What about Vandy? What about Maryland? What about Illinois? What about Purdue? Those schools have seen coaches come in and elevate recruiting. That has not happened under HCPN and in his 4th year it looks to be getting worse.
The Florida myth
- Thread starter jerot
- Start date
This thread is very helpful. Makes it easy to enhance the 'ignore' list. PSU's recruiting budget compared to Pitt's is probably pretty significant.
$100 handshakes???? Do you really think that tips the balance in the grand scheme of things?
I've had players on damn near every major campus and this never comes up. I'm not saying it hasn't or doesn't, but it's way overrated. College coaches are paranoid with all of the NCAA regulations and watch dogs.
I've heard one coaching staff this entire year accuse another staff of cheating and they play in PAC12.
If you think Franklin is dominating the recruiting scene because they handing out $100 handshakes, you're sorely mistaken.
I've had players on damn near every major campus and this never comes up. I'm not saying it hasn't or doesn't, but it's way overrated. College coaches are paranoid with all of the NCAA regulations and watch dogs.
I've heard one coaching staff this entire year accuse another staff of cheating and they play in PAC12.
If you think Franklin is dominating the recruiting scene because they handing out $100 handshakes, you're sorely mistaken.
Start with the dude that claims he judges recruits on offer list, but then refuses to judge the latest recruit on his offer list. You can't wrap your brain around such an argument, best to just "ignore" it.
Do you really think we are the only school to suspend players for minor infractions? Didn't PSU suspend one of their best dlinemen for the 1st half of the Ohio State game for missing a class? A class?!
I also recall them suspending 2 starters for the Rose Bowl due to weed, if I'm not mistaken.
Sure it does. Money gets you better coaches and better recruiters. Money gets you more and better staff to support those coaches. Money gets you facilities. Money gets you your own behemoth stadium and lets you buy home games.
The number I saw a while back was $650k or so in recruiting expenses for Pitt. PSU spent over $900k last year and over $1m the year before. I don't know what they spend it on, or what value they get out of it. The items in my first paragraph are more important.
Standard stuff. Flights, hotel rooms, meals, all for the coaches on the road. Some schools have so much $$ allotted towards this that they don't need to think about it. Other schools have to truly budget their way thru a recruiting season.
At the end of the day recruiting budgets are nickel and dime stuff when the head coaches are all making $3 million yr or more, and the big time coordinators over a $1 million. If recruiting budgets are holding teams back, then they need to drop down to a lower level.
Same thing with so-called hundred dollar handshakes. If schools did that, they'd all do that, and they'd cancel each other out. $100 here and there from boosters is nothing at all for the big schools. I'm sure it happens, but it doesn't influence any kid in a major way if it does.
Last edited:
Yes! You seemed well versed on the happenings with the Nittany Lions.... I'll put you on "ignore" too, snowflake.... Take a hike troll...
Recruiting budgets and coaching salaries/facilites are completely different animals.
Any college coach will tell you that recruiting stipends for gas tank kids are overrated. You either can recruit or you can't. PITT is and has gotten whipped for the gas tank kids for the past 3 seasons.
Spending $250,000 more on the recruiting process is not the reason why Penn State out-recruits Pitt. We could spend 3x more than them and still not recruit as well. It's about the program and the coach's record and rep.
Some of you still seem to think this...
1. Coach needs to get out there and recruit like a mad man
2. Recruiting budget needs to increase
3. Some other stuff
4. National champions.
1. Steal LBs from the Ivy League
2. Beat Elite teams with those Ivy League players
3. Win at an elite level with those Ivy League players
4. Then elite players come
5. Then you stay at an elite level
OR
1. Hire the young up and coming recruiters from lower level school that are plugged into local areas we are capable of winning upper tier recruits in (not FL, not TX).
2. Win a larger share of those recruiting battles
3. Improve the level of winning on the field with this improved talent
4. Which gives these legit recruiters more bullets in the chamber to work with
5. Which allows the talent to improve even more
6. Etc.
Hmmmmm....
Background doesn't matter. Want proof? You have been wrong about things more than anyone, and have more experience than most.
Just hire some "young up and coming recruiters"? If they are good at recruiting they will likely be snatched up already, but it won't matter much anyway. Pitt is not a traditional campus, does not have a traditional gameday atmosphere, has a recent history of coaching turnover, has lots of empty seats at games, and doesn't win above the average level for power 5 schools. We aren't going to suddenly convince kids to come to Pitt simply from hiring some "young up and comers". If those things I mentioned matter, the recruit is going elsewhere and the greatest recruiter in the world won't change that.
