Where have I heard this before.

[anon_vmuicqnzlyp3u]

Recruiting should be judged AFTER the on field performance, not before it. that's the whole problem here. Someone flip flopped it years ago and everyone went with it. Good recruiting is proven AFTER the game, not before it.

If you are winning 10 games in the P5, you've recruited very well, no matter what rivals or scouts said in June about your class..

That is a fair argument. However, can you help me. Where does Clemson wind up in recruiting rankings? How about Alabama? How about Georgia? Or OSU? How about Penn State? I am just trying to make the connection between Playoff teams and recruiting. It appears, and I could be wrong , that those teams mentioned usually have pretty good recruiting rankings. I am just trying to figure out the correlation.

 

[ebonylover40]

I agree with the first 2. But GA and PSU dont make the playoffs every year. GA and PSU always have high rankings along with a lot of others but they dont perform at that level. The rankings mean nothing if the players dont back it up. There are 2 or 3 hundred schools recruiting. If your class is rated in top 35 you are doing good

I mean they have to be ranked somewhere. You cant all be top 10. If you are top 35 you can compete in any conference. OU isnt always great. They play a soft schedule and then get dusted in a bowl game. Fans are too motivated about the rankinga, which is why they have them. A high ranking class doesnt always mean success unless you are top 5.

 

[Swervin27]

That is a fair argument. However, can you help me. Where does Clemson wind up in recruiting rankings? How about Alabama? How about Georgia? Or OSU? How about Penn State? I am just trying to make the connection between Playoff teams and recruiting. It appears, and I could be wrong , that those teams mentioned usually have pretty good recruiting rankings. I am just trying to figure out the correlation.

Im not saying these recruiting rankings and success on the field are mutually wxclusive.

 

[cashisking884]

Because it's a huge gap.

It should be noted that OU isn't even a "Blue Chip Ratio" team. Their recruiting has really only taken off again the last two years as Riley took on a bigger role and then took over. But OU's team even last year was grouped in as a Tier II recruiting team, and has been for a while now. So it's not like this disparity is OSU v. a Bama or Ohio State or UGA recruiting power.
But it is fair to say we would probably only expect to see an OU-OSU W-L gap when we see an OU-OSU recruiting gap. And probably only Miami looks like they are on their way in the Coastal to recruiting that kind of gap.
However, we would expect to see a W-L gap when there is a recruiting gap, right? If we are in the latter half of the 30's or 40's in recruiting, and VT is 20 to 25, and UNC is 20 to 25, one wouldn't expect the OU-OSU W-L gap, but that recruiting disparity will probably create some kind of W-L gap.

 

[cashisking884]

I agree with the first 2. But GA and PSU dont make the playoffs every year. GA and PSU always have high rankings along with a lot of others but they dont perform at that level. The rankings mean nothing if the players dont back it up. There are 2 or 3 hundred schools recruiting. If your class is rated in top 35 you are doing good

PSU also plays in a division with two teams that recruit at a level above them, except in the last class. That's not to say that they don't ever lose to anybody but those teams. Last year they lost to OSU and Michigan State (there may have been one more, but I don't think so). OSU isn't an example of "not playing to the high ranking," as OSU usually has a top 2 class. Michigan State was an upset, but those teams have been even during Michigan State's run (both basically had the exact same talent calculator ranking in 15 and 16, it's only in 17 that you see a gap due to the huge exodus MSU had in their 2016 class).
UGA is in the same situation. Yes, they usually have a high recruiting ranking. But guess who else does? Almost everybody in the SEC. UGA can have the 5th ranked class in the country, and it only be the 3rd or 4th ranked class in the SEC some years. That's not really underperforming. That's what happens when you can't out talent teams on a week to week basis.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Because they only have to play 2 games against teams with better talent. One of those programs has been in disarray for the last 6+ years. They lose almost every time to the other.

So does everyone else.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Recruiting should be judged AFTER the on field performance, not before it. that's the whole problem here. Someone flip flopped it years ago and everyone went with it. Good recruiting is proven AFTER the game, not before it.

