Before I get to the meat of this article I would like to reiterate something I have passed along on here a few times since I started writing for the Blather all those many moons ago. After you read it, then get into the article itself, you’ll see the connection.

I’ve been asked many times on here, on the message boards, in person at tailgates, at special Pitt events and functions and at the games, something on these lines ‘Why do you think you are qualified to write a blog and why should we care about what you have to say’.

My response to that has always been pretty consistent in replying ‘Because I’m a fan like you, I have extensive historical ties to the university and actually there is no concrete reason why you should care about my stuff at all’ – or something to that effect.

Those ‘historical ties’ go back to 1908 when my grandfather on my Dad’s side helped the growing Western University of Pennsylvania Medical school become The University of Pittsburgh’s Medical school and stayed on as a staff instructor and professor.

My father was a long time tenured professor and the Dean of Pitt’s Graduate School of Business for a time before he died in 1969; my mother was Pitt’s Assistant Dean of Women and now my oldest brother is one of two Assistant Librarians for the whole of the University’s Library System, reporting only to the Director of the Library. (Actually more of a big cheese then I knew, I just looked him up – we haven’t talked for many years).

My uncle was the Chief of Pathology for Pitt’s Presbyterian University Hospital and my other brother, my cousins, aunts and uncles, all as far back as I can remember,  were Pitt grads and sometimes instructors and administrators at the University also.

I grew up in a true multi-generational  “Pitt Family” and spent my childhood hanging around my parents’ and my extended family’s Pitt friends and when they had their recurring Friday Night cocktail parties at our house the guests would consistently include Chancellors Ed Litchfield and then Wesley Posvar – whose children I grew up with and am still close to today – along with many other decision makers of the university.

Now – all that said, Pitt was a very much smaller place back in the ‘50s and ‘60s when there was a small fraction of as many Administrators as there are now and there wasn’t such a wide divide among those who had long careers there. It was very much a “Pitt Family” in the true sense of the word.

Throw in the fact that we lived in the same areas, and knew, many of the heavyweight Pitt donors back then and that everyone associated with Pitt seemed to know each other, and that is the atmosphere I grew up in and why I’ve many of the same friends today.

That is a hell of a lot of name dropping to be sure  but it serves, I hope,  to establish that I’ve ties to the University that are outside the Athletic Department and not dependent on the media credentials I carry specifically to write on The Pitt Blather

So hopefully you can see that when I say I have a vested interest in the University I have the background to support that statement.

Does any of that mean I’ve more credibility about Pitt athletics than others who write on the subject in the media? No, and I’ll repeat that – No.  Local beat writers have more inside contacts on the Athletic department than I do I would think. It does means however that when I say that I do know something as a fact that’s what I mean – it’s factual.

 (I’m going to bring this around to sports – really, I am.)

You all also know that I hold a close to zero tolerance position on issues that negatively affect the University of Pittsburgh as a whole.  I am of the firm belief that if indeed “athletics is the front porch of the university” as both our new Chancellor and our new AD have stated then it pretty damned well be a clean front porch that is continually worked on to keep it that way.

My personal background laid out above is the reason for this – I truly love the University of Pittsburgh and want nothing but the best for it. Contrary to a lot of people ‘the best‘ that I want has really nothing to do with sports all that much. I like it when we win games and I love it when our student/athletes do outstanding things, both on the field and off,  but I wouldn’t trade wins or championships in any sport for the good reputation the University holds.

My stance on Wannstedt’s firing is an example of my feelings on this and because I was in direct conversations with Pitt people outside the athletic department I passed on to you the actual reasons ties were cut loose with him.  Again, it all revolved around the actions within football program itself, not his wins or  losses, and the negative incidents of 2010 which acutely embarrassed Pitt on a national stage.  The Sports Illustrated article wasn’t the primary reason for DW’s firing – but it was the final straw that broke the camel’s back.

Now we’re are seeing a (hopefully) more minor version of negative instances happening in the athletic side of the house with Scott Barnes’s  quick hire of Kevin Stallings and the machinations that went on behind the scenes to make that happen.

Those issues have become  intense topics of conversation among fans and the media as it should be and just because it is Pitt doing it we shouldn’t look any less hard or judge any less harsh should found knowledge lead to that. If we do so we give Scott Barnes, who is a newcomer to the Pitt family, and Chancellor Gallagher, again a new comer, free passes on what is costing the University – a public entity by the way – millions of dollars.

Yesterday I wrote about what I saw happen over the last few days with this issue and it may well have been done with Patrick Gallagher’s blessing and knowledge from the time Dixon left until the press conference announcing Stallings’ hire… but if that is so then we need to know that’s exactly how things went down.  Saying “Well, its already happened so let’s move on” doesn’t cut it.

Lately I had an interesting discussion on Facebook (on my part, personal insults on the other party’s part) about my status as a member of the media and my “protecting your perceived Bros” in the media, meaning all the local Pitt beat reporters I suppose.  The genesis of the back and forth was when questions arose about the appropriateness of the Tribune-Review’s Kevin Gorman’s opinion piece on the hiring of Kevin Stallings.

