Since Wooden, I think they have fired every coach. Harrick got jammed trying to hide some kind of extra benefit violation.
Dixon to UCLA?
- Thread starter DiehardPanther
- Start date
Since Wooden, I think they have fired every coach. Harrick got jammed trying to hide some kind of extra benefit violation.
Question for the basketball guys regarding Jim Harrick.
Does harrick ( did harrick) have done connection to Pittsburgh?
I swear I read that he coached around here or lived here or something.
Does harrick ( did harrick) have done connection to Pittsburgh?
I swear I read that he coached around here or lived here or something.
[thebadby2, post: 2653086, member: 1492"]Steve Alford made the dance regularly at UCLA too-4 of 6 years. 3 Sweet 16s in 6 years to boot.
UCLA is in a different conversation than the one you're talking about. They're in the conversation that, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, MSU, etc. are in.
UCLA isn't looking for a "high floor" coach. Those types don't cut it with the bluebloods, and like ND football, even though UCLA isn't what it once was, its still a blueblood. Making the dance and a couple of Sweet 16s will be seen as abject failure there. Don't take my word for it, ask Steve Alford. If you don;t buy it from him, talk to Steve Lavin.[/QUOTE]
UCLA's problem is that they aren't a blue blood but way too many of their fans think they are. People in their 40s only know about their great dynasty from hearing about it from other people. Kids being recruited today only know about it from the history books.
UCLA is in a different conversation than the one you're talking about. They're in the conversation that, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, MSU, etc. are in.
UCLA isn't looking for a "high floor" coach. Those types don't cut it with the bluebloods, and like ND football, even though UCLA isn't what it once was, its still a blueblood. Making the dance and a couple of Sweet 16s will be seen as abject failure there. Don't take my word for it, ask Steve Alford. If you don;t buy it from him, talk to Steve Lavin.[/QUOTE]
UCLA's problem is that they aren't a blue blood but way too many of their fans think they are. People in their 40s only know about their great dynasty from hearing about it from other people. Kids being recruited today only know about it from the history books.
We had PLENTY of people on here that said pitt should reduce the buyout since Jamie didn’t want to be here.
It is pretty clear now that it was mostly Barnes that wanted the divorce, not Dixon.
But Howland got fired for "only making" 3 Final Fours. THAT'S the difference. UCLA doesn't care about finishing on the top end of the conference. They want National Championships and they have not had one in 24 years. Right or wrong, they think they should be winning championships and not just one or two games in the tourney.
I was a huge Jamie fan, but looking over his NCAA Tourney record told me two things: 1) He had a lot of success at Pitt and made a bunch of tournies 2) He didn't have a lot of success in the Tourney.
Nothing you have said or Dixon’s actions prove your point. What we know about Dixon is that he is calculating and an opportunist and not the choir boy he and his supporters paint him as.
Ultimately, hes betting big on his coaching here. Tbh though, I think we all always wondered how he would do with talent. UCLA will have no shortage of that, and hes shown he lets his guys play a little more.
We have seen tons of “homerun” hires fail ..and vice versa.
Wait and see I guess. No skin in this game.
Also, after reading the Ben Howland Expose in SI, it is clear that him getting canned was not necessarily performance related.
We have seen tons of “homerun” hires fail ..and vice versa.
Wait and see I guess. No skin in this game.
Also, after reading the Ben Howland Expose in SI, it is clear that him getting canned was not necessarily performance related.
Sure.... but in doing so never intimated I had been abused and fired ala choir boy, Jamie, who nickeled and dined Pitt for 10 years. Whittle Jamie leavings his dweam job...,it can’t be!
He was fired for the Sports Illustrated article followed by a recruiting scandal, not on the court results. At least I think that's true.
Last edited:
Howlsnd didn’t make a sweet 16 during his final 5 years at UCLA and only won 3 tournament games over that period. He also missed the tournament twice during that time. He had 1 regular season conference championship and 0 conference tournament championships in those 5 years.
Last edited:
There were rumblings that he "couldn't win the big one" after the second Final Four. I know some UCLA grads and they relayed this to me during that time. After the third, he had injuries and those things mentioned and it went down hill. But they were on him while he was having success for not winning a championship.
I agree with this. With Dixon you get low risk, low reward. UCLA will be in the NCAAT every year with Dixon, will make some Sweet 16's, maybe an elite 8, maybe even a Final Four. Basically, he will be Ben Howland and that wont be good enough
During Jamie's last 7 years at Pitt (the year after the E8), Jamie made it past the second round once and had a CBI and NIT appearance. He won't make it 7 years at UCLA with that kind of record. Hell, in his last 10 years of coaching he has 3 NIT appearances, a CBI appearance, 2 First Round exits, 2 Second Round exits, and 2 Third Round exits. That's what will not resonate well with UCLA fans if he is hired.
I just had one of my buddies (UCLA grad) text me when I asked his thoughts if they hire Jamie. It read, "Uninspiring, if true. Needs to have a lot of success in the Tourney to please fans."
He seems a bad fit there imo. He always preached about timing and don't see what he see's as the timing being good right now. Plus throw in tcu. Plus still following Howland questions. Just kind of bizarre how his path ended up.
Of course he wouldn't. But you don't think UCLA attracts better players than Pitt?
I wonder.......
What would be the trajectory of JD's career if a manchild named Blair didnt grow up 5 minutes from the Pete.
What would be the trajectory of JD's career if a manchild named Blair didnt grow up 5 minutes from the Pete.
Ben recruited very well for UCLA. Couldn't win a championship. Ben's a better coach than Jamie.
