2017?
- Thread starter gary2
- Start date
In some ways, it is way better to be a productive guy at a low conference than to be a bench warmer at a major school. It's about risk assessment. Maybe Manigault is great, but nobody knows, so why bet on it? As you said, the buy-in is just too high for a guy like that. A known commodity with a ceiling is a safe addition.
The other compounding factor is that the 2017 Panthers were not any good. When you don't get minutes on a bad team, people assume you are bad, and in most cases they are probably correct.
Damon Wilson was clearly a below average player, but half of players are by definition below average. Stallings couldn't build a team around him, but losing a junior guard who has played meaningful minutes in a power conference is silly, in my opinion.
No. They were recruited by Dixon and retained by Stallings. Which is what a prudent coach would do.
A prudent coach would retain poor recruits? Got it.
Who knew a year ago that these guys would not pan out? Certainly not the board know it alls. Truth is most critical of Stallings thought the team was tournament caliber. Well, we know how that turned out.
I covered them not being top prospects, but the much bigger issue was their role/PT at Pitt and the fact they lost a year of development and aren't immediately eligible. We don't know if they could have been solid to good players because Stallings refused to play any of them. Based on his history and decision making, I don't trust that was a correct judgement.
Wrong. Stallings was a sitting P5 HC. He had been recruiting high level players in that class for years. Many of the players both programs recruited even overlapped. He didn't try to add ANYTHING to that class, despite having an extra scholarship. And, thanks to this year's recruiting debacle, he can't claim timing was an issue because half of our class came after the signing period started.
It was tournament caliber. All we needed was a decent PG (we had an open scholarship) and a decent HC and we would have won 3-4 more games and been right on the edge of the NCAAT. Instead we were 4-14 in the ACC and had some of the worst performances in Pitt history.
Also, isn't it Stallings job to know whether kids would "pan out"? He wasn't a new HC and had lots of time to fill spots, which was made clear in this class.
I don't need to defend Dixon; He's the best Pitt BB coach in my lifetime. Last year, the underclassmen were considered good to serviceable. With hindsight, that wasn't the case. I am not going to crucify Stallings because he chose not to gut the team right out of the gate. Too bad levance didn't have a sit down with him.
BTW. saw Atomic Blonde this week. Kickass movie.
If Barnes had hired me as a basketball adviser to KS, I would've told him, "You were hired to recruit your butt off, so cut a couple of these Dixon kids and go recruit your butt off."
Might be going tonight. Looking forward to it. My kids are all about "The Dark Tower" opening on Friday.
Maybe Stallings' best years a while ago were an anomaly. What he's been doing for the past 6 years is his norm.
The 2017 team was potentially a tournament team if coached properly. Again, we'll never know. But I believe that if any decent coach happened to be here last year and had coached that team, they would have made the NCAA's or at least the NIT's. We have no hope of that with the current coach. Look at how he screwed up last year. That was a preview of the next couple of years, but they'll be worse.
I agree; at least as far as making the NIT. That would have only required 2 more wins. Going 18-15 vs 16-17 would have been NIT territory. I am less sure the NCAAs were possible. That would have required about 20-21 wins including a couple more in ACC play and I don't think the talent was there to do that irrespective of coaching.
Serious question. I need to get rid of crabgrass, but I don't want to do it chemically because of my two dogs. Anyone know? Also, any solutions for male pattern baldness relief would be appreciated.
You are correct. The talent wasn't there. Good teams, tournament teams, make plays in the clutch. And they failed over and over and over.
I think Ben Howland was better. Jamie sustained and built on it, but Howland was the architect from being a non tourney team to Big East champs.
It's a stupid argument because Dixon was a big part of Howland's staff that made it happen. Dixon earned a #1 national ranking and two #1 seeds. I honestly wonder if we will ever see either of those happen again in program history.
Hindsight or merely in Stallings perception and judgment? I didn't then and still
don't trust either his perception or his judgment.
Lightly recruited perhaps. I'll pass judgment on the talent part after I've had a chance to see them play. I suggest you do the same.
So-
Players who transfer to lesser programs = indicative of talent level.
Players only recruited by lesser programs with pitt being only major program to offer= wait and see.
Love consistency
Are you suggesting that, as far as accurately evaluating talent, a player coming out of high school/prep school is on the same level of difficulty as a player who has spent a year or two in an ACC program?
Yes.
Especially when
1. They didn't get much playing time
2. Will have a year or two less eligibility.
3. Stallings likely bad mouthed them as it's what he does to deflect his own failings. As we saw last season.
I made no judgement about last years recruits (or previous years for that matter) before they stepped on campus. I'd say that's consistent.
Nix and Wilson had plenty of time to earn minutes and they failed to impress. Not in practice obviously and certainly what I saw in limited PT. Kithkart........please.
It's not stupid. Ben took us from nothing to a BET title and 2 Sweet 16's. Ben went to 4 straight BET title games
I'm saying it's stupid to debate which of the two is better. Dixon was on his staff and was partially responsible for the resurrection of the program. There's no clear delineation between the two, so it's a fruitless exercise.
As we're seeing now, simply "sustaining" success is easier said than done. They both contributed in different ways. Who cares which is "better".
While at Pittsburgh, Howland rebuilt the Panthers basketball program and obtained an NIT bid his second season, followed by back-to-back Big East regular-season conference titles and NCAA Sweet Sixteen appearances. He also took Pitt to three straight Big East Championship games, winning the 2003 tournament title, the first in school history. In 2002, Howland also earned several national coach-of-the-year awards. Howland's win-loss record at Pitt was 89–40 (.690) with four consecutive post-season bids.
Not that it matters now. We're stuck with what we have and what happened in the past is totally irrelevant.
Not that it matters now. We're stuck with what we have and what happened in the past is totally irrelevant.
I understand the debate. I've had the debate with others. Still, I think what Dixon accomplished is notably greater.
I say this because Dixon had to "rebuild" several times. I'll forgo using 2003-2004 as evidence in that direction. But in 2005-2006, 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and even 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, each of those rebuilds were not unlike what Howland had to do from 2001-2002.
Sure, I understand the case that doing it the first time is the hardest. But doing it over and over again really makes the difference for me. And one could even argue that while Howland brought us from being a bad program to a very good one, the extra step of moving from a very good one to a #1 seeded program two out of three years could even be considered more difficult.
Finally, there's one more thing that makes the difference for me. That is, if you believe what you read, one of the main reasons Howland left is that he didn't believe his success could be sustained here. So, not only did Dixon do what Howland didn't believe he would be able to do, he took it even further.
Still, both are excellent coaches who made a mark on athletics at Pitt which will be difficult to ever match, let alone surpass.
Hindsight being 20/20....when Jamie left, we really should have went to Ben and see what he might have wanted.
I would have taken Ben back in a heartbeat. But he did burn a number of bridges, especially with fans.
Didn't we go to Ben and ask him if he was interested? Obviously, he wasn't. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that we asked Ben about his interest level at Pitt.
The media reported that he rebuffed Pitt, but the media also reported that Sean Miller was in Oakland.
Good point. It's hard to trust anything reported in the papers or in the media. I suspect that if anyone asked Howland if he was ever approached by Pitt for the most recent job vacancy, he'd deny that he was approached. And I think he'd be right.
Similar threads