In case you missed it here it is in full glory.  Quoted below are the offending parts which started the rather contentious debate on Facebook (emphasis below are mine):

“But Barnes applied the Steve Pederson playbook for conducting a coaching search: Alienate the alums. Leave out the legends. Trample on tradition.

We all know how well that worked out for Pederson at Pitt and, previously, at Nebraska.

Problem is, Pitt also has a poor record of hiring minority head-coaching candidates for its revenue sports. The only black football coach it has hired, Mike Haywood, was fired 17 days later.

Given that Pitt is an inner-city school, having a black coach who is synonymous with Pitt’s golden era as the face of the program wouldn’t be a bad idea.  But it wasn’t Barnes’ idea, which made it irrelevant.

This isn’t to suggest Pitt had to promote the 34-year-old Knight — though it did promote Dixon to replace Ben Howland — but its treatment of one of its all-time greats was shameful.”

Well, there certainly are some poor choices of words there.

Using “inner city” in lieu of what is a more truthful “urban school” for one. The first phrase leads a reader to believe that Pitt is located in “the usually older, poorer, and more densely populated central section of a city” (the definition according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary).

Boy – did that piss fans off?  But the reality is that the author probably just wrote down the first phrase that popped into to his mind.  I know exactly how that happens.

However and here’s where the conspiracy theories have shown themselves in full bloom, Kevin Gorman is a PSU graduate…!!  How soon fans forget that not so long ago Gorman covered  the Pitt football beat for his paper and not only wasn’t judgmental based on his being a PSU alumni, but he did a fine job in presenting Pitt football in a realistic light.

But wait, there’s more.  Gorman’s observation, based on facts but let’s don’t let that get into the way, that “Pitt also has a poor record of hiring minority head-coaching candidates for its revenue sports” really got the readers’ dander up.  Some fans felt it alluded to Pitt being racist in its approach to (not) hiring persons of color in our high profile head coaching positions.

I guess I can see that, especially if the Pitt fans in question already had a full head of pissed-offedness going because of the Stallings hire and the way it went down.

To segue into a related issue; Here is that Facebook exchange about that article that I mentioned above:

Him: “Hey chieftain. Look up the definition of inner city. it a negative term. Oakland is most assuredly not inner city. its also a term used by local penn staters to attribute a negative image to pitt. you are not here. YOU SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT SEE.

Him: i get (it) though reed you think you are part of the media.

Me:  Well, if having full media credentials and full access to the exact same things all the other reporters do then I guess I do think that. Is that a problem for you?

Me:  I also said that “inner-city” was a poor choice of words. I just don’t believe Gorman is out to screw Pitt like you seem to.

Him: It is not a problem with me. I want people on here to know you have conflict of interest. Protecting you(r) perceived bros in the media.

Let me say this – I think I have met this guy only once before but honestly can’t remember him. But he obviously knows me and carries a bit of a grudge for some reason.  In all honesty I went on to read other things he wrote about Pitt and I do believe he is a 100% Pitt fan and loves his school.  But the whole thing smacked of a person  trying to denigrate someone in some sort of attempt to protect the Pitt administration because he believes that the sportswriters were, to paraphrase here, ‘out to get Barnes and Stallings’

On which he went on to post:

Him: Again see if Gorman acts tough when grilling Art rooney, Tomlin, etc. These guys all talk tough when piling on Pitt. Not so much with the other teams in town. Not at all. Reed this was not a good week for the local media. They acted disgracefully Monday. And even the Fan hosts ripped them . You don’t live here so you have no context Pitt fans are fed up with the local media. This is just more piling on.

 I’m not sure if one media outlet (The Fan) ripping other media outlets (the reporters at the press conference) means anything at all – I don’t think it means a damn thing actually, but obviously this guy does. I listen to The Fan and unless Pat Bostick is on there I take everything said with a grain of salt.  Those Fan guys have agendas and egos as big as Artie Rowell’s forehead.

I mention all this not because I was angry that he questioned my personal behavior and ethics (OK, maybe a small bit of that on my part) but because it really looked like he was trying to insult me to somehow make the Pitt Administration look less culpable in their questionable actions leading up to the hire.

Plus that whole “YOU SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT SEE.” stuff makes me think of a $5 palm reader.

The whole BB thing offends me not just because it was Pitt doing it but because it stunk of patronage and an appalling lack of concern about the way it would reflect on the University itself.  This was shown large and in person by Barnes’ astounding arrogance in both conducting the search & hire process itself then again at the press conference trying to justify it.

And what arrogance it was as Barnes dismisses both the fans and the media sitting in at the press conference in one fell swoop:

 “The fans’ reactions, we are going to be above the noise,” Barnes said. “If you are not impressed with him, you are maybe not in the right spot. Today is the first day of the Kevin Stallings era of Pitt basketball, and I am excited and think the fans will be, too.”

