What is? You offered up examples of 5 programs. 1 qualifies as a solid point. 1 might, if they can turn things back around. The others were pretty bad examples and are certainly not models to follow.
Pitt Suspensions/Injuries-Recruiting 4/5 star players is critical
- Thread starter Panther Al
- Start date
But once again, the Wisconsin model is a "myth." It does not exist. They generally lose to the teams that out recruit them. Where they get lucky is playing in the Big Ten West, so they don't have to play many of those teams. Pitt doesn't play in the Big Ten West.
For example, you’re probably wondering where Wisconsin is on this list: Initially, I was, too. After all, the Badgers defied their two-star status in the recruiting rankings to play in four consecutive Jan. 1 bowls in the 2010-13 window, including three Rose Bowls. Trophy case notwithstanding, though, they were actually very ordinary in that span against blue-chip competition, putting up losing records against five-star (2–3), four-star (3–6) and even three-star (5–6) opponents. Much of Wisconsin’s success is based on thorough, consistent dominance of its two-star peers in the Big Ten – Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue – against whom the Badgers have won 17 in a row. But they’ve hardly made a habit of playing over their heads.
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right
And just in case you thought that was just a 4 year cycle fluke. The 2016 Badgers:
- Wisconsin vs. S&P+ top 10 (1-3): Avg. percentile performance: 76% | Avg. yards per play: Opp 5.6, UW 5.0 (minus-0.6) | Avg. postgame win expectancy: 37%
- Wisconsin vs. everyone else (10-0): Avg. percentile performance: 85% | Avg. yards per play: UW 5.6, Opp 4.6 (plus-1.0) | Avg. postgame win expectancy: 89%
I agree that, if recruiting doesn't pick up, building up inexperienced depth is probably the best route. The problem is how difficult that route is. Where the poster is wrong is the idea that, "This doesn't happen to every team, so once it stops happening to Pitt, things will change." It will never stop happening to Pitt, because it never stops happening to any team. Bad luck happens. To be consistently good, you have to recruit at a level that allows you to overcome that bad luck.
The "experience" model requires that you don't miss with a single recruiting class. When it's time to turn the unit over to the next group of high floor, low ceiling upperclassmen, you better have gotten it right. Because there are no impact freshmen waiting to take their jobs, because you can't land those recruits.
We're seeing that now with Michigan State, who is probably the best example of this path. They are saddled with an upperclassmen team that just isn't good. So when it's their turn and it fails, you have to ride it out until the next raw group is experienced. So Michigan State is probably looking at 2 to 3 years of lost seasons. They walked a razor edge for a little bit, had a pretty decent level of success for a while, but then it got them. As that "path" inevitably always will.
It's not a myth. It's also not a myth what all those other teams listed did. Their records speak for themselves. Look at the BCS games they've played in.
How many have we played in?
ONE! And we were blown out by a non-power school in that game.
Look at their big wins! What have we done in the last 30 years that compares to Wisconsin in that same time frame?
It's completely crazy to look at that program and insist that what they've done has somehow been overrated.
No, it's not and it's straight up cuckoo bananas to insist otherwise. I pray to God that over the next three decades we are similarly overrated.
And to say that they're doing it only because they play in the Big Ten West is even crazier because that division is like three years-old. Also, we don't exactly play in the SEC West. We play in what many College football fans and analysts consider to be the weakest division in major football.
As for the record against "elite competition," which changes depending on the argument, of course they don't dominate "elite competition." That's what makes them elite.
However, I'm going to let you guys in on a little secret. Guess what? Nobody does great against "elite competition" – including other so called, "elite competition."
Look guys, this is not remotely difficult. I don't understand why this is controversial for some of you?
Honestly, it's somewhat disturbing.
Of course if you have a team full of bigger, stronger, faster athletes, you're going to do better than a team full of smaller, slower, inferior athletes.
Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY, is insisting otherwise. If you give me the choice between a bunch of future NFL athletes and a bunch of try hard 5th year seniors who don't have NFL talent, I'll take the athletes. That is not what I'm contesting. I can't say it any more vehemently or clearly.
However, what if you don't have those things? How do you compete then? Can you compete? If not, then why don't Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State play in the Rose Bowl every year?
More to the point, what choice does Pitt have? What possible model could they follow?
The Florida State model?
That sounds great. Where do I sign?
All we need for that to happen is for our university to change its fundamental mission, all three professional sports teams to leave town, the city's residents to have a seachange in attitudes towards college athletics in general, and for good measure the state agreeing to pay to expand Heinz Field to 80–85,000 seats and fund things like waterfalls in the locker rooms on the South Side facility that we now solely occupy because the Steelers have moved to Bangladesh in this moronic mythical scenario.
How many have we played in?
ONE! And we were blown out by a non-power school in that game.
Look at their big wins! What have we done in the last 30 years that compares to Wisconsin in that same time frame?
It's completely crazy to look at that program and insist that what they've done has somehow been overrated.
No, it's not and it's straight up cuckoo bananas to insist otherwise. I pray to God that over the next three decades we are similarly overrated.
And to say that they're doing it only because they play in the Big Ten West is even crazier because that division is like three years-old. Also, we don't exactly play in the SEC West. We play in what many College football fans and analysts consider to be the weakest division in major football.
As for the record against "elite competition," which changes depending on the argument, of course they don't dominate "elite competition." That's what makes them elite.
However, I'm going to let you guys in on a little secret. Guess what? Nobody does great against "elite competition" – including other so called, "elite competition."
Look guys, this is not remotely difficult. I don't understand why this is controversial for some of you?
Honestly, it's somewhat disturbing.
Of course if you have a team full of bigger, stronger, faster athletes, you're going to do better than a team full of smaller, slower, inferior athletes.
Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY, is insisting otherwise. If you give me the choice between a bunch of future NFL athletes and a bunch of try hard 5th year seniors who don't have NFL talent, I'll take the athletes. That is not what I'm contesting. I can't say it any more vehemently or clearly.
However, what if you don't have those things? How do you compete then? Can you compete? If not, then why don't Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State play in the Rose Bowl every year?
More to the point, what choice does Pitt have? What possible model could they follow?
The Florida State model?
That sounds great. Where do I sign?
All we need for that to happen is for our university to change its fundamental mission, all three professional sports teams to leave town, the city's residents to have a seachange in attitudes towards college athletics in general, and for good measure the state agreeing to pay to expand Heinz Field to 80–85,000 seats and fund things like waterfalls in the locker rooms on the South Side facility that we now solely occupy because the Steelers have moved to Bangladesh in this moronic mythical scenario.
Last edited:
The other programs listed weren't very successful. Hell, you listed Wake Forest. They went to the Orange Bowl once (like Pitt) after 4 years of 0 bowls and only 3 in the 10 years since. So, one of your examples is a program who went to 4 bowls in 14 years?
Georgia Tech went to two Orange Bowls and didn't even win 10 games in any other season since 2000. They also had 7 or fewer wins half of those seasons.
Iowa has been to 3 BCS level bowls in the last 20 years and has 2 other 10 win seasons, but their record is still only 138-100 over that time period, so they won about 58% of their games.
Guess what Pitt's record is over that same period as Iowa? 130-105 or winning 55% of games. Not a big difference.
Except that Coastal Division no longer exists. The decaying corpse of Frank Beamer, Randy Shannon/Al Golden, strictly basketball Duke, and Butch Davis fall out UNC are no longer around.
But it is. I just gave you two links showing that it is. You can close your eyes and continue to believe the earth is flat, but Wisconsin does not perform particularly well against teams that outrecruit them. That's just a statistical, objective fact.
With all due respect, I don't think that I'm the one who is being closed off here.
Look, this is not remotely complex and is very easily settled.
Can you name 20 programs in the United States who, in the past three decades, have been more successful than Wisconsin?
I cannot do that.
