Quick Heather

[OriginalEther]

Thanks. 20 was too high, but this pretty much validates the point.

Not really.
I mean, it’s the same schools there year after year. And Pitt demographically has little in common with most of them.
The closest two are Miami and UCLA, and that’s still a stretch.

you’ll notice that quite a few still stink, and that numerous schools that have reached a realistic measure of success aren’t on that list

point is, it’s a silly benchmark to adhere to, and even if you’re determined to stick to it,just “changing the culture” isn’t going to change things

Let's cut to the chase: You're beating around the bush on the topic of "playing the dirty game" relative to recruiting. Paying for talent.

You insinuate that Majors was doing that in the 70s and Sherrill after him thru the early 80s. If we'd just loosen the constraints that Pitt adheres to, we'd bring in the talent that the handful of routine cheater schools regularly (and pretty much exclusively) do??

Actually, it’s been pretty much established that , yeah, Pitt did do shifty things back then. That and took advantage of the SEC still not recruiting black players

 

[BFo8]

Your delusion is so complete that you can't figure out why Johnny Majors could recruit well at Pitt in the 70s and Tennessee later on but he couldn't do that at Pitt in the 90s? Seriously?

Man, your grasp on reality is tenuous at best.

I did this before, and I know you saw it, but I'll do it for you again. If Pitt were to fire Pat Narduzzi (they aren't) no mid to high level D1 program would even consider hiring him to be their next head coach. He'd have to either go back to being a coordinator somewhere or perhaps get a head coaching job at a lower level program. And the reason for that is that he is a thoroughly mediocre head coach.

Before him Paul Chryst was here. Unfortunately for us, we got all his on the job training and none of the benefits from that. He isn't a great coach, but he's better than most.

Before that we hired Todd Graham. He slunk off in the middle of the night to a similar program where he ended up getting himself fired. He's now the coach at Hawaii, where his team is mediocre even at that level. You've got to be hitting the good stuff to think that Toddy Graham is a good coach.

Before that it was Mike Haywood. He was 10-15 at Miami. After the debacle here the only head coaching job he got was at Texas Southern, where he went 18-40 before he got fired. He is an awful football coach.

Before that it was Wanny, who is the definition of mediocrity. 82-87 in the NFL. Other than Pitt, no one was going to offer him a job when we did. 42-31 at Pitt playing in a weak Big East conference. And since he's left here he hasn't been a serious candidate for any job anywhere in the country at any level of football.

Before that, Walt Harris. Certainly not a great coach, but from where things were when he took over he certainly left things better than he found them. But he went to Stanford after he left here and he was awful there. No one else has considered him for a head coaching job since.

Before that, Johnny Majors II. If I need to explain to you why he wasn't a good hire and why he didn't work out here on his second go round then you are even dumber that I thought.

Before that, I give you Paul Hackett. Perhaps the worst of the worst. The best thing that you can say about him is that he also fooled USC, who takes football a lot more seriously than Pitt does, into giving him their head coaching job. And he was a complete and utter failure there too. And to my knowledge was never a serious candidate for any head coaching job again.

That takes us back 30 years. In that time we've hired eight head coaches. Depending on what you think about Paul Chryst that's either seven or eight guys who are, at their absolute best, mediocre head coaches. Three of them were guys who a good high school would have been foolish to hire. Five of the eight either were either never a head coach again or went one more place, were awful there, and have never been a head coach again. Graham is on his second place, and if he doesn't get Hawaii turned around there is a really good chance he'll be on the can't get hired again list soon. Of the seven (not counting Narduzzi, obviously) only ONE has left here and had success elsewhere.

The notion that Pitt cannot hire better football coaches than the people who have been hired here over the last 30 years is batshit crazy.

This post reminds me of the James Carville line in the movie Old School, “We have no rebuttal, that was perfect”.

 

[WannyandWalt]

The amount of excuses you make to justify and rationalize Duzz’spoor performance relative to your stance towards Capel is absolutely comical.

Post of the year! You just nailed Mrs Duzz!