If you are winning 10 games in the P5, you've recruited very well, no matter what rivals or scouts said in June about your class..

Bingo!

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Except then "good" recruiting is all relative because of your competition. Having a national recruiting ranking of 30 in the B12 means you should be the 3rd or 4th most talented team. In the SEC? You may be the least talented team.

They don’t play in the SEC, they play in the Big 12.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I don't know what that means? Yes, they rank classes, and rank them now. But they aren't saying you shouldn't win 10 games a year with a mid 30's class. That seems to be something you are saying.
What certain analytic types do, is look at class rankings, and compare it with competition. And that determines how many games a team "should" win. Bring in the 35th ranked class in the Mountain West? You should basically run the table. Bring in the 35th ranked class in the SEC? You'r going to need some help.
But the Rivals rankings are ambivalent of any of this, and do not pretend to make such an analysis.

Right, but the fans (and AD) do and that’s the problem. The problem is not Rivals are Scout or 247 or ESPN or anyone else. Those are just recruiting services and their rankings are a lot like when radio stations rate the 100 best rock songs of all time or Tripadvisor rates to 14 best cities in the country.

It is when people try to take these loose metrics and try to turn them into science that the problems arise.

If this guy is winning 10 games a year, things are working great in Stillwater – better than they ever have in that program’s history.

To tinker with it is definitely - not probably, definitely - going to lead to disaster for them. Pitt fans, of all fans, should know that very well by now. However, we are completely insane ourselves and we never believe that the stove is hot. We not only have to touch it, we have to put our face right on the griddle over and over and over and over again.

Now you know why this guy is linked to every open job out there even though Oklahoma State is his alma mater. He’s trying to get away from this lunatic primary booster and his equally insane or feckless athletic director. Gundy is eventually going to be successful and he’ll go somewhere else and they’ll win too. And Oklahoma State will go back to what they have typically been over the years.

AD: “Well, coach, 10 wins per year is great and all but we’re not consistently beating Oklahoma and that is unacceptable.”

GUNDY: “Well, who is consistently beating Oklahoma? Furthermore, when in our entire 100+ year history has Oklahoma State ever consistently beaten Oklahoma?”

AD: “Don’t be so defensive or logical, Mike. I just want something to happen that we are structurally incapable of doing. Is that so hard?“

GUNDY: “I’m calling my agent.”

 

[cashisking884]

The issue isn't really that they don't "consistently" beat OU. It's that they have only beaten them twice in 15 years.
Most programs do not accept that level of dominance from their rival. Ones paying 5 million a year for their coach? No chance. But that really isn't new, or the result of "loose metrics." That has always been the standard in college football. "Don't get bent over by your rival." Hell, college football is largely built around regional rivalries. "National consciousness" didn't really exist until mid-80's at the earliest.
All the metrics do is give explanations.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

You accept it when that is the historical norm and when you are winning double digit games per year - which is definitely not their historical norm. The all time record in the Bedlam Series favors Oklahoma, 87-18-7.

Or, if you are an idiot, like this AD apparently, you fire that guy and roll the dice on someone new. That way you get to continue to lose your arch rival and you don’t have to be bothered by winning so many games per season.

I am not kidding when I say it is difficult to imagine how people can possibly see the wisdom of this mentality? I’m not trying to be a jerk but it literally is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

If this guy feels underappreciated at his alma mater, I would have to say that I can’t blame him. I think he is pretty clearly underappreciated there.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

They don’t play in the SEC, they play in the Big 12.

I’m not sure why folks are looking down at the b12

With unbalanced schedules in the acc-
Our conference slate top to bottom most years is pretty equivalent.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I’m not sure why folks are looking down at the b12

With unbalanced schedules in the acc-
Our conference slate top to bottom most years is pretty equivalent.

I wasn’t looking down on the Big 12. I was simply saying that to compare them to how teams recruit – or allegedly recruit – in the SEC is silly because that’s not who they play against for most of their season. They play against the teams of the Big 12, therefore that’s who they should be compared with.

