WANNY!

[Pghfan]

That was 2010 I believe, we where 9-1 and where only beaten by a comeback for Wisconsin lead by Russell Wilson, then lost to WVU and the infamous 45-44 loss to Cincy, after leading 31-10. Finished 10-3 after beating UNC in the Tire Bowl! It was an OK year, but going into that WVU game, it felt like BCS was possible.

Going into the 2nd half of the CIncy game, it felt like BCS was possible. That WVU game was weird, the result didn't effect us either way which in turn, minimized the incentive which I think carried over to the cincy game. Almost wish we had Needed to win that game, maybe it would have helped a week later.

Hindsight being 20-20, we sure as hell shouldn't have fired Wanny. The abortion that happened after and still lingers could have been avoided if Pederson AND wanny weren't so dang stubborn..

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Going into the 2nd half of the CIncy game, it felt like BCS was possible. That WVU game was weird, the result didn't effect us either way which in turn, minimized the incentive which I think carried over to the cincy game. Almost wish we had Needed to win that game, maybe it would have helped a week later.

Hindsight being 20-20, we sure as hell shouldn't have fired Wanny. The abortion that happened after and still lingers could have been avoided if Pederson AND wanny weren't so dang stubborn..

That WVU loss in 2009 did more damage to Pitt than 13-9 did to WVU. How the Wann couldn't have the team fired up for that game with a Top 10 ranking on the line is beyond me. Since that loss, it has been a stream of mediocrity and not coming close to sniffing the top 25 again.

 

[PITTLAW]

Pitt was 5-2 in 2010 and had the same record as WVU and UCONN that year. Oddly enough those two losses were against WVU and UConn. Most people with a shred of logic can deduct that if WVU, UConn, and Pitt have the same record, and pitt lost to the other two, they finished in third out of those three teams.

The only two people in this universe that consider it a feather in wanny's cap that they were "co-champs" in an atrocious conference are wanny and td-6082.

Not to mention the Big East Conference...but I am certain they must have been biased. Hail to Pitt!

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

That was 2010 I believe, we where 9-1 and where only beaten by a comeback for Wisconsin lead by Russell Wilson, then lost to WVU and the infamous 45-44 loss to Cincy, after leading 31-10. Finished 10-3 after beating UNC in the Tire Bowl! It was an OK year, but going into that WVU game, it felt like BCS was possible.

Actually it did...
the loss meant the BEST cast scenerio against Cincy was Tying for the conference title, and winning the tie-breaker.
A win meat the best case was winning the conference outright.

Of course, Wanny gotta Wanny...so we lost both.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Not to mention the Big East Conference...but I am certain they must have been biased. Hail to Pitt!

Just like Syracuse, Boston College, and WVU were cochampions.
But, only 1 represented the conference in the top bowl game, did they?

 

[OriginalEther]

That was 2010 I believe, we where 9-1 and where only beaten by a comeback for Wisconsin lead by Russell Wilson, then lost to WVU and the infamous 45-44 loss to Cincy, after leading 31-10. Finished 10-3 after beating UNC in the Tire Bowl! It was an OK year, but going into that WVU game, it felt like BCS was possible.

Actually, that game was against NC State, who went 5-7 that year, with two of those wins coming against I-AA teams.
A dubious loss under the best of circumstances, but a really bad one considering the season as a whole.

Not to mention the Big East Conference...but I am certain they must have been biased. Hail to Pitt!

Just like Syracuse, Boston College, and WVU were cochampions.
But, only 1 represented the conference in the top bowl game, did they?

Tiebreakers......
Put it this way: if college football had a pro-style playoff in those years, where the #1 and #2 team in the conference made said playoff - and it was based of conference record, not the polls - which Pitt team would have made it, and which team would have sat?

 

[Jpripper88]

pitt-girl, This is one of those things that is going to strike a nerve as long as we continue to suck. When we start winning 9 to 10 games a year, and bring in Top 20 recruiting classes every year, along with a coach that doesn't bail at the first whiff of another job, then we will move past it. This was Gottfried/Hackett Part II in that it was a move that set the program back several years. It sucks and its embarassing for the program.

I think the competitive comparison is winning 8 games. The Big East was terrible. Wannstedt is/was/always will be a very bad HC. He was worth the shot because of his ties, but he definitely needed to be fired.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

As my father used to always say, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his a**. Wannstedt was a good recruiter, but a poor coach.

This is about all that needs to be said. It's really that simple.

Yes, he has passion for his alma mater.
Yes, he comes across as an affable guy.
Yes, he did a nice job of using his NFL coaching experience and Miami DC coaching to help him recruit well.

Unfortunately for him...
he just hasn't proven he has what it takes to be a very good head coach or is capable of coming up with and articulating many meaningful or insightful thoughts or is capable of coming up with a good solution for poor performances any of the teams were having.

Sometimes less talented coaches move up the ladder because they were at the right place at the right time- they can look impressive by association. Eventually, though, they become a bit exposed when they rise to head coach and can't prove they can do more than recruit well. They struggle to coach up players. They aren't able to come up with a smarter game plan than their opponents and they really have no idea how to make the proper adjustments during or after a game. They simply don't have what it takes to be a successful head coach. At that point, they either fail miserably or they are at least smart enough to make sure they surround themselves with enough talented coordinators/ position coaches who help then win just enough games to keep their job for a little while.

 

[Franb]

At the time, I was ok with firing him. I wouldnt have done it but I could understand it. However, the Haywood/Graham/Chryst combo as a replacement was worse than anybody could have imagined. Luckily Barry took Chryst off our hands and paid us a few million to do it so maybe we finally have the right guy, maybe.

I mean there is absolutely no debating that in hindsight, the firing of Wanny was terrible. We would have done better than 4 straight 6-6's. Nobody can debate that.

Nobody can debate that we would have done better than 4 straight 6-6 years - really?

How can anyone possibly know what Pitt would have done if he had not been fired? That is the problem with this whole discussion - we know what did happen, but there is just no way to know what would have happened if Dave had been the coach. You can speculate all you want to, but it is only speculation.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Nobody can debate that we would have done better than 4 straight 6-6 years - really?

How can anyone possibly know what Pitt would have done if he had not been fired? That is the problem with this whole discussion - we know what did happen, but there is just no way to know what would have happened if Dave had been the coach. You can speculate all you want to, but it is only speculation.

I'll point out that for 4 out of Dave's 6 seasons..we were on average a 6-6 club.

In fact... we were 23-24 in those 4 seasons in games Dave coached...so even if you want to give him the Bowl he didn't coach, he's still 0.500 in 2/3rds of his career at Pitt.

Yep..we sure miss that.

 

[ricflair4LIFE]

Jock Sutherland.