I don't know, maybe the 78% win percentage and four straight tournament appearances prior to Blair showing up.
Yeah, people seem to conveniently forget Dixon's record prior to the Blair years. LOL! But they also can't seem to just leave him alone and let him do whatever he wants. He is irrelevant to our situation, which is a lot worse than what UCLA or practically any P6 school has right now. Pitt and Capel have a lot of work to do to just get back to respectability and being a bubble team occasionally.
North Dakota State attracted better players than Pitt did Dixon’s last 3 years at Pitt.
UCLA's problem is that they aren't a blue blood but way too many of their fans think they are. People in their 40s only know about their great dynasty from hearing about it from other people. Kids being recruited today only know about it from the history books.[/QUOTE]
That last paragraph sounds like Pitt FB fans, the old guys.
I believe it could also be said that Dixon didn't want a divorce from Pittsburgh, but also didn't want Barnes as an in-law.
Yep, people act like Howland’s 3 Final Fours were in the long, long ago. He had a ridiculous amount of success there by anyone’s standards, including UCLA fans.
Am tired of hearing people say they know UCLA people who thought Howland didn’t win enough, him winning had very little if anything to do with his departure.
Jamie Dixon has won one (1) freaking game in the NCAA tournament over the last 8 seasons. For a coach that’s as highly paid as him this is unacceptable. I appreciate what he did at Pitt as much as anyone, but his teams always played in the tournament like they were dragging an anchor behind them. His tournament record is one of the worst in history, there is literally no denying that.
I have no clue why he hasn’t been able to replicate the regular season success he had at Pitt a decade ago, but it’s been many years now, I don’t see anything changing.
If he ends up at UCLA they will make the tournament maybe half the time and will be lucky to win a game in the NCAA’s.
To be fair, the last 3 were at TCU. A perpetual doormat, though your point still stands.
If JD can recruit better players to TCU than he did at Pitt don’t you believe he could recruit better players to UCLA than to TCU ? It’s all about who you can convince to play for you and I’m sure UCLA would surround him with quality assistants like TCU did and Pitt didn’t .
I always find it ironic that most people don’t seem to get , that all the best coaches have the best players . When the don’t they’re rebuilding . It’s the players and no coach can win big without them , a bad coach can’t win when he has talent and one thing about JD is , he’s a good coach and with enough talent he’ll be successful anywhere .
I always find it ironic that most people don’t seem to get , that all the best coaches have the best players . When the don’t they’re rebuilding . It’s the players and no coach can win big without them , a bad coach can’t win when he has talent and one thing about JD is , he’s a good coach and with enough talent he’ll be successful anywhere .
Jamie can coach. The question is: Can he acquire talent, even at UCLA. Will they be hiring his assistants for him? Will he be allowed to get dirty, and if allowed, will he consider it? You have to have good recruiters where ever you go. UCLA doesn't really recruit solely by the name anymore. He woulld have to compete against Sean Miller for recruits unless Sean is relieved. He would also have to recruit against Dana Altman who has a good program and a ton of money up at Oregon. I think it is a mistake to automatically assume he will have the best talent in that conference.
Expectations are obviously high, and I doubt Jamie would do worlds better than Alford unless there is a significant upgrade in talent. I don't think Dixon is the coach to bring in when you are looking to boost the talent level of your team. I think he would be in over his head there. He would probably last 4 years and likely be ready to retire when he is let go.
Expectations are obviously high, and I doubt Jamie would do worlds better than Alford unless there is a significant upgrade in talent. I don't think Dixon is the coach to bring in when you are looking to boost the talent level of your team. I think he would be in over his head there. He would probably last 4 years and likely be ready to retire when he is let go.
Do you know any UCLA fans; those from CA who starting following them as kids, not those from PA or OH that started to like them because their Dads told them how much success they had in the 60s and 70s? Do you know any UCLA grads; ones that followed them more closely than people on here follow Pitt? I do. I worked with a bunch and I have some buddies who went to UCLA; all fans since the 70s and 80s. You don't know what you are talking about. There were plenty of UCLA fans that didn't think Howland was going to be able to win them a National Championship, and that was after he had already made a few Final Fours. They wanted to get a new coach to use the talent that was brought in to get them over the hump. Once it started to go downhill, they were happy because they could get rid of him pretty easily.
I agree about Dixon. Getting paid what he is and has been has not translated into Tournament success.
So 1 Win in 5 years at Pitt is Great when you throw out The TCU Years? Dixon is the Worst Performing NCAA Tourney Coach in History.. No matter what excuse you throw out, it still is Fact..
And when you use fake usernames to create a new account, at least get the University name correct. It's the University of Pittsburgh, not Pittsburgh University.
If you want to look at what Jamie did (leave) as a positive for Pitt, well his departure was in fact a positive. And I don't mean it in the fact that he left. But his departure combined with the Stallings hire shook this programs from the apathy, as we all learned that nothing is easy, being good is not easy and not an automatic. The KS era was that slap in the face the Athletic Department needed with basketball. You got to pay, and you can't take things for granted.
I never felt Jamie was the reason why we failed under Stallings. If we hired Capel as his replacement, you can't tell me that Capel wouldn't have found that crucial point guard to come in with Young, Artis, Jeter and Jones. And he would have found a big body to bang. Likely they go to the dance. Stallings came in and just mailed it in from the get go.
Who cares? Dixon took advantage of favorable recruiting situations to land a great player. Plenty of coaches do the same thing all across the country.
I never understood the need to discount recruiting wins because of circumstances like this or Dixon's connections to Adams' coach.
Similar threads