And when you judge them against the Big 12, don’t compare them for how well they are *projected* to do, judge them by how well they *actually* do.

This whole conversation is surreal and it’s something I’ve been railing against for a long time now because it simply doesn’t make any sense.

Guys, the beauty of sports – and indeed the reason I watch them – is because they give you concrete answers. As Bill Parcells once so famously said, “You are what your record says you are.” Further, you are what the scoreboard says you are.

There’s no political spin, there’s no projections for next quarter, there’s just the game and the result.

You are *not* what some former mailman in Cleveland says he thinks you will one day be. You are what your record says you are and in Oklahoma State’s case, they are a consistent 10 win team...for the first time in their program’s history

They are not often beating Oklahoma but nobody else is either. To mess with that formula would be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in major college sports - that is saying a mouthful because I am a Pitt fan!

However, for some bizarre reason, there are people out there who see the wisdom in that mentality. Refusing to settle for mediocrity and all that – because 10 wins per season is the mediocrity in Stillwater. Who the hell knows? There are people here who thought that hiring Todd Graham was a good idea so I suppose anything is possible.

 

[cashisking884]

Using "historical norms" is kinda silly. By that argument we should be bringing in elite classes and competing for national championships.
College football changes. For most of the OU-OSU series, OU was one of the major programs in college football. They spent like one of the major programs in college football. OSU was basically a farm system.
Today, Gundy is one of the highest paid coaches in college football. It's fine if you want to judge him by Pat Jones going against Barry Switzer. But OSU is no longer the program it was back then. They now have a billionaire writing football checks for them.
I think arguing what you do against your rival is irrelevant, as long as you beat Iowa State and Baylor and Kansas, is defensible. But to say you don't understand why a school would want a little more bang for their buck for 5 million a year, is kind of dumb. And largely ignores what college football is built on.

 

[cashisking884]

I wasn’t looking down on the Big 12. I was simply saying that to compare them to how teams recruit – or allegedly recruit – in the SEC is silly because that’s not who they play against for most of their season. They play against the teams of the Big 12, therefore that’s who they should be compared with.

And when you judge them against the Big 12, don’t compare them for how well they are *projected* to do, judge them by how well they *actually* do.

This whole conversation is surreal and it’s something I’ve been railing against for a long time now because it simply doesn’t make any sense.

Guys, the beauty of sports – and indeed the reason I watch them – is because they give you concrete answers. As Bill Parcells once so famously said, “You are what your record says you are.” Further, you are what the scoreboard says you are.

There’s no political spin, there’s no projections for next quarter, there’s just the game and the result.

You are *not* what some former mailman in Cleveland says he thinks you will one day be. You are what your record says you are and in Oklahoma State’s case, they are a consistent 10 win team...for the first time in their program’s history

They are not often beating Oklahoma but nobody else is either. To mess with that formula would be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in major college sports - that is saying a mouthful because I am a Pitt fan!

However, for some bizarre reason, there are people out there who see the wisdom in that mentality. Refusing to settle for mediocrity and all that – because 10 wins per season is the mediocrity in Stillwater. Who the hell knows? There are people here who thought that hiring Todd Graham was a good idea so I suppose anything is possible.

None of this really has much to do with anything.
What people are trying to do is look at the late 90's Oakland A's and figure out HOW they are doing what they are doing, and to what extent it can be copied. Simply saying, "hey, they win," is not saying anything. Everybody knows they win. What they want to know is how they can also win?

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Using "historical norms" is kinda silly. By that argument we should be bringing in elite classes and competing for national championships.
College football changes. For most of the OU-OSU series, OU was one of the major programs in college football. They spent like one of the major programs in college football. OSU was basically a farm system.
Today, Gundy is one of the highest paid coaches in college football. It's fine if you want to judge him by Pat Jones going against Barry Switzer. But OSU is no longer the program it was back then. They now have a billionaire writing football checks for them.
I think arguing what you do against your rival is irrelevant, as long as you beat Iowa State and Baylor and Kansas, is defensible. But to say you don't understand why a school would want a little more bang for their buck for 5 million a year, is kind of dumb. And largely ignores what college football is built on.

