I agree rebecacy if he does talk to the Pitt administration I never want to hear All In out of him again.
I think you are taking it a little too far, but only time will tell
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree rebecacy if he does talk to the Pitt administration I never want to hear All In out of him again.
That is a blatant lie. Is it a monumental step up like a USC/Oklahoma/OSU/FLA/Texas? Absolutely not. Is it a better job? Absolutely.
If you asked college football fans across the country: "Which is a better football job? ISU or Pittsburgh" 10 out of 10 would say Pitt.
Pitt offers a much better recruiting base (especially now with the whole PSU debacle), a stable conference (where Pitt can be a conference title contender on a regular basis), a much stronger program tradition (they've won a national title) & a much larger base of donors. Those are all monumental advantages that Pitt has over ISU.
That said, I do agree that Rhoads wouldn't leave ISU for Pitt. I think it would take a blue chip job to get Rhoads away from ISU. Those "I'm so proud to be your coach" speeches would look awfully stupid if he were to leave for Pitt.
You are obviously very afraid of Paul Rhoads at ISU, so at least you are right about something.
Is it a better job? Absolutely.
So according to your reasons why Pitt is a better job than ISU, Pitt is also a better job than Iowa.
I view Rhoads as the best coach ISU has had since Earl Bruce....your damn right I don't want to see him stay at ISU.
Like I said though, I don't think he will leave for Pitt....or at least I totally misread his character if he does.
You could certainly make an argument that it is an easier job than Iowa, but Iowa has more tradition at winning than Pitt over the course of the last three decades & Iowa has proven it is willing to pay top 10 type money for a big time coach....neither of which Pitt has going for it.
I would say Iowa/Pitt are pretty similar jobs (in terms of attractiveness to coaches).
You could certainly make an argument that it is an easier job than Iowa, but Iowa has more tradition at winning than Pitt over the course of the last three decades & Iowa has proven it is willing to pay top 10 type money for a big time coach....neither of which Pitt has going for it.
I would say Iowa/Pitt are pretty similar jobs (in terms of attractiveness to coaches).
So according to your reasons why Pitt is a better job than ISU, Pitt is also a better job than Iowa.
No, according to your criteria Pitt is a better job than Iowa. More big time donors, more tradition (a national title like you said), easier recruiting, and Pitt will have an easier time winning conference titles.
All things that Pitt has one up on Iowa.
Why do we fans think we're the greatest football tradition school out there? We have such an inferiority complex that we are incapable of actually seeing we are in an inferior position in relation to MANY MANY schools - including Pitt and YES Iowa... But we keep beating them!
Lot's of subjectivity in this discussion, and you and I both obviously have our biases, the bottom line: both jobs are better than the ISU job.
You won't find anyone outside of Ames that would ever claim any differently.
I don't really want this to be a discussion about Iowa...my two cents are that Rhoads won't take the job due to his loyalty to ISU, though there is no doubt that Pitt is a step up in terms of job prestige/advantages.