Not too long ago before this went down we had a discussion on here about Scott Barnes and fans were pretty much full of praise for him for reasons I just really couldn’t figure out. Looking back he has been riding Narduzzi coattails in fan support and he’s shocked, just shocked I tell you, that any goodwill he had evaporated as soon as you could say “Turner’s Search Firm”

I, as I always tend to do with something shiny new, said at the time “What has he actually done for Pitt to get excited about?‘  That’s my default ‘wait and see’ attitude I held with Narduzzi and did also with Barnes.

Narduzzi was already hired before Barnes was picked as the AD (and was on the selection committee to hire his own boss which is patently stupid IMO). We had already been firmly set in place years ago as a member in good standing of the ACC.  Our two major athletic programs, FB and BB, were making good profits (a separate subject article I’m drafting BTW).  So there was really no heavy lifting to be done on his part.

There were no big decisions or influences offered by him needed in the near future with Pitt sports – an on-campus stadium isn’t going to happen any time under Barnes’s watch as the new Chancellor made that abundantly clear earlier in his first press conference.

There just wasn’t anything Barnes was hired and brought in specifically to do that needed fixing or even worked on to avoid future problems. He was a hire to fill an abrupt opening caused by Gallagher’s firing of Steve Pederson and that was about it.   I’ll say this also – everyone of the places Barnes has worked as an associate or full AD are in the lower minor leagues in comparison to Pitt.

Barnes truly hit the lottery in being hired at Pitt and what might have flown under the radar as a normal business standard at Utah Sate (The small Mountain West Utah State Aggies mind you, not their bigger respectable brother the  Pac-12 Utah Utes which would have been at least a little bit impressive), Eastern Washington or any where else he worked should be the business standard at Pitt.

Instituting a “Fan Committee” and selecting persons who  are most probably Yes Men for the athletic department isn’t going to do anyone any good either. Its a fine idea but that whole selection process was hinky from the start and this roster is what we ended up with:

Aug. 12, 2015 Meet Your Panther Fans Experience Committee

PITTSBURGH—Twenty-two people have been named to the inaugural Panther Fans Experience Committee, it was announced today by Pitt athletic director Scott Barnes.

Serving as the pulse of Panthers fans, the group will have its initial meeting with members of the Pitt Athletic Department on August 31. Areas of focus will include, but not be limited to: the Pitt game day experience, customer service, ticketing, donor support and fan communications.

“We received a tremendous response with more than 800 applications for our inaugural Panther Fans Experience Committee,” Barnes said. “The individuals who were selected will provide us with invaluable insight and feedback. It is vital that we engage and listen to our fans. With their help, we can create the best fan experience in the country.”

The first Panther Fans Experience Committee includes 13 men and nine women, 17 Pitt alumni and five non-alumni (including two current undergraduate students). Members will serve a voluntary two-year term and convene quarterly.

The 2015-16 Panther Fans Experience Committee members are: Kevin Barthelemy, Joan Bigley, Lauren DelSignore, Danielle Dietrich, Casey Doran, David Down, Chris Gates, Richard Gradisek, Adam Gunn, Jai-W Hayes-Jackson, David Jedlicka, Caitlin McLaughlin, Joseph Mills, E.J. Nemet, Lisa Pilewski, Kathleen Slencak, Regina Stover, Kevin Van Kirk, Anson Whaley, John Wilds, Patrick Worms and Nicole (King) Yohe.

Color me unimpressed.  I mean when you have Danielle Dietrich, the daughter of the man who just dropped a $125M dollar check on Pitt five years ago, selected for the committee you just have to wonder just how seriously Barnes takes this whole thing.

Obviously there was no room for dissent from that body of people because when the committee was selected there was only one guy from the blogosphere (Cardiac Hills’ Anson Whaley) and he isn’t exactly either Woodward or Bernstein.  If this committee and the Stallings hire is all Scott Barnes has to show when his 1^st year anniversary rolls around, well then… color me totally unimpressed.

To sum things up – I get on a high horse when it looks like the Athletic Department dog is wagging the University’s tail. It has happened in the past, more than once, and it looks to may have happened again.

I hope there isn’t a smoking gun with the BB hired and that nothing overtly untoward has happened, I truly do. But I also challenge Pitt to do the right thing and start an investigation conducted by people who have absolutely no ties whatsoever to the Athletic Department ( and who have tenure if possible)  to get to the details and truths about how this search firm choice and Stallings hire transpired.

Or even get an outside entity to look into things.  If that means ruffling a few, or even a lot, of the AD’s feathers then so be it and have at it… as soon as possible.

Pitt has a impeccable and sterling reputation as an institute of higher learning locally, nationally and abroad and that is so very much more important than an Athletic Director shaking hands with an old friend and passing him  a folded up $100,000+ check while doing so.

As for the football news – here are the Spring Scrimmage Stats: