Who cares what mike decourcey and Gary Parrish or some other writer thinks? Any coach who leaves because some fans are complaining is not equipped to be a head coach. It's that simple. These idiots want to blame fans for Dixon leaving? Come on. It's just pathetic. He left because he wanted to leave. He didn't leave for Duke. It's TCU. That's all anyone needs to know. If Pitt wants to get a big time coach, then offer big time money. If Pitt doubled a big name coaches salary, then he would probably be on the sideline. Money talks, BS walks. Pitt's reputation is meaningless.
DeCourcy Article
- Thread starter King Of All Message Boards
- Start date
Who cares what mike decourcey and Gary Parrish or some other writer thinks? Any coach who leaves because some fans are complaining is not equipped to be a head coach. It's that simple. These idiots want to blame fans for Dixon leaving? Come on. It's just pathetic. He left because he wanted to leave. He didn't leave for Duke. It's TCU. That's all anyone needs to know. If Pitt wants to get a big time coach, then offer big time money. If Pitt doubled a big name coaches salary, then he would probably be on the sideline. Money talks, BS walks. Pitt's reputation is meaningless.
This writer is as respected in college basketball as Jamie is in coaching. Every time you post you prove you know less and less. You embarrass yourself.
I think you are right. An up-and-comer makes his first big move the wrong one, he kills his career.
Yeah - Replace the popular Jamie Dixon - Inherit a roster riddled with holes - Sounds like a career killer to me
Can someone provide evidence that Dixon was going to be anything more than a bubble coach in the ACC? If you say that is good enough, then fine, I will give you that. But Dixon was recruiting A10 and MAC talent to play in the ACC. He could no longer get the NY/NJ and Philly kids to play for Pitt. So how was going to get it done in the ACC. Rozelle Nix, Tyrone Haughton, Corey Manigault?
There was no evidence he was going to be able to recruit well enough. "Jamieball" coaching would have made us competitive and near the bubble in most yeara but due to the low talent level, that was the max.
"Jamie I" or "Big East Jamie" wasn't walking through that door. You stripped a fantastic selling point (MSG, Big East ball) away from a horrid recruiter and it was game, set, match.
There was no evidence he was going to be able to recruit well enough. "Jamieball" coaching would have made us competitive and near the bubble in most yeara but due to the low talent level, that was the max.
"Jamie I" or "Big East Jamie" wasn't walking through that door. You stripped a fantastic selling point (MSG, Big East ball) away from a horrid recruiter and it was game, set, match.
I don't buy the cupboard is bare. Maybe lacking in areas but not bare. This team beat Virginia, Marquette (they just beat nova) and beat Maryland in their house.
This is 10000000000% on Stallings. He should have never, ever been hired in the first place.
This program needed a shot in the arm. Instead they got the plug pulled.
Please...up and comers step into worse situations all the time. Tony Bennett stepped into a dumpster fire at UVA. Bryce drew went to a worse situation at vandy. Brad underwood at OK ST. And there are plenty that failed that you never here from again, but dontvtyeow this crap around that Pitt was a horrible job.
Pitt wasn't ever getting Greg Marshall, sean Miller, or Brad Stevens like people thought could happen before, but Pitt can certainly hire a young coach on the same level as Vanderbilt or oklahoma state.
Bennett was not an up and comer. He was an established major D1 coach. UVa was a dead program and I was about as stunned when I heard Bennett left Washington State for a bad UVa team since he had no ties to Virginia at all as when I heard VT landed Buzz.
Bennett had three years at WSU, which is an absolutely horrendous program. He had good years there, but was by no means well established.
Considering Willard brought in a couple top 5 classes without any shred of sustained success Dixon had to sell recruits. Tells me if you have the right coach and staff. Pitt can bring in enough talent to compete.
The problem is Pitt hired a coach without one tenth the coaching ability Dixon brought to the table
Last edited:
Sorry... I just do not buy the premise of the article that Pitt, or any school like it, should just be thankful for a reasonable level of success and then just go sit in the corner. Pitt has every right to desire greater success than what it had achieved under Dixon. It is possible to be completely appreciative of Coach Dixon's success and contribution to the program AND still believe it was probably the right time for both parties to go in different directions.
It is undeniable that Dixon is the most successful basketball coach in the history of the University based upon nearly every measure imaginable. It is similarly undeniable that the trajectory of the program was pointed in the wrong direction and had been for several years. Dixon's capacity to correct that direction had seemingly eroded. For Pitt administrators to come to the conclusion that a change needed to be made (whether by encouraging Dixon to find a new landing spot/pushing him out the door, choose your own perspective) was the easy part. It is what you do next is the hard part. And this is where Pitt has failed before (the Wanny firing) and where it appears it is failing again.
The 55 point loss to Louisville isn't punishment for having big dreams nor for failing to deify Jamie Dixon. The 55 point loss is the price to pay for failing to understand the coaching landscape and failing to find the RIGHT replacement considering all of the circumstances existing within the program.
Screw Mike DeCoursy's judge/jury/executioner view of the basketball world and his admonishment of Pitt fans and administrators alike. He's Ron Cook on a national rag. A columnist with sharp opinions designed cause grumbling. Screw his opinion that Pitt should know its place and Pitt fans and administrators should just be happy with what was accomplished 10 years ago as the pinnacle of all that can be dreamed of here. And screw his revisionist history that fails to tell the whole truth, a truth that doesn't fit so cleanly into his narrative.
It is undeniable that Dixon is the most successful basketball coach in the history of the University based upon nearly every measure imaginable. It is similarly undeniable that the trajectory of the program was pointed in the wrong direction and had been for several years. Dixon's capacity to correct that direction had seemingly eroded. For Pitt administrators to come to the conclusion that a change needed to be made (whether by encouraging Dixon to find a new landing spot/pushing him out the door, choose your own perspective) was the easy part. It is what you do next is the hard part. And this is where Pitt has failed before (the Wanny firing) and where it appears it is failing again.
The 55 point loss to Louisville isn't punishment for having big dreams nor for failing to deify Jamie Dixon. The 55 point loss is the price to pay for failing to understand the coaching landscape and failing to find the RIGHT replacement considering all of the circumstances existing within the program.
Screw Mike DeCoursy's judge/jury/executioner view of the basketball world and his admonishment of Pitt fans and administrators alike. He's Ron Cook on a national rag. A columnist with sharp opinions designed cause grumbling. Screw his opinion that Pitt should know its place and Pitt fans and administrators should just be happy with what was accomplished 10 years ago as the pinnacle of all that can be dreamed of here. And screw his revisionist history that fails to tell the whole truth, a truth that doesn't fit so cleanly into his narrative.
Last edited:
The cupboard is very bare and talent is thin. It's a testament to Dixon that he got this group (+ JRob) to the tourney. I'm not saying KS is doing a good job with this group but to not admit the cupboard was bare nullifies all other arguments you make.
Ironically though.... this makes the job MORE attractive to the next guy after Stallings.
Picking up the pieces of a team that went 2-16 three years in a row is easier. Go 9-9 and theyll build you a statue.
TCU's season this year is mediocre... but to TCU fans, this is better than ever and they want to rename the court after Dixon.
Whoever follows the Stallings debacle at Pitt will be like Walt Harris in 1997 following the Johnny Majors II disaster. For at least 5 or 6 years, folks will love him.
Until he raises expectations too high, that is, and they turn on him like the jackals they are.
But for an up and coming coach, Pitt will be an attractive job in two years.... new AD wanting to make a mark, top notch facilities, top conference.
Following Dixon was hard. Following Stallings will be easy.
Thing with Dixon and tcu is that I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he got them to the tournament nearly as often as he got us. He already has signed 4 or 5 4 star recruits . Combine that with his coaching and you have a recipe for success. Plus I don't think the big 12 is as tough as the acc.
TOTALLY disagree! This team would be playing much better under Dixon. Same system defensively and offensively leads to similarity which leads to success. Besides, how does ANYONE know that Dixon wouldn't have signed another guard? We don't. How do we know if Wilson or Milligan, or even Kithcart wouldn't have thrived under an organized system? We don't. Too many wanted a "free-style" run and gun offense. News-flash; you can only win using that style IF you have better players. We will never be able to out-recruit many teams in the ACC. Dixon knew how to grind and win with less. Stallings can only win with more.
1. Jamie Dixon is a better, more accomplished coach than Stallings ever was or will be, that has never really been a question.
2. The Stallings hire and the way it was done looked and smelled really bad, and was disappointing to all but a few of the ultimate slappies among us. I mean, he was fired at Vandy for chrissakes.
