From the first few plays of the game, I though we were going to lose this game by a million points. A Pitt drive that couldn’t really get anything going followed by a 56 yard run by Cinci QB Ben Mauk – not the start any team hopes for. Five minutes into the game and we’re already down 7. A three-and-out followed by three more points for the Bearcats.

But then something amazing happened. LeSean McCoy and LaRod Stephens-Howling turned it on big time. On our first TD drive, Shady ran for 21 and 5, followed by a Cinci penalty, then Stephens-Howling picked up 11. Before you know it, Pat Bostick hits Darrell Strong and we have the game tied up.

After 137 yards from McCoy and 100 from LSH, the first time Pitt had two 100 yard rushers in a game since 1998, Pitt picked up the biggest win in the Wannstedt era. Ironically enough, he wasn’t even on the field. It’s the first win in well over a month, and the first win over a BCS conference opponent since beating Syracuse on October 7 last year. The big question, as Jimbo Covert’s my Dad asked in the game thread comments, is, “A turning point in the Wannstedt era, or just a weeklong break from the usual pain and agony?”

I feel that the players won this game in spite of the coaches, not because of them. The way our running backs played didn’t seem to result from any magical change by the coaches. McCoy was simply the same Shady we’ve seen thus far, and LaRod just did a hell of a job today. Stephens-Howling is due for congrats today; he’s always been the little running back who was rarely able to pick up yards after the first contact. Saturday he was able to take some hits but pick up an additional 3-4 yards on those carries – a huge difference when you think about it. Did LSH get mad that McCoy was getting so many carries and so much of the load so he decided he needed to have a huge game? And anyone who says McCoy is a bad teammate is horribly wrong – there was nobody cheering for LaRod after his runs more than Shady.

After those rough losses to UConn, Virginia, and Navy, a lot of people were saying how those games set Pitt’s program back. I guess if Pitt is going to have that happen, we might as well try our best to do it to other teams too. From a comment on Josh Katzowitz’s UC Bearcats blog:

After this loss, no Nippert expansion, no indoor practice facility, no BSC Bowl, no ranking, no respect, no bandwagon. Terrible loss. As a 15 year season ticket holder this is very disappointing.

And the feeling is great.

One thing that I’m a bit worried about was the amount of times that drives looked like they were heating up then stalled. We settled for three Conor Lee field goals where we drove down to the 24, 7, and 14 yard lines respectively. I don’t want to ask for too much from the Panthers because we’re so used to seeing numerous three-and-outs each game, but it was definitely a point I noticed. If this team had any type of hope for a bowl game and the season wasn’t lost, I might be more concerned.

Those blue-on-blue jerseys didn’t look good at all, but I’m not objecting to wearing them again if we keep winning in them. Too bad we won’t be able to do it next week. Instead, we’ll see the white-on-blue on the road.

Seems like the Big East refs are having some trouble lately. On Friday, a UConn player clearly called for a fair-catch on a punt but was allowed to return it for a touchdown [video]. From what I could see from the stands yesterday, the refs made some questionable calls. Walking out of Heinz Field after the game, I heard someone talking about the unsportsmanlike conduct (celebrating) call on Oderick Turner after converting the two-point conversion. I think it was actually a make up call – the ref may or may not have missed Turner pushing off the Cincinnati defender. To be fair, I haven’t seen the play more than three times, but I’d like to take another look at that.

Good to see Pitt play a good game, but we should still try to maintain the happy and realistic medium when talking about this team. It’s still possible that we won’t win another game all year. Conversely, this win shows we can pull off a win on any given day. Get ready for Louisville next Saturday; suggested reading can be found at Card Chronicle.

I have a bunch of links that I meant to post before the Cinci-Pitt game. Just going to clear them out now.

How about an article on how Cinci wanted to cut down on the number of penalties they commit? Whoops.

Puff pieces on LeSean McCoy and Jeff Otah.

Pitt didn’t sell all of their allotment of WVU tickets for the 100th Backyard Brawl.

Paul Zeise has done a good job with his daily Q&As. Actually enjoy them more than the chats, where he seems more guarded and defensive since he has to respond immediately.

Panther_Rants: If, as some people have insinuated, there are coaching changes at the end of the season, who do you expect will go? Rhoades? Cavanaugh? Dunn?

Paul Zeise: No offense, but I’d rather not get into that. I think we all know where the deficiencies are on this team and there is no need to rehash it every Thursday.

…

ilivedinmemphis: Why are you always so negative?

Paul Zeise: Negative? If you listen to the fans of your rivals I am a homer! And explain to me how you write about a team that has lost nine of ten games versus I-A opponents, who consistently has gotten beaten around by any team with a pulse, who gets blown out at home by Connecticut and then loses at home – and looks completely overmatched in doing so — to Navy — and be flowery and positive all the time?

ilivedinmemphis: Can’t you say something positive?

Paul Zeise: Conor Lee kicks the ball real good.

ilivedinmemphis: Why do you never quote recruiting analysts or national broadcasters in your stories?

Paul Zeise: Because recruiting “experts” are usually self appointed and what, other than perhaps recommendations on where to get good hair spray, do national broadcasters have to say that I couldn’t get out of some former coaches or players in the area who might actually have a clue as to the subject matter with which I am writing about? I think the practice of quoting people just to quote them is bad journalism.

Like I said, I generally enjoy the Q&As more. There are more things that slip in there.

Q: I know Pitt has a lot of young players, but are the Panthers just falling apart? Do you think the coaching staff should just write off the season and play as many freshmen and sophomores to get the team ready for next season?

ZEISE: I’d say by the looks of it that yes, the Panthers are falling apart. They have lost four in a row and with consecutive games against Cincinnati and Louisville coming up, it’s probable that the losing streak will grow to six. But this is college football and a lot can happen in a short period of time and teams are quickly able to change the direction of their season, for the good or the bad. If Pitt could beat Cincinnati this week, perhaps they gain some confidence and it grows and they finish strong (strong being 3-3 with three close losses over the next six). It doesn’t look likely, but it could happen. Which brings me to the second point, Pitt needs to put the best 22 players on the field regardless of their class, their age or their experience. The 22 guys who best give the team a chance to win a football game THIS YEAR because that’s really what the focus should be.

[Emphasis added.]

That actually seemed to happen in the Cinci game. Pitt played the best players, not the most experienced.

This one had the issue of a teeth-grinding cliche.

Q: Dave Wannstedt stated that he has a young team that is a “year away” from really competing. Do you really think a team that is a “year away” would be struggling this much? The last time I checked teams that were a “year away” could win seven games and get to a bowl. See Cincinnati (2006) and Rutgers (2005).

ZEISE: Of all the things coaches say, the one that usually makes me cringe the most is “we are a young team”. That is usually code for “we aren’t winning and we want you to give us more time to figure it out.” Teams with young players have found ways to win games in the past, so the excuse is used too often as a reason things aren’t going well. While I understand if you are young in certain areas – like the line on both sides of the ball – it is indeed tough to overcome, but there is never any excuse to lose on your home field to Navy, or get blown out by the likes of Connecticut or Virginia…

He then backtracks a bit in the case of Pitt because of injuries.

Of course, then Zeise could be accused of a little bit of bias in this response.

Q: At some point in the not so distant future, the Big East is going to have to make a change and add a team. Either that or some essential Big East team will escape to the Big Ten. Besides the unlikely possibility of adding Notre Dame to the football line-up, what are some other likely cases? What might be the best situation for Pitt football? I suppose this is something the new athletic director might have to think about during his tenure.
Zeise: The Big East had a built-in answer to its scheduling problems — Temple — and chose to throw it away because of some pettiness. Had they kept Temple — and really should have once it was clear it was going to have to lose itself — it would have a ninth football team, in a large market that makes sense geographically and every team could have four home and four away games every year and there’d be no talk of adding teams. And the beauty of it was Temple is already in a conference for its other sports, so you wouldn’t have had to go to 17 teams in basketball. As it is, finding another team willing to accept football membership only will be next to impossible so the Big East will continue to be a league that is rumored to be in transition because of the scheduling problems its current make-up presents.

Zeise got his Masters at Temple. He is ignoring a lot of reality here. The long-term is that the Big East will split. When has become a little more nebulous but it will still happen. The last thing the football conference wanted was having to deal with Temple. The program is a drag on finances (sharing bowl money) and academic standings (they are struggling badly to make the APR). There is the lack of fan support. The administration has never made any effort to really bring them up to modern standards or put money into them. Major media market or not, they aren’t a factor in football there.

Anyone remember when plenty of programs dreamed of luring Wannstedt back to college?

Coach on the outbound train: Pittsburgh’s Dave Wannstedt. He’s gone from NFL coach to being offered $20 million in 2001 to coach the Hurricanes, to getting fired by the Dolphins and going home to Pitt. Now, his team (2-4) has lost four straight, including 34-14 to Connecticut and 44-14 to Virginia. Cincinnati, Rutgers, South Florida and West Virginia are left on the schedule. When Wannstedt got the Pitt job, an NFL coach said he’d turn it into Rutgers, pre-2005.

I thought the rumored quote used Temple, not Rutgers.

It took longer than I expected, but sure enough there was the obligatory “bring back Pederson” column.

Pitt now needs Pederson more than ever.

That will be obvious today when the Panthers play host to Cincinnati. There probably will be a crowd of 30,000 or so — less than half the capacity at Heinz Field — to see a Pitt team that has lost four games in a row and is headed toward a third consecutive season without a bowl game. Pederson hardly would recognize the program.

It’s fair to think Pitt football wouldn’t have sunk back if Pederson had stayed. He left because Nebraska is home, he went to school at Nebraska and Nebraska was his dream job. That he wasn’t successful there — at least not fast enough to satisfy the tough Nebraska crowd — isn’t enough reason for Nordenberg not to bring him back.

It’s also “fair” to think that it would. Cook ignores the fact that Pederson tried to hire Wanny before getting to Callahan. Nothing an AD could do would change the situation of the football program if the team is lousy.

It’s a throwaway column based on events from 5 years prior. By all accounts, Pederson caused plenty of friction at Nebraska from the fans to the boosters to the morale of the department. Cook disputes it because others, while at Pitt, spoke well of him. I’m convinced.