Well, if you think the contextualizing the situation is a waste of time then I suppose there’s no reasoning with you or this athletic director. I think contextualizing the situation gives you a much more even-tempered/accurate view of what’s happening in Stillwater.

Yes, they are spending more money now than ever before. However, so too is everyone else - including Oklahoma.

T Boone Pickens is 90 years-old. He didn’t just start generously donating to that program, he’s been doing it for decades. The problem is Oklahoma has five of those types of donors - and 30 more guys who are just under him in net worth.

Stillwater is still hard place to recruit to. They still have a much smaller fan base than Oklahoma. They still have a limited history. The only thing that has changed is they have a really good coach and they appear poised to change that as well.

Losing to Oklahoma most years is very much the norm, beating everyone else is very much not the norm.

BTW, using our historical norms should not lead anyone to think that we should be consistently bringing elite classes or competing for national championships. That was a very brief blip on our historical radar and people consistently misunderstanding that blip has led to a hell of a lot of our problems over the years.

 

[cashisking884]

Well, if you think the contextualizing the situation is a waste of time then I suppose there’s no reasoning with you or this athletic director. I think contextualizing the situation gives you a much more even-tempered/accurate view of what’s happening in Stillwater.

Losing to Oklahoma most years is very much the norm, beating everyone else is very much not the norm.

BTW, using our historical norms should not lead anyone to think that we should be consistently bringing elite classes or competing for national championships. That was a very brief blip on our historical radar and people consistently misunderstanding that blip has led to a hell of a lot of our problems over the years.

Actually I think contextualizing it is important. That's kind of what I did. OSU is no longer the program they were these years you are pointing to. You must put them in the context of today. Which is a program paying top dollar for a coach, and building elite facilities on their campus. They are running themselves like a first rate college football program.
You for some reason want to ignore that context, and basically say, "that's cute and all. But you should keep expecting 1980 results, and so be happy and shut up when you do better than that."

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

No, you’re not contextualizing it because you are leaving out one crucial point. Oklahoma is ALSO building amazing facilities, hiring great coaches and pouring gazillions of dollars into their program.

All of the money the Cowboys have poured into their program has clearly paid off. Just look at their OVERALL success!

They’re not gaining on Oklahoma, but very few are. The Sooners played in the national championship semifinals last year.

I don’t understand this argument, I really don’t? It’s like people are missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Also, I have news for you. Texas isn’t going to stay down for very long, so the Cowboys are MUCH more likely to take a step backwards than they are forwards no matter who is their coach or how many waterfalls or sushi bars they put in their locker room.

 

[cashisking884]

No, you’re not contextualizing it because you are leaving out one crucial point. Oklahoma is ALSO building amazing facilities, hiring great coaches and pouring gazillions of dollars into their program.

All of the money the Cowboys have poured into their program has clearly paid off. Just look at their OVERALL success!

They’re not gaining on Oklahoma, but very few are. The Sooners played in the national championship semifinals last year.

I don’t understand this argument, I really don’t? It’s like people are missing the forest for the trees.

Great. OU and OSU are building amazing facilities and paying huge amounts of dollars for coaches. I'm not sure why you think that means the record should be 2-13? When it was JUST OU doing that, it made sense. Which was the case most of their rivalry. It's not now though.
You're saying if both schools build a mansion, only OU should expect to find a buyer for it. I'm not sure why? Except that OU historically was the only school to build mansions.
And you keep repeating the same argument again and again. And I get it. As I said, it's defensible. They pay Gundy 5 million to beat the fellow run of the mill programs. He does at a very high rate. So they are getting the return on their investment.
But why you can't even understand OSU's point, I'm not sure. Except that, well, history.