1. Good coach
2. Consistency
3. Win more games
This will be the most sustainable way to success and a model that has a better chance to maintain when the head coach does change.
Preach bro!
1. Good coach
2. Consistency
3. Win more games
That's exactly how VT built their program...
How does one become a young, up and coming recruiter? Is there a special training program for that?
sure it does. It provides context and understanding of where the author is coming from.
I'm sure you'll give the whole James Bryant thing as a way to prove I'm wrong about everything... That was so 15 years ago.
For real - what's your background. If I was looking to get advice from you on this subject, tell me why I should believe you? It's not really personal.
You're young and at a school that isn't going to produce recruiting results regardless of how good you are, but everybody can see you'd be a wild man at a major school.
Do you actually think these guys don't exist? Willie Taggart had a very good recruiting reputation even as a positional coach at Western Kentucky.
Jeff Hafley is another good example.
Joe Osovet at Tennessee is killing it on the recruiting trail right now. It's his 1st year and everyone on the recruiting scene is talking about him.
No they won't. Not every school wants to be the first to take the chance. When you're at our level, you need to be proactive. Think Billy Beane with the A's. How did he get them to compete? By taking chances and being proactive. You know, not saying, "Let me just do what they Yankees are doing. But get on in front of it."
And let me see if I can follow what you're saying. It's difficult to recruit at Pitt. There are a lot of inherent obstacles that must be overcome. Sooooooooooo, what we need to do is hire below average recruiters?
"Even the best recruiters will have a hard time recruiting at Pitt, so lets hire someone that sucks at recruiting."
The logical twists you guys get yourselves into in this thread...
Of course. This isn't rocket science. They want to pretend like it's impossible, thereby justifying the current course. And not even the current course. Because we haven't even actually achieved this level of "upper tier winning with lower tier recruits" results yet. But it's all they can point to. So they straw man everything else.
It's a lot like watching an episode of Ancient Aliens on the History Channel. Where they make it seem like it's impossible that these people could have built that. So...Aliens.
It's impossible for us to hire these young recruiters or to even recruit at a level above our current state. So...Narduzzi.
Wrong. They exist all over the place. The system gives birth to them every year. Much like with recruiting players, the trick is getting them before they blow up into 5-star coaching candidates. Because you're right, at that point, Pitt can't afford them.
This is where Narduzzi's contacts have to come into play. His buddies in the coaching fraternity have to lead him to these guys early in the process, because that is how the coaching world works, by internal word of mouth. Saban and Meyer don't have to do this, but everybody else does. Even Franklin starts his networking with young nobodies that he gets introduced to by his cohorts. Then when you have an opening, you immediately know where to look, and there is already a relationship in place.
At one point, all of these guys were young nobodies. Franklin, Smart, Christobal, etc. It's hard work to figure out who they are, I imagine, but it can be done.
First, being consistent is proactive for Pitt. It has pretty much been a foreign concept for them.
Second. I am not suggesting that we should purposely hire poor recruiters. That's an attempt to create a strawman. I simply don't care who the recruiters are. That's the job of the head coach. He appears to be a decent coach who can beat teams with more talent. That is a good sign. What I do know is that Narduzzi has recruited at roughly the same level as Chryst and Wannstedt, and ever so slightly better than Graham. I think he is a better coach than all three of them, and I predict that we will see more success on the field as a result. Once/if that happens, he should be able to improve on recruiting as he becomes a more established and more respected head coach at a program that is showing more consistency.
Nobody does that, though. Nobody consistently outperforms their talent. There is absolutely no example you can point to. Good coaches/programs consistently beat equal and less talented programs around 80% of the time. We certainly haven't proven we can do that under HCPN, yet, and then we play 4-6 games against teams with more talent than us. We will be lucky if a good coach can go .500 against those opponents. We don't get to be like Wisconsin and only play 1-2 of 12 games against teams with better talent, if we continue to recruit at this level.
My background is not in sports. It's turning data into insight. There simply is not enough data to draw a concrete conclusion, but I can tell you that the limited data I see tells me that it's more important to have a good coach than a great recruiter.
Talent level matters, but those schools with great talent have built their programs over time to get there. AND they are able to maintain it over time. We should be happy with things considering. Narduzzi needs three more years to get a good idea of how he has really done.
Wisconsin built it because they play Iowa and Purdue and NW and Ill. every year.
