For one game at least.

Turnovers were one of the main themes. That’s fine. This one, I understand but don’t buy into. The defensive players apparently are claiming it was all about getting behind DC Rhoads.

“We know we are a good team, we’re not a bad team,” defensive back Kennard Cox said. “And coach [Dave] Wannstedt is a great coach and so is our coaching staff. We had some adversity but we just kept on sawing wood. We just had the will to win.

“And we’ve been rallying around coach Rhoads all year. You think about it, as a defense we only had one off game all season. As a team, we’ve been up and down, but we’ve stuck together and from this point forward now we need to keep it together.”

The theme of rallying behind Rhoads seems to be a major one among the defensive players. Instead of just talking, the Panthers showed it on the field against Cincinnati, doing some things that have been uncharacteristic.

Apparently they rallied around him, by discarding the Rhoadsian approach of bend but don’t break. Of passive defense.

Sorry. I’m really happy about the win. I would love to see it continue, but I’m seeing quotes from players and Coach Wannstedt pretending that only the Navy game was the bad one for the defense. That UConn and Virginia wasn’t the defense’s fault at all because the offense — and coaching decisions — buried the team early. That’s crap.

The offense was putrid in those games. Not disputing that. The defense, though, hardly distinguished itself. Wannstedt excused the lack of turnovers in those games because the opponent built up big leads and only handed off and just looked to eat clock. Well, that skews the defensive numbers when a team has built a huge lead before halftime. So, it can’t be both to me. The defense didn’t do anything in the first halves of those games in turnovers or stopping the opposing offenses.

Zeise in his Q&A took too much of a contrarian stance in response to this question.

Q: Much has been written about what a great defensive effort Pitt turned in last week. But I saw something different, I saw an offense that kept on shooting itself in the foot with penalties. Although the turnovers were a nice plus, I think those penalties masked a mediocre defensive effort much like it did against Michigan State. These last five games will be long ones if face teams who can stay disciplined.

ZEISE: I would have to respectfully disagree. Look, it is easy to kill the Panthers for their ineptitude over the past few years because they have made it easy but the flip side of that is, you have to give credit where credit is due and they deserve a lot of credit. And what I saw from Cincinnati — and this leads to penalties and turnovers — is a team that got frustrated because Pitt made it difficult on them. Pitt did a lot things we haven’t seen, like blitz, like drop guys off into coverage after showing blitz — and that threw the Bearcats and their quarterback, Ben Mauk, out of their rhythm. I’m not sure what the final five games will bring for this Pitt defense, but for one day at least, the unit stood tall against a very good offensive team, and the Panthers for once were the aggressor and that is what led to those results.

Why can’t it be both? The Pitt defense was uncharacteristically aggressive. That contributed. That said, the defense didn’t come out of the gates aggressive. Cinci, though, came out from the get go sloppy and penalty inclined.  The second half turnovers. No doubt that came from Pitt’s defense being more aggressive. But, don’t discount how sloppy and poorly Cinci played.

You know, maybe some day… ten, fifteen years down the road. Maybe the River City Rivalry Trophy will take on some so frickin’ ugly and ridiculous it’s cool vibe. At that point– No, wait. Who am I kidding. It’s one of the worst looking trophies ever jury-rigged for a non-rivalry. The Land Grant Trophy is at least just a hunk of wood of no real visual disturbance.

Instead, we’re stuck with a dadaist eyesore that deserves this and more.

It also means Pitt gets to hold the strange trophy for a year. What the hell they’ll do with it is anyone’s guess since it seems to be designed to be both impractical and unwieldy all at the same time. We can only guess at its uses, and what they’re saying at this happy, joyous moment in Pitt’s recently dismal football history.

I said it when the “rivalry game” was announced, and I said it when I saw the monstrosity. The River City Rivalry deserves to be mocked and mistreated at every turn until the Big East, Pitt and Cinci quietly retire the thing and pretend this never happened.
The downside to winning it every year is that Pitt is stuck putting it on display  — that or just hiding it in a closet somewhere  in the South Side facility.