 

[cashisking884]

Also, I have news for you. Texas isn’t going to stay down for very long, so the Cowboys are MUCH more likely to take a step backwards than they are forwards no matter who is their coach or how many waterfalls or sushi bars they put in their locker room.

Of course. That's one of the arguments us recruiting analytics trolls on this board make when OSU is discussed.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that Oklahoma and Texas have some inherent advantages over Oklahoma State (and everyone else in that conference) that Oklahoma State is never going to be able to overcome no matter how much money they put into their program or who is their coach. That’s what I’m saying.

Therefore, if you are winning 10 games per year at Oklahoma State you are doing one hell of a job and probably maximizing that resource.

I don’t look at that as beating a bunch of “also rans.” I think consistently competing for the conference championship in a major conference like the B12 is really difficult to do and an amazing job by Gundy.

I think people are underappreciating how difficult that is to do – especially in a place like Stillwater Oklahoma – and I also think that the Oklahoma State fans are probably going to regret not appreciating this era more when it inevitably ends.

I just can’t understand how people can put projections ahead of results? That will never make any sense to me and no matter how you slice it that’s exactly what’s happening here.

 

[cashisking884]

I don’t look at that as beating a bunch of “also rans.” I think consistently competing for the conference championship in a major conference like the B12 is really difficult to do and an amazing job by Gundy.

I think people are underappreciating how difficult that is to do – especially in a place like Stillwater Oklahoma – and I also think that the Oklahoma State fans are probably going to regret not appreciating this era more when it inevitably ends.

I just can’t understand how people can put projections ahead of results? That will never make any sense to me and no matter how you slice it that’s exactly what’s happening here.

It's weird to me that people say this. Gundy makes 5 million a year. He's one of the highest paid coaches in the game. I would LOVE to be under appreciated like that. My second or third post in this thread explicitly says what an insanely good job Gundy does. No idea where the idea that people don't appreciate him is coming from?
I think where Gundy and OSU comes in is the exact same way that Wisky comes in. This type of model that can be replicated. "Gundy does it, so there's hope for us."
And that's where the, "okay, lets really break down what Gundy is doing and how he is doing it and what factors are at play here" analysis comes in. And why that discussion takes place really isn't hard to understand unless you really try not to understand it.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

My goal for the Pitt football program is to one day be similarly overrated.

 

[Jpripper88]

So does everyone else.

Except we play 4-6 games against teams more talented and the gap is growing.

They don’t play in the SEC, they play in the Big 12.

Which is precisely the point.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I’m not understanding this post.

 

[cashisking884]

My goal for the Pitt football program is to one day be similarly overrated.

I have no idea to what extent people argue Gundy or OSU is "overrated."
But if we did what Gundy is doing, we certainly wouldn't be overrated. With Penn State, Miami, VT, ND, UNC, Tenn., and Florida State on the schedule in future seasons, we will be doing even more than Gundy has to do at OSU.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I don’t know who’s making the claim either, but I suspect it’s the same maniacs who are trying to argue that fans are somehow justified in their skepticism of a team that is regularly winning 10+ games per year.

There are very few scenarios in major college football in which that could possibly be true and that definitely isn’t true in Madison, Stillwater or hopefully Pittsburgh.

You have persuaded me though. I hope Oklahoma State’s athletic director gets tired of Gundy’s shoddy recruiting and fires him and replaces him with someone new and who can beat Oklahoma.

They are a big-time program now, so of course they could attract many, many fine coaches. I’m sure if they do that it’s going to work out amazingly well for them.

 

[cashisking884]

I don’t know who’s making the claim either, but I suspect it’s the same maniacs who are trying to argue that fans are somehow justified in their skepticism of a team that is regularly winning 10+ games per year.

You don't know who is making the claim, or you don't know if anybody is making the claim?

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

This is getting silly. I will leave it at this...

What is Oklahoma State supposed to do? They have a coach who can’t seem to beat Oklahoma, but who also can’t seem to lose to anyone else.