Do you honestly think if Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State were on their schedule every year, they would maintain this run? Of course not. They would need far more talent.
Last edited:
But you're keeping the rest of the league in a vacuum. I brought this up earlier in this thread.
One major difference between us "trolls" and the "stars don't matter, offers matter, but even they don't matter when it's convenient for them not to matter" crowd, is that us trolls are worried about the rest of the ACC. Miami bringing in Top 10 classes with Mark Richt at the helm, concerns me. Fuente having a .89 average recruit ranking with his current class, worries me. North Carolina being free from the cloud of sanctions and having their best class last year, worries me.
You say, "Hey, we did this with these lower quality coaches. I believe Narduzzi is a really good coach (not sure I see the evidence of that, but fine), so imagine what he will do. But Al Golden is no longer in this division. Mike London is no longer in this division. The corpse of Frank Beamer is no longer in this division. You can't keep all the other inputs the same, and just change Pitt's coaching level.
Pitt was in the Big East minus Miami and VT. They recruited by far the best talent in the conference. And.... THUD.
Bingo!
Teams that have been mediocre for the last 35 years need stability. Changing coaches is the last thing you want to do unless it is absolutely necessary. If Harris and DW would have gotten the administrative support that Narduzzi is now getting there would have been no need to fire them...
Narduzzi is the right guy. We need to be supportive.
You're confusing necessary with sufficient. I've never argued talent is sufficient.
Yes, because we had a loser HC.
What you are proposing is dependent on having the BEST staff of our competition and that translating to beating more talented teams most of the time AND winning all vs the equal or lesser talented teams. That is preposterous and there is absolutely evidence of that.
Nobody suggested a coaching change at this point. However, we have absolutely NO IDEA if HCPN is the right guy. There have been some big wins. There have been some awful losses and performances. The recruiting is pedestrian. All we have is hope.
I've never said having talent is sufficient. That that guarantees you will win. Of course coaches can screw it up. We've all seen elite recruiters like Ron Zook that were just horrible coaches, and wasted the talent.
Talent is a condition to consistently winning. But it is not a guarantee that you will consistently win.
The coaching change argument is kind of funny in the context of us being "Nitter trolls."
Based on how bad Penn State is dominating the Mid-Atlantic in recruiting, does anybody actually think Penn State fans want Narduzzi fired?
I'm sure Ohio State fans trolled Michigan fans during the Rich Rod era. But I promise you know Ohio State fans advocated for the firing of Rich Rod. They all hoped he would stay there forever.
We can't both be Penn State trolls AND calling for Narduzzi to be fired. It's one or the other.
We currently have the talent to consistently compete with and defeat all Coastal teams except for Miami. A good coach will be able to establish his team and beat the teams with comparable recruiting. Over the last 5 full classes, Pitt has very comparable recruiting to the other Coastal teams except for Miami (who Narduzzi has shown he can beat). If we use the last 3 years then the Pitt does even better in the rankings.
Bottom line. Pitt needs to beat the teams that recruit at the same level. If Narduzzi is a better coach then those teams have, he will consistently beat those schools, and as a result will start to outrecruit them as well.
5 Year Recruiting Star Average
We currently have the talent to consistently compete with and defeat all Coastal teams except for Miami. A good coach will be able to establish his team and beat the teams with comparable recruiting. Over the last 5 full classes, Pitt has very comparable recruiting to the other Coastal teams except for Miami (who Narduzzi has shown he can beat). If we use the last 3 years then the Pitt does even better in the rankings.
Bottom line. Pitt needs to beat the teams that recruit at the same level. If Narduzzi is a better coach then those teams have, he will consistently beat those schools, and as a result will start to outrecruit them as well.
5 Year Recruiting Star Average
So what is our excuse for 17 losses in 3 years? If we have the talent, what are we waiting for?
And this is kind of irrelevant, because once again, the concern is the projection going forward. The new ACC Coastal. Removing Miami and UNC, which both usually out recruit VT to various degrees.
Fuente in his first 2 full recruiting classes has a .8679 average recruit ranking, with a 25th ranked average. His current class is 27th with a .8944 average.
During that two year time period, with an extra year to establish recruiting ties, we are at a .8539 average, with the 41th class. Our current class is unranked with a 0 average.
You can believe that Narduzzi is so far above Fuente in coaching that this won't matter. But I see no evidence of that. And so to me, is seriously concerning. That we are probably going to be the 4th talented most talented team in the division in a year, and probably have at best an interchangeable coaching staff with these other programs.
Similar threads
