Good season, very good and great

[gary2]

With Pitt playing in the ACC, a 20 win season with at least a .500 conf. record is good. A season with a greater than .500 record with less than 10 overall osses is very good and anything better is great.

It is hard to do much better than good with the schedule Pitt plays. I am not talking about just next season, but lets look at it anyway: Gonzaga, Purdue, Duke, UNC and Louisville and Syracuse twice (plus the other conference games).

We are probably going to play in an good early tournament and a conference challenge series most every year. Then we have our conference schedule (there are now very few weak coaches left working in the ACC). In out of conference games, I would schedule no one I thought I had a less than 75% chance to beat. Sorry.

Pitt's chances to have better seasons would improve some if the ACC played some kind of balanced schedule. Playing Louisville and Syracuse twice definitely puts us at a disadvantage. Being relatively new (and outsider), probably adds at least marginally to our disadvantage when it comes to scheduling and officiating.

The disadvantages I listed, can well be the difference between being a tournament team or not being a tournament team

I would hope that Pitt fans would have realistic expectations moving forward.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

With Pitt playing in the ACC, a 20 win season with at least a .500 conf. record is good. A season with a greater than .500 record with less than 10 overall osses is very good and anything better is great.

It is hard to do much better than good with the schedule Pitt plays. I am not talking about just next season, but lets look at it anyway: Gonzaga, Purdue, Duke, UNC and Louisville and Syracuse twice (plus the other conference games).

We are probably going to play in an good early tournament and a conference challenge series most every year. Then we have our conference schedule (there are now very few weak coaches left working in the ACC). In out of conference games, I would schedule no one I thought I had a less than 75% chance to beat. Sorry.

Pitt's chances to have better seasons would improve some if the ACC played some kind of balanced schedule. Playing Louisville and Syracuse twice definitely puts us at a disadvantage. Being relatively new (and outsider), probably adds at least marginally to our disadvantage when it comes to scheduling and officiating.

The disadvantages I listed, can well be the difference between being a tournament team or not being a tournament team

I would hope that Pitt fans would have realistic expectations moving forward.

Mine:

20 wins, 9-9, 10-8 = acceptable

21+ wins, 11-7, = good

23+ wins, 13-5 = very good

25 wins, 14-4 = great

To be clear, Pitt had a lot of "very good" and "great" seasons playing in a league that is far and away better than the current ACC that we play in. Going forward, I expect the ACC to get a lot better, but right now, its not even close to what the Big East once was.

 

[gary2]

I do not think you are very realistic.

Top ACC conf.records last 2 seasons:

Vir 17-3 ND 17-4 Duke 16-3

Vir 19-2 Syr 14-5 Duke 15-6 UNC 13-6

So - I am guessing to have a very good season, you must finish in the top 3? How realistic is that for Pitt? My guess is that 3 is the best Pitt might do - If we get back to where we were, I see us most years at 4,5 or 6. Most years, Duke, UNC and Louis. are going to be holding down 2 of the 3 top spaces. That leaves basically one spot in the top three. There will be a lot of good competition for that one slot.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I do not think you are very realistic.

Top ACC conf.records last 2 seasons:

Vir 17-3 ND 17-4 Duke 16-3

Vir 19-2 Syr 14-5 Duke 15-6 UNC 13-6

So - I am guessing to have a very good season, you must finish in the top 3? How realistic is that for Pitt? My guess is that 3 is the best Pitt might do - If we get back to where we were, I see us most years at 4,5 or 6. Most years, Duke, UNC and Louis. are going to be holding down 2 of the 3 top spaces. That leaves basically one spot in the top three. There will be a lot of good competition for that one slot.

I'm not saying what is or isn't realistic. .500 or 10-8 in the ACC isn't "good" in my opinion. Its the bare minimum requirement. Anything less than that falls under a "bad" season.

Now, I'm not being unrealistic in thinking we have to do that every season or we can never miss the tournament or that we should be going 14-4 every year but if you're asking what you consider "good," I dont think .500 or 10-8 is a "good" season. It meets the minimum expectations. If you consider that "good," you can.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Ummmmm........just a thought, the conference previously known as the Big East, with UConn, Syracuse, Louisville, Villanova, Marquette, ND, WVU, etc...was pretty damn good, if not better than the current ACC.

So...it is not like we went UP in a level of competition.

 

[gary2]

Ummmmm........just a thought, the conference previously known as the Big East, with UConn, Syracuse, Louisville, Villanova, Marquette, ND, WVU, etc...was pretty damn good, if not better than the current ACC.

So...it is not like we went UP in a level of competition.