So, what are their options?

They could fire him and roll the dice on somebody who “recruits better;” or they could exercise patience and hope that one of these years everything comes together and they do beat the Sooners and everyone else.

Those appear to be their two options and from my vantage point that doesn’t seem to be a very difficult decision.

For people who say keep Gundy but recruit better, I don’t think that’s a realistic option because if he could do that I’m sure he would have already done that.

So, what should they do? What is their realistic course of action here?

 

[cashisking884]

This is getting silly. I will leave it at this...

What is Oklahoma State supposed to do? They have a coach who can’t seem to beat Oklahoma, but who also can’t seem to lose to anyone else.

So, what are their options?

They could fire him and roll the dice on somebody who “recruits better;” or they could exercise patience and hope that one of these years everything comes together and they do beat the Sooners and everyone else.

Those appear to be their two options and from my vantage point that doesn’t seem to be a very difficult decision.

For people who say keep Gundy but recruit better, I don’t think that’s a realistic option because if he could do that I’m sure he would have already done that.

So, what should they do? What is their realistic course of action here?

You seem to just be arguing with your straw men. Gundy isn't under appreciated, his bank account shows that. Nobody is arguing OSU is overrated. And nobody has said to fire Gundy or for OSU to do anything, so of course nobody has the solution to a position they haven't advocated. Only the AD is saying OSU for sure should recruit better. So I would pass this question along to him if you want the answer.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

They are not straw men, there are direct answers to this nonsense. The athletic director is not idly pondering how great it would be to recruit better, he’s making a public and very thinly veiled threat. Any other interpretation of these comments is completely disingenuous.

The AD is out of line here – pure and simple. He should stay in his own lane and focus on scheduling and fundraising and let the actual football experts handle the football decisions.

As Pitt fans, we have all seen firsthand what happens when a non-football expert starts to dabble in football decisions. It ends poorly for all concerned.

Just because you have the power to do something doesn’t make it the correct decision to exercise that authority.

If the Oklahoma State athletic director doesn’t realize his limitations, or refuses to accept them, and he chases away a really good coach, he too will soon be looking for a job and he will richly deserve his unemployment.

Also, Oklahoma State will almost certainly end up being Oklahoma State again despite all of the resources they have poured into that program.

 

[cashisking884]

They are not straw men, there are direct answers to this nonsense. The athletic director is not idly pondering how great it would be to recruit better, he’s making a public and very thinly veiled threat. Any other interpretation of these comments is completely disingenuous.

Which is why I said it's best to direct the question to him, since he's the only one affirmatively advocating what you want answer to.

 

[pittdan77]

So, what should they do? What is their realistic course of action here?

I'd say recruit better but that seems to be dismissed pretty easily around here.

 

[Jpripper88]

They are not straw men, there are direct answers to this nonsense. The athletic director is not idly pondering how great it would be to recruit better, he’s making a public and very thinly veiled threat. Any other interpretation of these comments is completely disingenuous.

The AD is out of line here – pure and simple. He should stay in his own lane and focus on scheduling and fundraising and let the actual football experts handle the football decisions.

As Pitt fans, we have all seen firsthand what happens when a non-football expert starts to dabble in football decisions. It ends poorly for all concerned.

Just because you have the power to do something doesn’t make it the correct decision to exercise that authority.

If the Oklahoma State athletic director doesn’t realize his limitations, or refuses to accept them, and he chases away a really good coach, he too will soon be looking for a job and he will richly deserve his unemployment.

Also, Oklahoma State will almost certainly end up being Oklahoma State again despite all of the resources they have poured into that program.

But the AD's job is to manage the coaches and fund his programs. If his major donors are tired of losing to OU and feel like they will be passed by UT as soon as they have their head on straight (this year or next) then they are looking at 9-3 as their ceiling (with still 7-5 and 6-6 seasons thrown in) without beating anyone that gets those boosters excited and not truly competing for the B12. That creates an issue for the AD. You can argue whether that is smart or not, but that is most definitely the AD's lane. Gundy is a very good coach and wins a great majority of the game where they have equal or better talent. He doesn't beat OU. That matters.

