope. There are very few "experienced depth backups" because those guys generally don't stick with programs when they aren't contributors going into their 4th years. It just doesn't happen. It doesn't happen at Pitt. It doesn't happen at Alabama. It doesn't happen at Michigan State. The examples are few and far between and usually if those guys are around, they aren't actually going to be the guys who are called on for longterm roles if a starter is out.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Let's not downsize Heinz. Let's upsize the fanbase. Win big whilst playing exciting football. Recruits and fans will begin to pay attention and come to see what all the fuss is about.

We will never fill Heinz on a consistent basis. There just aren't enough ardent Pitt or college football fans here. You have to understand this. I think we played a pretty exciting brand of football this past year. Hell, we knocked off Clemson, look at the attendance the next week against Duke. And by "WIN BIG" you have to get the players. And PSU has recruited 48 Four and Five stars since Franklin has taken over. Pitt has recruited 14 in the same time frame. How are you supposed to "win big" with that kind of recruiting.

 

[joeydavid]

All of those "4 Stars" looked like a JV team until Pitt backed it off and started shooting themself in the foot.

We will never fill Heinz on a consistent basis. There just aren't enough ardent Pitt or college football fans here. You have to understand this. I think we played a pretty exciting brand of football this past year. Hell, we knocked off Clemson, look at the attendance the next week against Duke. And by "WIN BIG" you have to get the players. And PSU has recruited 48 Four and Five stars since Franklin has taken over. Pitt has recruited 14 in the same time frame. How are you supposed to "win big" with that kind of recruiting.

 

[PittGuyYessir]

Doctor Von is making an obvious point that shouldn't be hard to grasp. Teams that win consistently in College Football either have rosters littered with 5 star players or 4th/5th year players. Pitt will never be able to recruit top 10 classes without going the "Ole Miss" route, so the best bet is to emulate the Wisconsin model of developing its talent and putting a veteran team on the field every year.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Thank you.

 

[Jpripper88]

Doctor Von is making an obvious point that shouldn't be hard to grasp. Teams that win consistently in College Football either have rosters littered with 5 star players or 4th/5th year players. Pitt will never be able to recruit top 10 classes without going the "Ole Miss" route, so the best bet is to emulate the Wisconsin model of developing its talent and putting a veteran team on the field every year.

Except the latter isn't true. Wisconsin is the only thing close. We will see if MSU gets to that point, but they fell off a cliff last year. The other examples were of average to below average programs who had a few good years over the last 20 and not much different than Pitt.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

That's highly selective.