I don't know how hard we were trying to get Narduzzi 2 years ago, but I really think he is gonna make a name for himself at Pitt. He may have eventually jumped ship, but I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. Usually if coaches are taking the next job, thst means they are doing a good job, and then next man up.
(12-27-2014 10:54 PM)Former Lurker Wrote: [ -> ]Tubs is doing just fine.
No. He's not.
I don't know if Narduzzi would have been the answer or not. But when you are a program like UC, you need to embrace the roll of being a premier stepping stone program and attract the top young talent to take over your program.
We killed it with Dantonio and Kelly. I think Jones was a weak hire, but he at least "held the rope." LOL.
This program is regressing badly now though. Next year will probably be a good year. I would assume quite a bit better than the complete let down that this year was (just waiting for someone to tell me about our conference championship, it will be even better when it's someone that endlessly b*tches about the crap conference we are in). But long term, we are being led by a mediocre head coach. That isn't going to work at a program like UC that lacks the resources to compete with top level programs. We need something to differentiate us from the pack. We don't have that.
Trying to sign up and comers comes with a lot or risk. But at least there is upside with that risk. With Tuberville, the upside is basically nonexistent.
9 wins is a "complete letdown?" Then what would have been an average year? What would have been good? What would have been great?
(12-28-2014 01:56 AM)Dannyboy Wrote: [ -> ]9 wins is a "complete letdown?" Then what would have been an average year? What would have been good? What would have been great?
The nine wins were against hot garbage. You aren't going to turn any heads whooping up on Tulane and SMU.
The only four decent teams we played we lost by an average margin of 21.5 PPG.
That is what I would call a "letdown". If just winning 9 games against anybody is acceptable, then why are we even trying to get in a big boy conference
i think Tubs would work if we had the money for top flight offensive and defensive coordinators....ie we need to be a big boy program with big boy money. If we had that, Tubs would be fine. The problem is, Tubs at a program like UC means more of the decisions and etc are on Tubs and I don't think he's the best in that situation.
I don't see Narduzzi having a lot of success at Pitt. It's not a knock against him, I don't think many would turn that program around right now. That job is a complete dumpster fire and I am surprised he took it, I know he's lost out on a few HC opportunities in the past and was getting antsy, but he probably should have waited for something better.
Until this week, Pat Narduzzi had never been a head coach at any level. Good luck Pitt with the on-the-job training program.
(12-28-2014 01:36 AM)Overrated Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2014 10:54 PM)Former Lurker Wrote: [ -> ]Tubs is doing just fine.
No. He's not.
I don't know if Narduzzi would have been the answer or not. But when you are a program like UC, you need to embrace the roll of being a premier stepping stone program and attract the top young talent to take over your program.
We killed it with Dantonio and Kelly. I think Jones was a weak hire, but he at least "held the rope." LOL.
This program is regressing badly now though. Next year will probably be a good year. I would assume quite a bit better than the complete let down that this year was (just waiting for someone to tell me about our conference championship, it will be even better when it's someone that endlessly b*tches about the crap conference we are in). But long term, we are being led by a mediocre head coach. That isn't going to work at a program like UC that lacks the resources to compete with top level programs. We need something to differentiate us from the pack. We don't have that.
Trying to sign up and comers comes with a lot or risk. But at least there is upside with that risk. With Tuberville, the upside is basically nonexistent.
WTF, lol that makes no sense.
It is stunning how many of Tubs guys are already starting, when we should be winning with what Jones left, but Jones left the roster in the dumpster.
This thread was started by someone who abandoned his favorite team and began rooting for some obscure university in Kansas, then came back years later without an apology.
I can see how it might be difficult to be positive for someone like that.
We're lucky to have Tubs and his assistants.
Who did Dantonio beat here? Rutgers? And who did he beat in bowl games?
The Dantonio era sure has benefitted from time. Oh wait he recruited some of the guys Kelly won with.
Speaking of Kelly what were his big bowl wins here? Va tech? Nope. Florida?...no he wasn't there for that game.
Jones beat Vandy and Duke?...wait no not Duke he was shopping for orange clothing then.