On a larger note, if these same type of results (similar winning percentage against equal or less talent and similar against more talented teams) Pitt's ceiling would be about 8-4 or 9-3 and essentially never really competing for the ACC. That won't be acceptable here, either.

 

[cashisking884]

On a larger note, if these same type of results (similar winning percentage against equal or less talent and similar against more talented teams) Pitt's ceiling would be about 8-4 or 9-3 and essentially never really competing for the ACC. That won't be acceptable here, either.

That winning %, but also losing to Penn State basically every year. That wouldn't be acceptable. Hell, Vegas has us at what, 4 or 5 wins next year? They have the Penn State game as a double digit underdog. And you still have a decent % of our fan base putting it as a W in their season predictions.
In the end, it's possible for OSU not to be able to recruit at a very good level, but still think their recruiting should be improved compared to what it currently is.
I mean, look at their current class. Look at where some of these kids are rated and their offer sheet. About half their class doesn't have a P5 offer. They are beating out Cornell for these kids. They have a skill position player that has a lower rating than the punter they have committed. I've never seen that.

https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma-state/Season/2019-Football/Commits/

If people want to argue it doesn't matter, they are going to win 9 or 10 games with the Cornell OT, so why do you care about these silly recruiting ratings, that's fine. There is some merit to that argument. But to argue this is just what the recruiting should be at OSU, and so accept it, is just silly.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

But the AD's job is to manage the coaches and fund his programs. If his major donors are tired of losing to OU and feel like they will be passed by UT as soon as they have their head on straight (this year or next) then they are looking at 9-3 as their ceiling (with still 7-5 and 6-6 seasons thrown in) without beating anyone that gets those boosters excited and not truly competing for the B12. That creates an issue for the AD. You can argue whether that is smart or not, but that is most definitely the AD's lane. Gundy is a very good coach and wins a great majority of the game where they have equal or better talent. He doesn't beat OU. That matters.

On a larger note, if these same type of results (similar winning percentage against equal or less talent and similar against more talented teams) Pitt's ceiling would be about 8-4 or 9-3 and essentially never really competing for the ACC. That won't be acceptable here, either.

In addition to managing the coaches, he also has to do whatever he can to manage the boosters. We all know that you need generous boosters to fund a program, but boosters are also the number one reason why programs fall apart. Their passion and influence outweigh their acumen and that has led to numerous disasters through the years.

So again, what’s the remedy at Oklahoma State? What should they do? I think I know exactly what they should not do, but I’d like to hear your answer.

 

[pittmeister]

So again, what’s the remedy? What should they do? I think I know exactly what they should not do, but I’d like to hear your answer.

Dr.

Put those trolls (jpripper88 and cashisking884) on ignore. They will not answer your questions, they want to be argumentativeand contrary. They don't want a conversation . The want to bloviate, pontificate and be and all around pain in the ass in the midst of good news.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

No, I’m fine with them expressing their opinion. However, it doesn’t add up. Bottom line, they are putting projections ahead of actual results and that simply does not work, no matter how many times you try to manipulate or distort the conversation.

This feels to me like Oklahoma State is going to blow it and run off the very best coach they have ever had and in five years everyone’s going to look back and say what were they thinking?

And it will be everyone’s fault except the people who actually created that absurd boondoggle.

 

[pittmeister]

No, I’m fine with them expressing their opinion. However, it doesn’t add up. Bottom line, they are putting projections ahead of actual results and that simply does not work, no matter how many times you try to manipulate or distort the conversation.

This feels to me like Oklahoma State is going to blow it and run off the very best coach they have ever had and in five years everyone’s going to look back and say what were they thinking?

And it will be everyone’s fault except the people who actually created that absurd boondoggle.

Expressing an opinion and having a conversation is one thing, but refusing to answer questions for fear of being proven wrong is another... It's a waste of time.