3. Dixon was running in place his last few years, and completely flopped on the recruiting trail. There was no outward sense of urgency to try to improve things. Back-dooring into the tournament by a hair's breadth before losing miserably in Round 1 last season with a more complete team (having a real point guard is kind of important) really isn't something to crow about, although it's starting to look pretty good to us all now;
4. Interestingly, DeCourcy's article glossed over, and outright ignored, Dixon;s last few years at Pitt, focusing instead on the glory days of nearly a decade ago like a lot of posters on this board tend to do. Heavily slanted with no criticisms of Jamie, and Jamie earned his share;
5. A guy who is so revered and respected in the national coaching community, but wanted out at Pitt probably could/would have had a better job opportunity than TCU. I don;t recall a lot of suitors coming after Dixon the last 5 years;
6. This collection of players stinks no matter who is coaching them, but I have no doubt that things would be marginally better and quite a bit less embarrassing if Dixon was still at the helm;
7. I also have no doubt that Dixon was never going to get the recruiting fixed and get the team back to anything close to its BE heights, the best we could have hoped for the way things were trending would be the occasional 2013-14 type year, which woudl certainly be better than what we are likely to ever see under Stallings;
8. The admin and new AD needs to act decisively to deal with this, and that starts with identifying top under-the-radar coaching prospects, getting a commitment from the best of them, and moving quickly to shitcan Stallings and bring the new guy in. Like football, basketball will require an increased institutional commitment to flourish.
9. Failure to act quickly and decisively will be disastrous to this program and could very quickly relegate it an extended downturn equaling or exceeding the worst of the Willard years.
However, now any new coach immediately replacing Stallings will make the fan base appreciative, even if he struggles out of the gate. The expectations would be much lower.
Yeah, I'd say the expectation for any new coach will be to beat Duquesne and not lose at home by 56.
so we are idiots with not being satisfied with the mediocre results the past 5 years?
We are idiots for not being happy with early tourney exits and losing consistently to lower seeds?
We are idiots for seeing no improvement in recruiting?
We are idiots for wondering if Dixon had the desire to make Pitt in the upper tiers of the ACC?
Typical self loathing yinzer Pitt fan who probably was lamenting letting Wannstedt go under a different handle 5 years ago.
Auburn fired coaches who led them to National title games and/or undefeated seasons, only to make return appearances with their new coaches. Why is everyone so afraid of trying to reach success here? Once again, W freakin VU just beat the #2 team, a true blue blood, and has several 10 & 11 win seasons under their belt in football the past 10 years. If they can do it it certainly can be done here.
Results were better than mediocre.
If you are a 1 seed and lose, it's impossible to beat a higher seed.
Good point on recruiting.
He had the desire, if that wasn't evident you don't know what you are watching, if you watch at all.
Yeah, Pitt has really reached for success. Hoo-freaking-ray.
True, but a #1 seed losing in the round of 32 is pretty mediocre to me.
How would you describe the results if not mediocre? And if you are looking at total wins please remove cupcakes from beginning of year.
My problem isn't with reaching for success, it is the way it is carried out judging from the Stallings, Haywood, Chryst hires. I guess thats why Pitt fans like you are conditioned to accept average given the attempts to improve on the results are usually futile. So your viewpoint is understandable.
That happened once, and the team they lost to went to the finals.
You deserve a trash program.
Enjoy your 1st round exits, Tire bowls, CBI appearances. Then change your handle again and whine and cry when Penn State wins a Rose Bowl or WVU goes to the final 4.
KS has a 6 year contract and isn't going anywhere.
The administration is not going to pony up the money for the AD Barnes mistake.
Ad Barnes could have given JD more money for better assistants etc. and work with him to improve recruiting.
However, AD Barnes lowered JD buyout to allow him to go.
So now all of the Jamie Bashers have KS and he will be here for at least 4 more years (enjoy).
I don't think any of the Jamie Bashers will have to worry about going dancing in the next 6-8 years.
Hope the Pete does not look too empty while Pitt is striving to get into March Madness.
When Pitt finally qualifies for March Madness again this Board will celebrate with glee.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Spot on!
Looking at Dixon's long career at PITT why didn't he produce NBA talent equal to his peer group of coaches.
Peer group = Coaches coaching programs with performance = to PITT.
For those who solve problems by evaluating processes and looking for route causes that could have been an early warning sign for what was to come for the PITT basketball program!
p.s.= I know about Adams thats one player so dont hang your hat on that one.
Last edited:
Very well stated. Dixon got more from less than perhaps any coach in the country. He probably would have gotten more from this team than Stallings. As I see it, there were two fundamental problems with Dixon's last five years:
1. The teams lacked near-elite talents like Sam Young, Jaron Brown, Chevy Troutman, Julius Paige, Levance Fields, Carl Krauser, etc. These types of players weren't NBA level (except Young), but were still talented and played hard. With Dixon's coaching, they performed as well as the UConn and Syracuse teams with better talent.