(12-28-2014 08:39 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]i think Tubs would work if we had the money for top flight offensive and defensive coordinators....ie we need to be a big boy program with big boy money. If we had that, Tubs would be fine. The problem is, Tubs at a program like UC means more of the decisions and etc are on Tubs and I don't think he's the best in that situation.
As far as I know, we are one of the top G5 coaching salary pools. There is no excuse at all for USF last year, and Memphis this year (Memphis fans - you're a good team, I'm talking about getting creamed, not just losing - so, in advance, STFU
).
I am still bothered by the reports of the team not being emotionally up for the Memphis game, because it was sandwiched between OSU and Miami. Conference games, above all else, are what teams SHOULD be up for. Coaches need to recognize the .games that are the most important, and prepare the team accordingly
Now, the motorcycle tragedy is legit, but didn't that happen before the OSU game?
(12-28-2014 08:09 AM)jarr Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2014 01:56 AM)Dannyboy Wrote: [ -> ]9 wins is a "complete letdown?" Then what would have been an average year? What would have been good? What would have been great?
The nine wins were against hot garbage. You aren't going to turn any heads whooping up on Tulane and SMU.
The only four decent teams we played we lost by an average margin of 21.5 PPG.
That is what I would call a "letdown". If just winning 9 games against anybody is acceptable, then why are we even trying to get in a big boy conference
Yeah, you said that already. Now what are the answers to my questions?
Then what would have been an average year? What would have been good? What would have been great?
I think one of you haters should go apply for the job. Sheesh, you lose a game around here and all the negative Nancy's pile on.
VaTech has talent. Beamer and Foster are a helluva coaching combo. I had this one chalked up as a loss.
(12-28-2014 08:39 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]i think Tubs would work if we had the money for top flight offensive and defensive coordinators....ie we need to be a big boy program with big boy money. If we had that, Tubs would be fine. The problem is, Tubs at a program like UC means more of the decisions and etc are on Tubs and I don't think he's the best in that situation.
This is the way I see things. It seems like when there is an interruption with the coordinators, the wheels fall off on that side of the ball. For example, Eddie Gran's offense at first. The Defense at the beginning of this year. Tubs sees himself as the CEO and coaches the coaches. In order for his system to work, he needs top notch assistants that stay and provide continuity.
(12-28-2014 09:55 AM)Bearcatbdub Wrote: [ -> ]I think one of you haters should go apply for the job. Sheesh, you lose a game around here and all the negative Nancy's pile on.
VaTech has talent. Beamer and Foster are a helluva coaching combo. I had this one chalked up as a loss.
VaTech is a positively mediocre team this year. They had us on talent in a couple positions (DL and DB) but we certainly weren't at an overall talent disadvantage. Coaching maybe, but not talent. This is a team that lost 6-3 in double OT to a bad Wake team. If we are chalking up losses to teams like this before the game is played (we were favored BTW), it's a sad commentary on where this program is right now.
Nothing I saw yesterday made me think VT was more talented than UC. UC just made key mistakes and the coaches essentially gave up once Kiel went down. Not challenging the fumble at the goalline was outright negligence. I'm mixed about the staff. Other than USF game last year they have managed to win when they have a clear talent advantage but have been bad when they have somewhat equal or lesser talent. They were 0-4 against F+/- top 50 teams this year. Those were games UC regularly won when Kelly was here and won enough of with Butch Jones. This staff has not been able to beat good teams. They are recruiting well, so I hope that changes, but people are right to have worries.
(12-28-2014 09:57 AM)rosewater Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2014 08:39 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]i think Tubs would work if we had the money for top flight offensive and defensive coordinators....ie we need to be a big boy program with big boy money. If we had that, Tubs would be fine. The problem is, Tubs at a program like UC means more of the decisions and etc are on Tubs and I don't think he's the best in that situation.
This is the way I see things. It seems like when there is an interruption with the coordinators, the wheels fall off on that side of the ball. For example, Eddie Gran's offense at first. The Defense at the beginning of this year. Tubs sees himself as the CEO and coaches the coaches. In order for his system to work, he needs top notch assistants that stay and provide continuity.
this is what I'm saying...yes.
Some coaches are more hands on...BK basically designed and called the offense as an example. Others are CEO types. Tubbs is a CEO type, which is fine if you have to notch coaches under him. If not, you are in trouble.