Hell, I'm not sure that there are 10 programs that fit that mold? I'd probably place them somewhere between 12–15.
That's pretty damn good for anyone and it's remarkable for a school from a state that doesn't produce much high end local talent.
If you offered me a deal right now guaranteeing that Pitt would be one of the 12 or 15 most successful programs in the country over the next 30 years, but that we would struggle to consistently beat the Clemsons and Florida States of the world, I would sign up for that deal in a New York second.
Every single year, everyone else out-recruits Wisconsin and yet they are annually at or near the top of the Big Ten standings. How do you reconcile those two things?
Oh, right. They play in a weak (and three year-old) division.
But don't take my word for it - or anyone else's - do your own research. I promise that if you do you will find that their recruiting ratings are annually very low and their conference finishes are annually very high.
Every. Single. Year.
So they must be beating someone, right? And they've been doing it for about three decades now so the sample size is not exactly small.
Now, are they consistently beating Ohio State? No, they are not. Then again, who the hell is?
I didn't bother reading one of the articles you posted because the first one was just junk and proved nothing.
It failed to contextualize the issue. If you were to apply the same standard to everyone else, you would find similar results. There would be some outliers on the negative side of the ledger and some outliers on the positive end as well. However, most everyone else would look very similar the Wisconsin regardless of their recruiting rankings. Most would look much, much worse.
Look, this is not remotely complex and is very easily settled.
Can you name 20 programs in the United States who, in the past three decades, have been more successful than Wisconsin?
I cannot do that.
Hell, I'm not sure that there are 10 programs that fit that mold? I'd probably place them somewhere between 12–15.
That's pretty damn good for anyone and it's remarkable for a school from a state that doesn't produce much high end local talent.
If you offered me a deal right now guaranteeing that Pitt would be one of the 12 or 15 most successful programs in the country over the next 30 years, but that we would struggle to consistently beat the Clemsons and Florida States of the world, I would sign up for that deal in a New York second.
Every single year, everyone else out-recruits Wisconsin and yet they are annually at or near the top of the Big Ten standings. How do you reconcile those two things?
Oh, right. They play in a weak (and three year-old) division.
But don't take my word for it - or anyone else's - do your own research. I promise that if you do you will find that their recruiting ratings are annually very low and their conference finishes are annually very high.
Every. Single. Year.
So they must be beating someone, right? And they've been doing it for about three decades now so the sample size is not exactly small.
Now, are they consistently beating Ohio State? No, they are not. Then again, who the hell is?
I didn't bother reading one of the articles you posted because the first one was just junk and proved nothing.
It failed to contextualize the issue. If you were to apply the same standard to everyone else, you would find similar results. There would be some outliers on the negative side of the ledger and some outliers on the positive end as well. However, most everyone else would look very similar the Wisconsin regardless of their recruiting rankings. Most would look much, much worse.
Really? And can't a team get better as the year went on? Do you think if we played in November the results may have been the same?
The majority of those 4 stars were either Freshman redshirting, redshirt Freshman, or true sophomores. If you think Pitt backed off a rival, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in belle Vernon
Yeah, that's the point of the article. Everybody basically performs exactly as their recruiting numbers say they should perform. There are a few exceptions. Some good, some bad. But the point of the article is stated in the title of the article. Most teams don't beat the teams that out recruit them in the rankings, and they don't lose to most teams they out recruit in the rankings. Wisconsin is just like everybody else in that regard.
You nailed it! These blind followers can be as bad at the Nutting wallet geeks. Our recruiting has to get better under Duzz or we will continue to be a 6 to 8 win team , period
But that's absolutely untrue. If it were true Wisconsin wouldn't be one of the top 12-15 programs in the country over the past THREE FULL DECADES. Rather, they would be a perennial B1G cellar dweller.