2. Directly related to #1, the level of Dixon's assistants dropped off. Both Howland and Dixon had excellent X's and O's guys who recruited hard, developed players, and prepared excellent game plans. Dixon had many assistants who became head coaches -- Rohrssen, Lombardi, Antigua (via Kentucky), Rice, Skerry, and Herrion -- and he seemed to be able to replace like with like.
The last few years, the recruiting and player development both seemed to take a significant step back. Whether it was salary, Dixon's system, complacency, bad luck, or something else, the staff stagnated. What most mystified me was Dixon's decision to hire Smoke Williamson, whose recruiting connections were all in Detroit -- clear Big Ten territory with Michigan and Michigan State in your back yard. What the heck was Dixon thinking?
The bottom line is that Dixon operated with little room for error. When he started to miss on recruits, his personal coaching abilities could only compensate so much.
When Dixon left in March I felt something close to indifference to the news. I don't think that fan complaint was a decisive factor in his decision to leave but if it was, then, yes, Dixon is not well equipped to be a head coach. As for DeCourcy and Parrish, you can say their opinions are meaningless, and maybe they are, but similar thoughts were expressed by many others. To put it bluntly, if you polled D-I coaches on where Dixon rates among his peers, and you polled them on where Pitt basketball as a long term program rates among its competitors, you might not like the results.
You really think Pitt is going to double a big name coaches' salary? If you believe that, OK. If not, Pitt's reputation is not meaningless.
Giving Stallings, a lackluster longtime coach freshly fired from a mediocre job, a 6 year deal when nobody else was competing for his services might be the most glaring sign of how crooked that search firm/Barnes deal was.
Frankly, I think it's bunk that Dixon was "forced out" at Pitt, i also think it's bunk that he left because he felt underappreciated. While he may not have had the relationship with his new bosses that he had with his old bosses, and while he may be a little miffed at how fickle fans and alums are--as they are at EVERY program--I can't believe for a second that he left Pitt for those reasons. I also don't believe for a second that Barnes or anyone else tried to get rid of him. I believe there were bigger picture reasons behind his decision to depart--and let me emphasize it: HIS decision to depart. I think he felt that he had peaked here, that he was stagnating professionally, that he was frustrated with recruiting, that the move to the ACC changed his world dramatically, that the future trend of Pitt basketball was downward, and that the timing was right to take on a different challenge, change his scenery, and re-energize himself professionally.
Speaking only for myself, I didn't want to see him leave Pitt when he did and how he did. But when he did leave, again, very much under his own steam, I did see it as an opportunity for Pitt to try to re-energize the program--the same way Jamie needed a change and to hit refresh, so did the program, which had been stuck in 2nd gear for a while. That opportunity was squandered badly with this hire. I guess as outsiders we will never know, but I still suspect that Barnes had much better coaches than Stallings on his short list, including some young up and comer types, but found himself dangling when each of them said "no thanks" one by one. Barnes deserves significant blame and criticism, but I am quite certain he wasn't contemplating hiring Kevin Stallings when he excitedly talked about making a splashy hire who would hit the ground running and "recruit his tail off" . I suspect when he was well down his list of potential candidates and was still getting turned down, he took the safest available route. Thus the search firm fiasco.
What has happened to the program over the past few years is a shame, it really is. It will take someone really good and really dynamic to fix it to the point that it can flourish and consistently be a top 25 team. I'm pretty sure the current guy can't get it done.
Last edited:
I pretty much agree with this but I think Barnes is guilty of not understanding how other coaches would feel about succeeding Jamie. And I wonder if he knew he would wind up with Kevin Stallings, would he had lowered Dixon's buyout then? I'd have to think he rather would have Dixon.
LOL! I don't need to look any further than this to see how uninformed the Pitt fanbase is about college basketball and Pitt basketball.
So you are having difficulty with the truth and facts?? Because DeCoursey's description of Dixon and his situation and exit are entirely accurate and truthful. That seems to be a problem for many on here.
If Pitt wants a big time coach, then the university will have to pay up. It's that simple. The result of a cheap search is our current predicament.
Bro, that's such a self defeating attitude.
Let me ask you this: is Jamie Dixon the only coach who will ever deliver basketball success at Pitt? Because that is. The theme from those who are gnashing their teeth and weeping over the memory of the now gone former coach.
Somewhat accurate and only half truthful.
But rant on so you can feel better about yourself.
