Not joking: hire a math major to stand next to Narduzzi on sideline (2024)

Pat is obviously math-challenged.

This is about 5 times in his Pitt career where he made the obvious wrong mathematical choice.

Twice this year.

He doesn't understand even elementary odds and probabilities.

This isn't rocket science.

Down 4 or down 7 makes no difference when you have 1 possession left. Odds of getting a TD on one play from the 1 yard line are much higher than odds of going 80+ yards in 2 mins with 1 timeout.

He is bad at math. He is bad at clock management. He is bad at timeout management.

Get a math grad student to stand on the sidelines.

UPitt '89 said:

Pat is obviously math-challenged.

This is about 5 times in his Pitt career where he made the obvious wrong mathematical choice.

Twice this year.

He doesn't understand even elementary odds and probabilities.

This isn't rocket science.

Down 4 or down 7 makes no difference when you have 1 possession left. Odds of getting a TD on one play from the 1 yard line are much higher than odds of going 80+ yards in 2 mins with 1 timeout.

He is bad at math. He is bad at clock management. He is bad at timeout management.

Get a math grad student to stand on the sidelines.

See Also

The Math Behind the Perfect Free Throw - JSTOR DailyRecruiting: 2026 is an actual year with players Mizzou is recruiting!Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (What makes a recruiting class successful?)Printable Study Guides

Click to expand...

I hear you. But what makes you think he'd rely on that person's advice? He's the HC. Ultimately he'll sink or swim with the decisions HE makes, because he's the bottom line.

Me? With the time left; number of Pitt TO's left; field position and score; I'd have gone for it on 4th and 1. But I'm posting on an Internet fan blog. PN is a P5 HC. So . . . . . . . . .

UPitt '89 said:

Pat is obviously math-challenged.

This is about 5 times in his Pitt career where he made the obvious wrong mathematical choice.

Twice this year.

He doesn't understand even elementary odds and probabilities.

This isn't rocket science.

Down 4 or down 7 makes no difference when you have 1 possession left. Odds of getting a TD on one play from the 1 yard line are much higher than odds of going 80+ yards in 2 mins with 1 timeout.

He is bad at math. He is bad at clock management. He is bad at timeout management.

Get a math grad student to stand on the sidelines.

Click to expand...

On Point and totally agree. Regardless, if we make the 3, we still have to score a touchdown. Go for 7, make it and then kick a field goal if and when you get the ball back. So in that case, yes you need 2 scores, that's if you get the 7 to tie. His game management is brutal.

Your point about statistics and win probabilities is legit. Unfortunately you are assuming getting a WIN is the number priority of the coach. For most mediocre coaches like Narduzzi the primary goal is to have the game look good on paper...specifically his resume. Football coaches are notoriously conservative and would rather lose than face scrutiny for a gutsy call. Rather than seize the moment he preferred to just "hope" to get the ball back and win rather than face embarrassment of getting stuffed at the goal line for the 4th straight time.

Narduzzi knew a 17-13 loss on the road to PSU was an "Extension" quality effort and that's all that matters.

MrPups said:

Your point about statistics and win probabilities is legit. Unfortunately you are assuming getting a WIN is the number priority of the coach. For most mediocre coaches like Narduzzi the primary goal is to have the game look good on paper...specifically his resume. Football coaches are notoriously conservative and would rather lose than face scrutiny for a gutsy call. Rather than seize the moment he preferred to just "hope" to get the ball back and win rather than face embarrassment of getting stuffed at the goal line for the 4th straight time.

Narduzzi knew a 17-13 loss on the road to PSU was an "Extension" quality effort and that's all that matters.

Click to expand...

There's no difference.between a 17-13 loss and a 17-10 loss "on paper".

Both cover the spread, both within one score, both have the exact same "moral victory", both impact bowls and coaching salaries the same.

The minute he ran the kicking team out there, he lost the game.

Narduzzi’s arrogance while proclaiming he was right when defending these blunders precludes them hiring anyone in this capacity.

He would never accept it.

Let’s say we make the FG, and stop them 3 and out after the kickoff. We would have driven the ball down to around the PS 10 yard line with about a minute left in the game. We would have had a chance for the game winning TD.

Note - I would have gone for it.

DiehardPanther said:

Let’s say we make the FG, and stop them 3 and out after the kickoff. We would have driven the ball down to around the PS 10 yard line with about a minute left in the game. We would have had a chance for the game winning TD.

Note - I would have gone for it.

Click to expand...

A game-winning TD and a game-tying TD are equally difficult.

If we got the 3 and out like you said, we could have done so with PSU starting at their 1 instead of 20.

Then we have 60 yards instead of 80 to get the TD that we need in EITHER case.

Before the FG, we needed a TD to avoid the loss. After the FG, even if good, we needed a TD to avoid the loss.

The mere decision to attempt the FG lowered our chances to win...the outcome of the FG was immaterial.