 

[HailToPitt725]

Your delusion is so complete that you can't figure out why Johnny Majors could recruit well at Pitt in the 70s and Tennessee later on but he couldn't do that at Pitt in the 90s? Seriously?

Man, your grasp on reality is tenuous at best.

I did this before, and I know you saw it, but I'll do it for you again. If Pitt were to fire Pat Narduzzi (they aren't) no mid to high level D1 program would even consider hiring him to be their next head coach. He'd have to either go back to being a coordinator somewhere or perhaps get a head coaching job at a lower level program. And the reason for that is that he is a thoroughly mediocre head coach.

Before him Paul Chryst was here. Unfortunately for us, we got all his on the job training and none of the benefits from that. He isn't a great coach, but he's better than most.

Before that we hired Todd Graham. He slunk off in the middle of the night to a similar program where he ended up getting himself fired. He's now the coach at Hawaii, where his team is mediocre even at that level. You've got to be hitting the good stuff to think that Toddy Graham is a good coach.

Before that it was Mike Haywood. He was 10-15 at Miami. After the debacle here the only head coaching job he got was at Texas Southern, where he went 18-40 before he got fired. He is an awful football coach.

Before that it was Wanny, who is the definition of mediocrity. 82-87 in the NFL. Other than Pitt, no one was going to offer him a job when we did. 42-31 at Pitt playing in a weak Big East conference. And since he's left here he hasn't been a serious candidate for any job anywhere in the country at any level of football.

Before that, Walt Harris. Certainly not a great coach, but from where things were when he took over he certainly left things better than he found them. But he went to Stanford after he left here and he was awful there. No one else has considered him for a head coaching job since.

Before that, Johnny Majors II. If I need to explain to you why he wasn't a good hire and why he didn't work out here on his second go round then you are even dumber that I thought.

Before that, I give you Paul Hackett. Perhaps the worst of the worst. The best thing that you can say about him is that he also fooled USC, who takes football a lot more seriously than Pitt does, into giving him their head coaching job. And he was a complete and utter failure there too. And to my knowledge was never a serious candidate for any head coaching job again.

That takes us back 30 years. In that time we've hired eight head coaches. Depending on what you think about Paul Chryst that's either seven or eight guys who are, at their absolute best, mediocre head coaches. Three of them were guys who a good high school would have been foolish to hire. Five of the eight either were either never a head coach again or went one more place, were awful there, and have never been a head coach again. Graham is on his second place, and if he doesn't get Hawaii turned around there is a really good chance he'll be on the can't get hired again list soon. Of the seven (not counting Narduzzi, obviously) only ONE has left here and had success elsewhere.

The notion that Pitt cannot hire better football coaches than the people who have been hired here over the last 30 years is batshit crazy.

Like I said in the other thread, I’ve tried to remain loyal to Narduzzi but you bring up a very good point; it may even dispel the notion that it’s the program and not the coaches.

At this point, I’m indifferent in the direction they take. If they keep Narduzzi and bring in a new offensive coordinator, I’m fine with that. If they move on from him, I’m also fine with that. I’m confident in Lyke’s ability to hire a coach.

 

[TD_6082]

The amount of excuses you make to justify and rationalize Duzz’spoor performance relative to your stance towards Capel is absolutely comical.

Seriously? DUZZI can at least get effort out of his guys. Team chemistry really hasn't been a problem.

 

[TD_6082]

Let's cut to the chase: You're beating around the bush on the topic of "playing the dirty game" relative to recruiting. Paying for talent.

You insinuate that Majors was doing that in the 70s and Sherrill after him thru the early 80s. If we'd just loosen the constraints that Pitt adheres to, we'd bring in the talent that the handful of routine cheater schools regularly (and pretty much exclusively) do??

I think every school cuts some corners. The ones that win know how to manipulate the system, and yes, a lot of that includes providing extra benefits, and not necessarily directly to the player.

I mean c'mon, when you see schools like Baylor & Ole Miss suddenly get competitive with the blue bloods for multiple recruits, isn't it obvious.