Without a question, we have to recruit better. I think we have a very solid coach however if he can't get the elite 4/5 star play makers like Boyd, Shady, Whitehead, etc. we will continue to be 8-4 or 7-5 which everyone is sick of. To have zero 4/5 star players while PSU has 14, is unacceptable. We beat the national champs and PSU last year. At the end of the day, Franklin is no better than Duzz. I can't see him being 14 4/5 star players better than Duzz from a recruiting point of view. Clearly, something isn't attractive to the elite players and as I've said a hundred times, its Heinz Field. H2P!
Dr-
What do you think Pitt's record would be playing the following games? What is probably of Pitt playing in the B1G championship and being ranked in the top 10?
Do the same exercise with UW playing Pitt's schedule. This argument is about scheduling more than any other factor including recruiting. Pick the year and it's the same thing- UW plays an unbelievably soft schedule year in, year out.
2017 PITT SCHEDULE
WIN Sept. 1 Utah State (Friday)
WIN Sept. 9 Florida Atlantic
WIN Sept. 16 at BYU
Sept. 23 OFF
WIN Sept. 30 Northwestern
W? Oct. 7 at Nebraska
WIN Oct. 14 Purdue
WIN Oct. 21 Maryland
WIN Oct. 28 at Illinois
WIN Nov. 4 at Indiana
WIN Nov. 11 Iowa
L? Nov. 18 Michigan
WIN Nov. 25 at Minnesota
What do you think Pitt's record would be playing the following games? What is probably of Pitt playing in the B1G championship and being ranked in the top 10?
Do the same exercise with UW playing Pitt's schedule. This argument is about scheduling more than any other factor including recruiting. Pick the year and it's the same thing- UW plays an unbelievably soft schedule year in, year out.
2017 PITT SCHEDULE
WIN Sept. 1 Utah State (Friday)
WIN Sept. 9 Florida Atlantic
WIN Sept. 16 at BYU
Sept. 23 OFF
WIN Sept. 30 Northwestern
W? Oct. 7 at Nebraska
WIN Oct. 14 Purdue
WIN Oct. 21 Maryland
WIN Oct. 28 at Illinois
WIN Nov. 4 at Indiana
WIN Nov. 11 Iowa
L? Nov. 18 Michigan
WIN Nov. 25 at Minnesota
Last edited:
I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you??? The reason why Wisconsin isn't a basement dweller is because they don't play many teams that outrecruit them year after year, as the article points out. The talent level in the Big Ten sucks.
Last year Wisconsin beat: LSU. The rest of their wins were: Akron, Georgia State, Michigan State, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ill., Purdue, Minn., Western Michigan. They lost to Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan.
How good do you think Duzzi's recruiting would have to be at for Pitt to also beat those teams?
2015 Wisconsin won 10 games, their wins were: Miami of Ohio, Troy, Hawaii, Nebraska, Purdue, Ill., Rutgers, MD, Minn., USCw in bowl. They lost to Alabama, Iowa, Northwestern.
How good do you think Duzzi's recruiting would have to be at for Pitt to also win 10 games with that schedule?
2014 Wisconsin won 11 games, their wins were: Western Ill., Bowling Green, USF, Ill., Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Nebraska, Iowa, Minn., Auburn in the bowl game. Lost to LSU, Northwestern, Ohio State.
How good do you think Duzzi's recruiting would have to be at for Pitt to also win 11 games with that schedule?
When your schedule is mostly made up of teams with horrible recruiting classes, your average to below average recruiting class doesn't put you at a disadvantage talent wise.
Wisconsin literally won the Big Ten in 2012 with an 8-6 record. They had 4 losses in the Big Ten. How the hell do you make a conference championship game with 4 losses in the conference? Because everybody else sucks.
Here is where Wisconsin has "ranked" recruiting-wise within the Big Ten going back to 2002 - which is when Rivals began compiling such rankings:
2017: 7
2016: 6
2015: 5
2014: 6
2013: 11
2012: 8
2011: 7
2010: 10
2009: 7
2008: 5
2007: 6
2006: 7
2005: 6
2004: 7
2003: 5
2002: 7
As you can see, that is nowhere near the top of the conference's recruiting rankings.