We were one of the headline teams of the Big East. We received some minor perks with that. That is no longer the case, If anything, we are at a competitive disadvantage. (see above)

The bottom of the Big East was pretty bad. You were pretty much guaranteed 5-6 wins each season from that group.The bottom of the ACC is not that bad.(particularly with the influx of new coaches).We did not have to play Louisville and Syracuse twice each year. We competed against teams that shared our targeted recruiting area, being successful against them helped our recruiting. That is no longer the case.

It is my opinion that we have a harder road to travel in the current ACC.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

We were one of the headline teams of the Big East. We received some minor perks with that. That is no longer the case, If anything, we are at a competitive disadvantage. (see above)

The bottom of the Big East was pretty bad. You were pretty much guaranteed 5-6 wins each season from that group.The bottom of the ACC is not that bad.(particularly with the influx of new coaches).We did not have to play Louisville and Syracuse twice each year. We competed against teams that shared our targeted recruiting area, being successful against them helped our recruiting. That is no longer the case.

It is my opinion that we have a harder road to travel in the current ACC.

We were one of the headline teams because we were kicking ass and winning the majority of our conference games and being perennially in the top 10. We worked at that, earned that. We made what was it, 7 out of 8 BET finals?

We came from a lot worse position than we are today to become one of the elite programs in the Big East.

 

[Jeffburgh]

We were one of the headline teams of the Big East. We received some minor perks with that. That is no longer the case, If anything, we are at a competitive disadvantage. (see above)

The bottom of the Big East was pretty bad. You were pretty much guaranteed 5-6 wins each season from that group.The bottom of the ACC is not that bad.(particularly with the influx of new coaches).We did not have to play Louisville and Syracuse twice each year. We competed against teams that shared our targeted recruiting area, being successful against them helped our recruiting. That is no longer the case.

It is my opinion that we have a harder road to travel in the current ACC.

If JD had the quality of teams he had his first eight seasons he would have done pretty much the same as he did in the BE. Heck, a team with Lamar and Zanna as seniors, a good squad, but not as strong overall as a number of JDs better BE teams, won 26 games in the ACC.

IF he had his mojo, he could do what he did in the BE in the ACC - an annual top 4 or so team in the league.

 

[NTOP]

If JD had the quality of teams he had his first eight seasons he would have done pretty much the same as he did in the BE. Heck, a team with Lamar and Zanna as seniors, a good squad, but not as strong overall as a number of JDs better BE teams, won 26 games in the ACC.

IF he had his mojo, he could do what he did in the BE in the ACC - an annual top 4 or so team in the league.

Hmmm.....well, he had that mojo about 17 months ago. If we get some post defense and better health....the mojo will reappear.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

We were one of the headline teams of the Big East. We received some minor perks with that. That is no longer the case, If anything, we are at a competitive disadvantage. (see above)

The bottom of the Big East was pretty bad. You were pretty much guaranteed 5-6 wins each season from that group.The bottom of the ACC is not that bad.(particularly with the influx of new coaches).We did not have to play Louisville and Syracuse twice each year. We competed against teams that shared our targeted recruiting area, being successful against them helped our recruiting. That is no longer the case.

It is my opinion that we have a harder road to travel in the current ACC.

The bottom of the ACC is just as bad, if not worse. Right now, anyways, it could always get better, of course. The reason it doesn't seem as bad is because we're not as good and we are losing to those teams.

As for not playing Syr and Lou twice in the Big East, for many years, our repeat games were against the top teams because ESPN got to pick them so we had one of the most difficult in-conference schedule.

Listen, this isn't even a debate. The ACC, right now, is not even close to the level of the Big East we came from.........a league we were dominant in. Maybe that was a fluke, I dont know but we spent a decade at the top of the greatest bball league ever. I understand Duke is Duke and UNC is UNC, but you can't convince me we can't be Virginia or even Syracuse. We were the "Virginia" of the old Big East and we were BETTER than Syracuse for all those years. Even the year they won the NC, we finished higher than them and beat them.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

The bottom of the ACC is just as bad, if not worse. Right now, anyways, it could always get better, of course. The reason it doesn't seem as bad is because we're not as good and we are losing to those teams.

As for not playing Syr and Lou twice in the Big East, for many years, our repeat games were against the top teams because ESPN got to pick them so we had one of the most difficult in-conference schedule.

Listen, this isn't even a debate. The ACC, right now, is not even close to the level of the Big East we came from.........a league we were dominant in. Maybe that was a fluke, I dont know but we spent a decade at the top of the greatest bball league ever. I understand Duke is Duke and UNC is UNC, but you can't convince me we can't be Virginia or even Syracuse. We were the "Virginia" of the old Big East and we were BETTER than Syracuse for all those years. Even the year they won the NC, we finished higher than them and beat them.