FWIW, I attended a promotional event in Nashville back in 2012 where Johnny and Jackie were guests (TN was playing Miss State that week) and they both shared several stories about multiple topics throughout their careers. When it came to rebuilding Pitt, a direct quote from Sherrill... "Coach & I NEVER, EVER, bought a player like other schools we recruited against. But we made damn sure they were well taken care of once we got them on campus."

I highly doubt any of that is groundbreaking news. I would think some on this board probably have some first hand knowledge.

 

[TD_6082]

Jamey Chadwell at CCU. There is another coach, like Hugh Freeze, that obviously games the system.

 

[TD_6082]

Not really.
I mean, it’s the same schools there year after year. And Pitt demographically has little in common with most of them.
The closest two are Miami and UCLA, and that’s still a stretch.

you’ll notice that quite a few still stink, and that numerous schools that have reached a realistic measure of success aren’t on that list

point is, it’s a silly benchmark to adhere to, and even if you’re determined to stick to it,just “changing the culture” isn’t going to change things

Well obviously just one random Top 10 class in a 4 year span isn't going to move the needle much. I'm just pointing out that Pitt can't even do that.

What schools would you say are doing significantly better than Pitt that aren't on that list?

Of the schools that flat-out stink, I would say only FSU and Tennessee. FSU's problem is self-inflicted. They would have been wise to support Taggart and give him blank slate for 3 or 4 years. The 2 and 3 year revolving door doesn't cut it. They started putting the pressure on him half way through the first year & their program wasn't all that when Jimbo bolted. Tennessee's problem is still recruiting. They keep losing out on the high end talent to other schools in the SEC.

The point I'm making, is that to get significantly better results than Pitt is currently getting, they would have to have a pretty stacked roster. And you don't get that unless you can sign Top 10 to 20 type classes consistently. I don't think that is possible at Pitt unless we bend the rules more than we are. It's a lot easier to sign talent at other schools. So people can say what they want about Duzzi, Wanny, Walt, and Chryst, I think if they were at Florida, LSU, tOSU, or USC, they probably would have signed at least one top 10 class in a 4 year span. Probably multiple Top 15 classes. They couldn't do it at Pitt.

 

[TD_6082]

Only someone who sees that the facts are completely the opposite of what he's arguing could say that the facts don't matter.

If ANY of those guys was a good coach then you would obviously expect at least one of them to be successful as a head coach somewhere else. Especially considering the ones who moved down to a lower level. The notion that these guys are good coaches who were held back by being at Pitt, but that they also got held back by every other place that they all collectively worked at, is batshit crazy.

That isn't exactly what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that looking at the big picture, I think most are quality coaches that for the most part, had Pitt reaching it's potential. (not including the guys that were here a year or less) Sure, each could have won a few more close games, or had another division title, etc. but that's splitting hairs. That's almost like the crowd that bitched about Jamie not going deeper in the NCAAs.

And no, coaches that move down rarely have success. More often than not, you can stick a fork in them. Pretty much the best they do is land a job that has limited expectations and they hold that job and make a nice paycheck for a number of years. (i.e. Frank Solich, Steve Spurrier, David Cutliffe, Rich Brooks)

Here is a list of HC's that had varying degrees of success on the way up and at their marquee job, but pretty much flatlined their landing spot. Danny Ford, Tommy Bowden, Terry Bowden, Ken Hatfield, Lou Holtz, Charlie Strong, Tommy Tubberville, Butch Davis, Larry Coker, Bo Pelini, Dennis Erickson, Bob Davie, Paul Pasqualoni, RichRod, Kevin Sumlin, Bobby Patrino, Mike Price, Bobby Ross, Dick Tomey,

There are rare exceptions where a coach moves to a lower level, has success, and moves back up the ladder. But realistically, a coach has to be relatively young to do that. Lane Kiffin, Hugh Freeze are examples (becoming more apparent Freeze is going to get that opportunity) I'd say Willie Taggart has a chance. This group is few and far between though.