In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 49
Online now 40 Record: 1921 (4/30/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
BG can handle that for us.
Ya BG, have your boys cut his grass and shine his Rock Panther!
He deserves a lot of recognition for his tangible support of Pitt Athletics.
Sherrill II would have been a stark contrast to what Majors II was. Majors was past his prime and drinking quite a lot. Jackie went to MS St and won! He went 7-5 in the first year when they did not have a winning season in 10 years. Then in 1999 went 10-2, after an 8-5 season and an SEC west title in 1998.
Sherrill was signed, sealed and delivered and O'Conner would not sign off on the hire because of the bull castration at the pep rally.
-- Wisconsin and Alvarez have more control over Pitt's football program than SP and Nordy do .. they are dictating to us who coaches our team .. what a disgrace
-- I'd rather have a new coach than a coach-in-waiting .. so who is Wisconsin going to hire? If Alvarez takes over then how do you recruit with Chryst being a lame duck? .. meanwhile, wisconsin would still be piloting our ship
Barry is not going to coach Wiscy past the Rose Bowl. He's already stated that.
Chryst is not their coach in waiting.
It's over. Chryst is at Pitt for the foreseeable future.
If true .. then hoorah.
I'm a Pitt fan. I ain't heard any fat ladies singing just yet.
Possibly, but then you still have a lot of issues at Pitt then that would have kept many from winning.
Majors recruited fairly decently too. I remember one of his classes being ranked in the top 25 back then.
Jackie sure did resurrect MSU but was moderately successful overall. His last three seasons he won only 8 games. And he left them with probation, just like A&M.
I mean, yeah, it is easy to say anything could have been better than Majors II, but the program was in such bad shape when Majors got on board, in so many ways, I have a hard time believing someone could do significantly better. O'Conner, Bozik, Jaynes. I have a hard time seeing much good coming from that even with Sherrill.
It depends what you want the fat lady to sing for. We're still 6-6 and headed to Birmingham. But we have a coach for a few years. Let's hope we see reason, and patience, to try to keep him longer than most.
I want to see someone hired at WIsconsin and then i'll be satisfied.
Nobody ever won at MS St to Jackie's level since 1919. The last coach to have a winning record at the school was Darrel Royal in 1955 after only 2 seasons. Think about that.............
Take away Jackie's last 3 years (when his wife was sick) and he was 75-48 (.640 win%). At a school with zero respect, facilities or character in the SEC. Things at PITT were not worse than they were at MS St in 1992.
Majors had a top 25 class but half of them quit, transferred or were booted within the first year.
I have always said, 11-1 on probation is better than 3-8.
This post was edited by GhostOfPitt4014 16 months ago
Perhaps. We'll never know. Pitt (O'Conner) was never going to hire Sherrill, so it is moot.
There are dozens of these "what if" scenarios dating back to 1938.
^^Stop being so dramatic johnny.
petesborg is an interesting fella .. but i am not he.
Just busting your stones that's all
I have a feeling the buyout helped both sides be honorable
As I said this ill end up helping PC and Pitt on the recruiting trail
A "Real PITT MAN"............get off my porch!
Unbelievably, someone told me this same thing 2 days ago. The coach in waiting part. As an aside, there's no better judge of talent in that business than Alvarez so the down side risk of Wisky having a need in the next 4 to 5 years is probably not to be expected. Chryst will be focused.
Could the worm really be turning?
This post was edited by hauser791 16 months ago
Is there such a thing as intangible support?
I'll assume you mean extroverts & ask... What the heck does being extroverted have to do with one's values & integrity?
Sure, me yammering pro-Pitt on a message board could be considered intangible support of the university.
Extra .. extro .. there are two ways to spell it correctly.
What does it have to do with values? Everything. Personalities shape peoples' values.
Integrity is an entirely different animal. It deals with consistency in applying values and avoiding hypocritical self-indulgence. I just happen to think the world has been forced into a model of extraversion where everyone MUST conform and earn extrinsic "rewards" in order to survive and fit in. Instead of picking berries and hunting out of necessity, we do a "job" to make money to buy berries and meat. The "job" and the money can be viewed as a necessity (introverted perspective) or as a source of pride (extraverted .. competitive perspective). Of course, extraverted folks would more than likley turn berry picking into a competition .. so there is that argument for those who want to say the world was doomed from the start. That is if you think competition "dooms" us. I don't believe it does (in its purest form). Without it we wouldn't have a university or a football program. However, this same sense of pride and competition is what leads us to be hypocritical .. and cannibalistic .. selfish .. doomed. Thus, why i said extraverted individuals tend to seek "ever-changing wants and desires." Introverts just want to be .. and more often than not .. be left alone.
There is an argument for those who consider "integrity" to be an introvert personality trait. It's nothing more than being transparent and honest. It's playing by the rules and being genuine .. hiding nothing. But in the world we've created .. cheating is common and accepted. "Cheating" can mean a lot of things .. deception .. lie of omission .. or breaking a clearly defined rule. For example: issuing a statement of solidarity or commitment .. meanwhile, you secretly are undecided. That's disingenuous and a form of "cheating" or displays a lack of integrity. But how many of you would like Chryst to say "i'm undecided" .. ?
Truly introverted individuals .. intrinsically motivated .. don't seek to deceive because they value honesty above winning. In fact .. winning doesn't even exist to them. And at the other end of the spectrum .. well .. you get Lance Armstrong and Sammy Sosa and Bobby Petrino and Joe Paterno. Maybe what we want is something in the middle .. or slightly to the right side. We certainly don't want a choir boy for a coach .. but how far "right" do you go? Hey .. Chryst ain't Christ. You can't be too wonderful if you get that far up the ladder. That's why statues are so bad.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Pitt0008mmd 16 months ago
That's not the definition of introvert. And introversion ans integrity have never been shown correlated. There are reams of psychological research in this area. Go look up "big 5" or "five factor model" of personality to get you started.
Psychology is a relatively new science and its flaws are well-documented. But you're talking semantics here. Point is .. by what i describe i am correct. If you want to argue what "labels" i use then that's fine. Call it whatever you like .. they are just categories of people at two ends of a spectrum.
I know what i see in this world. People who are extrinsically motivated (to the far right of the spectrum) are the same people who lack integrity .. because they'll do anything to get what they want. We can argue that it's right or wrong. Is cheating bad? Is lying wrong? But you can't argue that people who value these extrinsic rewards also must somehow put aside the value of their intrinsic rewards. There can be a balance .. which is the middle ground. But when you're talking about head coaches and star athletes .. they didn't get there because they value fair play. Steroids and brown nosing .. etc .. that's how you get there.
and i think maybe you should go back and re-read what i said in my previous two posts .. because perhaps you aren't comprehending .. but i do believe i articulated it well .. CAN WE AGREE TO DISAGREE? psychology is not an objective science .. in fact, i got my bachelors in psychology out of a box of Frosted Flakes.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports