ShareThis Page
Narduzzi votes Clemson No. 1, Penn State No. 17 |

Narduzzi votes Clemson No. 1, Penn State No. 17

The Associated Press
| Monday, December 3, 2018 6:09 p.m
Pittsburgh head coach Pat Narduzzi works the sideline against Virginia Tech during an NCAA football game, Saturday, Nov. 10, 2018, in Pittsburgh.

Pitt’s Pat Narduzzi didn’t stray too far from the path taken by his fellow coaches when he submitted his post-championship game ballot in the Amway Coaches Top 25 poll. He placed 22 schools no more than three spots higher or lower than where they ended up in the consensus poll.

But there was interesting exception.

He voted Clemson No. 1 over Alabama, backing up his claim that he believes Clemson, the team that knocked off Pitt, 42-10, in the ACC championship game, will win the national title. He did add the adverb “probably,” but the message is the same. The only other coach to vote Alabama No. 2 and Clemson No. 1 was Crimson Tide coach Nick Saban.

He showed respect for No. 7 Central Florida by placing it No. 5 on his ballot. One spot above UCF, he slotted Notre Dame No. 4, which is a bit of shift in thinking after he said in a news conference Friday he “would rather go play Notre Dame than Central Florida.”

Notably, Penn State, which beat Pitt, 51-6, is No. 17 on Narduzzi’s ballot, but the consensus ranked the Nittany Lions No. 12.

He showed plenty of love for No. 20 Texas A&M, placing the Aggies 10 th on his ballot. Narduzzi also liked unranked N.C. State more than most, putting it at 20.

Clemson and N.C. State are two of the three ACC teams ranked by Narduzzi. The other is No. 17 Syracuse , a team Pitt defeated in overtime. Narduzzi placed the Orange 18th.

Jerry DiPaola is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jerry at or via Twitter @JDiPaola_Trib.

Categories: Pitt
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.