Conversely, here is where the Badgers have ranked on the actual field play against that very same competition during that EXACT SAME timeframe.
2016: 4 ( B1G-W Champs)
2015: 6
2014: 2 (B1G-W Champs)
2013: 3
2012: 6
2011: 1 (B1G Champs)
2010: 1 (B1G Champs)
2009: 4
2008: 6
2007: 4
2006: 2
2005: 3
2004: 3
2003: 7
2002: 8
I'm sorry, but if that does not demonstrate a program consistently outperforming its recruiting rankings, I don't know what possibly could?
People can parse it or try to distort or minimize it however they choose, but I'm not buying that garbage. I just wish that we were similarly overrated.
You're just beyond lost or too dug in to your position.
Recruiting is about "tiers." The difference between the number 1 class and number 2 class is next to nothing. It's the "tier" that matters.
Most everybody in the Big Ten is in the same "tier." Wisconsin beats the teams in their tier or below (which is most of them), and loses to most teams in tiers above them in recruiting. That is a irrefutable fact. I'm sorry you refuse to accept that fact. But the link I gave you showed it was true for the 4 year cycle ending in 2013, and I showed you their record since then. If you want to argue that Wisconsin ends up with the 50th class in the country, and Minn. with the 49th, and Wisconsin beats Minn., and think that means something, you go ahead.
Recruiting is about "tiers." The difference between the number 1 class and number 2 class is next to nothing. It's the "tier" that matters.
Most everybody in the Big Ten is in the same "tier." Wisconsin beats the teams in their tier or below (which is most of them), and loses to most teams in tiers above them in recruiting. That is a irrefutable fact. I'm sorry you refuse to accept that fact. But the link I gave you showed it was true for the 4 year cycle ending in 2013, and I showed you their record since then. If you want to argue that Wisconsin ends up with the 50th class in the country, and Minn. with the 49th, and Wisconsin beats Minn., and think that means something, you go ahead.
This is true. Hell, look at some of our most mediocre teams, even on the road at Iowa we should have beaten them. And those Pitt teams weren't good. That division in the Big Ten is god awful. Ridiculous. And if Wisky has a year with a weak OOC (like this year) and avoids 2 out of 3 of the biggies in the division cross over teams, it is a manufactured 10 win (at least) season.
So now, you prerank Wisky in the top 10, even if they go 10-2, they are no worse than 12th-15th ranked without beating anyone, go to the Big Ten title game and have this perceived great season all the while not really doing anything.
OK, I've wasted enough time with this nonsense.
I'm not doing anymore research demonstrating what everyone already knows: Wisconsin has been extremely successful for going on three decades now, irrespective of its recruiting rankings during that same epoch.
First it was all a giant myth that they have been successful and they never beat anyone ranked ahead of them. Now that has been demonstrably disproven, it's not to be taken literally, rather it was all about "tiers."
Next, it will almost certainly be something else.
That's cool. I get it now. Have a nice day.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I wondered how long you were going to argue with someone that has double digit posts.
Wait, what? No one ever said they haven't been successful, but they haven't vastly outplayed their recruiting. They beat the teams they are supposed to (which we Pitt fans know isn't always easy) and they lose to the teams who recruit much better than them. In the B1G, that generally puts them in the running, thanks their schedule and division. Good for them.
However, you did present several teams and 3 of the 5 had essentially no success. Hell, one of them (Wake) was an absolutely atrocious example.
Fair point. My bad. That's on me. I'm literally doing research on something I don't really care about (Wisconsin football) and which is like trying to prove that Washington, DC exists. It's completely ridiculous... and ultimately on me.
The guy is right and he showed the examples to back it. Why does his post count matter on this subject?
What is he right about exactly?
Seriously, I don't even fully understand what we were arguing about anymore?
If he was arguing that Wisconsin is not actually a successful program then he's clearly not right. As I said earlier, I don't care about Wisconsin football and I'm not interested in talking about it any further. However, their results speak for themselves. People can qualify it and parse it however they want but I'm telling you you can do that with just about any program in the country.
However, if he is arguing that more talented teams tend to beat lesser talented teams more often than not, you are right, he has a point.
Consider me a convert on that subject. Up until now I always thought that talent had no impact on game results. However, clearly I was wrong.
Seriously, I don't even fully understand what we were arguing about anymore?
If he was arguing that Wisconsin is not actually a successful program then he's clearly not right. As I said earlier, I don't care about Wisconsin football and I'm not interested in talking about it any further. However, their results speak for themselves. People can qualify it and parse it however they want but I'm telling you you can do that with just about any program in the country.
However, if he is arguing that more talented teams tend to beat lesser talented teams more often than not, you are right, he has a point.
Consider me a convert on that subject. Up until now I always thought that talent had no impact on game results. However, clearly I was wrong.
More to the point, let's bring this back to the only subject that really matters: how does this impact Pitt football?
Are we all in agreement that Pitt is never going to recruit on the same level as at least Miami, Florida State and Clemson? There's probably at least one or two others in there as well but Pitt is never going to consistently out-recruit those schools for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with commitment, integrity, coaching quality, etc.
If you don't agree with that assertion, please check out now because that's a whole other insane rabbit hole that I don't feel like following.
If it is true, what can be done about it? Can anything be done about it? How can we possibly compete if we aren't dominating on the recruiting trail?
Are we all in agreement that Pitt is never going to recruit on the same level as at least Miami, Florida State and Clemson? There's probably at least one or two others in there as well but Pitt is never going to consistently out-recruit those schools for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with commitment, integrity, coaching quality, etc.
If you don't agree with that assertion, please check out now because that's a whole other insane rabbit hole that I don't feel like following.
If it is true, what can be done about it? Can anything be done about it? How can we possibly compete if we aren't dominating on the recruiting trail?
You said that the playing field can be leveled with experienced upper classmen vs higher level recruiting. You gave 5 examples of teams who have successfully outperformed their recruiting by consistently developing and getting the benefit of older players to cover for the injuries and suspensions, which are part of the game/sport, to beat higher level recruiting programs. One of those examples was awful. Two of those examples were bad. One was plausible, but still very up in the air. Wisconsin was the one example who at least had some sustained success.
However, the poster was able to clearly show that Wisconsin's success was predicated on them beating all the teams they are supposed to beat (by the notion they had better recruiting) and beating the teams they were even with, most of the time, but not actually beating those higher level recruiting programs. They aren't actually beating those teams. Why aren't they? Well, because their players just aren't as talented.
The season doesn't start for a month, dude. We aren't "ranked" anything
NLI Signing Dates for Prospective Student-Athletes Signing 2017-18 and Enrolling 2018-19
Sport (s) Initial Signing Date Final Signing Date
Basketball (Early Period) November 8, 2017 November 15, 2017
Basketball (Regular Period) April 11, 2018 Division I: May 16, 2018
Division II: August 1, 2018
Football (Early Period for Division I) December 20, 2017 December 22, 2017
Football (Midyear JC Transfer) December 20, 2017 January 15, 2018
Football (Regular Period) February 7, 2018 April 1, 2018
Soccer and Men's Water Polo February 7, 2018 August 1, 2018
All Other Sports (Early Period) November 8, 2017 November 15, 2017
All Other Sports (Regular Period) April 11, 2018 August 1, 2018
Sport (s) Initial Signing Date Final Signing Date
Basketball (Early Period) November 8, 2017 November 15, 2017
Basketball (Regular Period) April 11, 2018 Division I: May 16, 2018
Division II: August 1, 2018
Football (Early Period for Division I) December 20, 2017 December 22, 2017
Football (Midyear JC Transfer) December 20, 2017 January 15, 2018
Football (Regular Period) February 7, 2018 April 1, 2018
Soccer and Men's Water Polo February 7, 2018 August 1, 2018
All Other Sports (Early Period) November 8, 2017 November 15, 2017
All Other Sports (Regular Period) April 11, 2018 August 1, 2018
I don't think you are seeing the forest for the trees. Of course talented experience can compete with even more talented youth.