SMF is right. In the Big East, UConn won multiple NC's, Syracuse, and Louisville also won. Those schools, Marquette, WVU, Nova, GTown, all went to Final 4's in a relatively short span. Selling the ACC as an upgrade over the old Big East (in BB) is just a fallacy. Duke is Duke, but Carolina hasn't been what Carolina has been, and GT and Wake are a shell of their former selves.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

SMF is right. In the Big East, UConn won multiple NC's, Syracuse, and Louisville also won. Those schools, Marquette, WVU, Nova, GTown, all went to Final 4's in a relatively short span. Selling the ACC as an upgrade over the old Big East (in BB) is just a fallacy. Duke is Duke, but Carolina hasn't been what Carolina has been, and GT and Wake are a shell of their former selves.

I don't know who has ever said the "new ACC" is better than the "old Big East." Has anybody? Is that what you're saying, Gary? That's not even an argument you can make, let alone win. The "old Big East" will probably never be duplicated in terms of quality teams. For crying out loud, the league had THREE #1 seeds one year and little old Pitt actually won the thing OUTRIGHT! That's not to say we can do the same stuff going forward but the ACC will never be an excuse for me as to why we can't be landing consistent Sweet 16 caliber-type teams.

 

[gary2]

I don't know who has ever said the "new ACC" is better than the "old Big East." Has anybody? Is that what you're saying, Gary? That's not even an argument you can make, let alone win. The "old Big East" will probably never be duplicated in terms of quality teams. For crying out loud, the league had THREE #1 seeds one year and little old Pitt actually won the thing OUTRIGHT! That's not to say we can do the same stuff going forward but the ACC will never be an excuse for me as to why we can't be landing consistent Sweet 16 caliber-type teams.

No - My point is not that the ACC is better than the old Big East.

My point is that it appears that it will be more difficult for Pitt to achieve the level of success that it had in the old Big East now that we are in the ACC and the reason(s) are more than the caliber of team(s) we play.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

No - My point is not that the ACC is better than the old Big East.

My point is that it appears that it will be more difficult for Pitt to achieve the level of success that it had in the old Big East now that we are in the ACC and the reason(s) are more than the caliber of team(s) we play.

in the ACC there are legit historical blue bloods who have tremendous advantages (UNC and Duke).
in the big east...the quality was better, but the entrenched gulf between the best programs and the programs like Pitt..were not as great. The closest thing would have been Louisville who was a neophyte to the conference.
UConn is a new blue blood, in my estimation...but, it's because of great coaching hires.

I think that's the fairest assessment.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

No - My point is not that the ACC is better than the old Big East.

My point is that it appears that it will be more difficult for Pitt to achieve the level of success that it had in the old Big East now that we are in the ACC and the reason(s) are more than the caliber of team(s) we play.

To be fair, if the old 16-team Big East came back to life tomorrow and all those teams decided to rejoin the league or whatever, it would be even more difficult for Pitt to achieve the same level of success as they had 2002-2013. The point is we did it, in a much more difficult league, but that is not to say we could do it again and nobody should expect us to regardless of whether its Duke and UNC instead of UConn, Gtown, and Nova.

The reason Pitt may not achieve that level of success has little to do with UNC and Duke replacing UConn, Gtown, and Nova and more to do with us not having the same quality of player as we used to have.

 

[Zaratoughda]

I agree 100% that the ACC is not comparable to the OBE.

But, on the other hand... the ACC may be getting better. Someone posted a couple of months ago that overall the ACC should be better this coming year than they were last year. And, that improvement may continue over the next couple of years where they MAY get to the level of the OBE.

On the other hand... in the ACC the Dukies and UNC are threats to win a NC every year... but just about nobody else (well, now Louisville as well.. and Virginia currently) is also a threat. But, in the OBE you might have maybe eight schools that, if things went right, could win one.

Not sure the ACC will get to that level. Well, unless the other teams start knocking Duke and UNC off on a consistent basis.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

No - My point is not that the ACC is better than the old Big East.

My point is that it appears that it will be more difficult for Pitt to achieve the level of success that it had in the old Big East now that we are in the ACC and the reason(s) are more than the caliber of team(s) we play.

The only difference between Pitt 2009 and Pitt today is the players and talent level. And well, Assistant Coaches. Put that team or those teams in that era in the Big East, and we likely at least duplicate what UVa has done.