There's just no reasonable debate to be had there.
Ask any coach and they will tell you that.
However, if you give me the choice between exceptional talent or experience, I'll take the more talented guys every time. For the one millionth time, nobody is arguing otherwise.
As for Wisconsin, they have had more than "some sustained success." The Badgers have been among the most successful programs in the United States for three decades now and FAR more successful than many programs that have consistently "out-recruited" them.
However, I still want to bring this back to Pitt football. What are you suggesting we do? I'm all ears. Or is there nothing that we can do but accept our fate?
We have to focus on acquisition of talent first and foremost and playing that best talent, not preserving eligibility. We don't have a unique or exacerbated attrition issue. We have a talent issue. If you acquire more talent, are some of those players going to stay around (especially if you win) longer and end up being more experienced? Sure. Are a lot of those guys going to go pro early or transfer out because they can't get the playing time they expect? Absolutely. Awesome problems, I hope we have some day.
They have not been "FAR more successful than many programs that have consistently "out-recruited" them." Who are the programs, which have consistently "out-recruited" them, but have been FAR less successful.
The issue isn't whether Wisconsin has or hasn't been successful. They clearly have been successful. It's how they have been successful, and whether that is something others can follow?
The poster's point was that more impact 4* guys need to be signed for Pitt to take the next step. As stacking chips is the best, most surefire way you can sustain success. And that is obvious to everyone.
What has then been brought up is an "alternative" path. That you don't have to bring in high ranked recruiting classes. You don't have to stack chips. You can follow the "Wisconsin model."
My point was the Wisconsin model is a myth, not Wisconsin having success is a myth. Wisconsin plays a ton of horrible teams with 2* and low 3* recruiting classes every year. Which is the level they recruit at. And theyhad "success" against those teams. So if you're in that situation, you can follow that model of average to below average recruiting, winning against the teams that recruit at your level, losing against the teams that recruit a tier above you, and still winning 10 games a year because the former dominates your schedule compared to the latter.
But most teams just aren't in that situation. It's not a model that most P5 teams can follow, because they don't have the type of schedule that Wisconsin does on a yearly basis. They need a ton of talent to win 10+ games a year, because the teams they are playing have a lot more talent than those midwest football teams.
The poster's point was that more impact 4* guys need to be signed for Pitt to take the next step. As stacking chips is the best, most surefire way you can sustain success. And that is obvious to everyone.
What has then been brought up is an "alternative" path. That you don't have to bring in high ranked recruiting classes. You don't have to stack chips. You can follow the "Wisconsin model."
My point was the Wisconsin model is a myth, not Wisconsin having success is a myth. Wisconsin plays a ton of horrible teams with 2* and low 3* recruiting classes every year. Which is the level they recruit at. And theyhad "success" against those teams. So if you're in that situation, you can follow that model of average to below average recruiting, winning against the teams that recruit at your level, losing against the teams that recruit a tier above you, and still winning 10 games a year because the former dominates your schedule compared to the latter.
But most teams just aren't in that situation. It's not a model that most P5 teams can follow, because they don't have the type of schedule that Wisconsin does on a yearly basis. They need a ton of talent to win 10+ games a year, because the teams they are playing have a lot more talent than those midwest football teams.
Once again, "bringing it back to Pitt football," this misframes the issue.
Has Wisconsin been "FAR" more successful against the teams that outrecruit them? That's what would be relevant to Pitt football. Does the Wisconsin model allow you to beat teams the recruiting rankings say you shouldn't beat at a consistent enough level to dominate college football for 3 decades? That is the question for Pitt football. Not whether Wisconsin has been able to have a winning record against Purdue and Ill. for three decades, because Pitt's schedule isn't made up of teams that recruit at that low a level.
