ADVERTISEMENT

Have no interest in "splash" hires . . .

DC_Area_Panther

Head Coach
Jul 7, 2001
13,853
4,794
113
Half the time such hires fail anyway. All I want in an AD is competence. With 10 yrs at tOSU in athletic admin and a couple as an AD in training at EMU she should be at least competent. I am perfectly willing to wait and see with this hire.

This is opposite to my opinion on the Stallings hire. The two hires aren't comparable. He had a 17 year record of mediocrity. Her hire is more analogous to what we would have had as a hoops coach if we had rolled the dice and hired an up and coming young coach instead of hiring the mediocre experienced guy we did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H2P-2007
Splash hires create juice in the program. Not sure what a "splash" would have been in terms of an AD, but I think most were unimpressed. That creates no juice for the program. Juice=donations
 
Pitt had no plans for a splash hire for AD (e.g., Tressel). I am neither particularly surprised nor particularly disappointed by this hire because it is fully consistent with what I expected Pitt to do in selecting a new AD. Anyone expecting something more was guilty of unrealistic and wishful thinking, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittmeister
I don't think Juice comes from AD hires--it comes from FB and Men's Hoops hires. They got some with Narduzzzi--none with Stallings (actually probably negative "juice" with the Stallings hire). If our new AD wants to generate some "juice" the best way for that to happen will be to fire Stallings if he doesn't have a winning season next year and appear to be positioned to easily make the NCAAs the year after,.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TCS173
Half the time such hires fail anyway. All I want in an AD is competence. With 10 yrs at tOSU in athletic admin and a couple as an AD in training at EMU she should be at least competent. I am perfectly willing to wait and see with this hire.

This is opposite to my opinion on the Stallings hire. The two hires aren't comparable. He had a 17 year record of mediocrity. Her hire is more analogous to what we would have had as a hoops coach if we had rolled the dice and hired an up and coming young coach instead of hiring the mediocre experienced guy we did.

And you think Pitt hired for competence here? Based on what we know, it sure looks like they were way more interested in making a diversity hire first and foremost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paulbl99
And you think Pitt hired for competence here? Based on what we know, it sure looks like they were way more interested in making a diversity hire first and foremost.

Whether or not that is the reason it doesn't matter, IMHO, if she proves to be basically competent.
 
So basically competent was our goal in this hire. Oh, stupid me! I thought that we were trying to bring our athletic programs back to national relevance. She may be able (i hope) to do just that, but an AD position at a P5 university is not a hire where you roll the dice on an unproven candidate.
It is a fait accompli, so we will support her efforts and hope for great success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PantherDave724
I don't think Juice comes from AD hires--it comes from FB and Men's Hoops hires. They got some with Narduzzzi--none with Stallings (actually probably negative "juice" with the Stallings hire). If our new AD wants to generate some "juice" the best way for that to happen will be to fire Stallings if he doesn't have a winning season next year and appear to be positioned to easily make the NCAAs the year after,.

How about firing Stallings now? If her goal is to win championships as she stated many times in the press conference, just cut ties now with him. There aren't many AD's who will put up with his behavior and suck at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andypappas
How about firing Stallings now? If her goal is to win championships as she stated many times in the press conference, just cut ties now with him. There aren't many AD's who will put up with his behavior and suck at the same time.
She will be glad to do that as soon as you write her a check!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Piranha
So basically competent was our goal in this hire. Oh, stupid me! I thought that we were trying to bring our athletic programs back to national relevance. She may be able (i hope) to do just that, but an AD position at a P5 university is not a hire where you roll the dice on an unproven candidate.
It is a fait accompli, so we will support her efforts and hope for great success.

Want national relevance? That costs money. Money for recruiting budgets. Money for assistant coaches. Money for facilities upgrades.

So, when can we count on your donation?
 
And you think Pitt hired for competence here? Based on what we know, it sure looks like they were way more interested in making a diversity hire first and foremost.

Law,

Usually I agree with your opinions, but in this case I just can't...

I think your expectations are unrealistic... What did you expect? There are very few P5 AD's that view Pitt as a clear step up. Wake Forest? Kansas St? Iowa St? And based on the success of those schools, do you really want them?

In that case, we need to hire someone who understands how P5 athletic programs are run on a big time level. Having some AD experience helps as well. Having experience raising money is extremely important as well. Lyke fits the bill. She got her feet wet at OSU with fund raising and did a good job of raising money at a dead end trap at EMU.

If you hire an AD that has nothing but non-P5 level experience, you will get small time thinking. You get a person who is not used to thinking boldly. We need bold thinking and a tireless worker.

Let's see what see does.
 
Again.....Pitt needs a Bobby Axelrod type of guy as a grad and avid fan to not only pony up some big $$$ but have that big enough personality to recruit other big money alums to pony up cash specifically for football and basketball.

Another thing, people with lots of money, usually have lots of money because they are smart and no how to make deals. And part of that is not parting their money without some return or some influence. I think what has happened with Pitt since Nordy/Pedey regime purged alot of he booster groups, Pitt expected these guys to donate like good soldiers and shut up and be seen and not heard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittmeister
I was on vacation and didnt have a chance to first get on this board until last night. Im generally pleased, and am surprised (maybe naivety on my part) to see the negative opinions on here.
 
Again.....Pitt needs a Bobby Axelrod type of guy as a grad and avid fan to not only pony up some big $$$ but have that big enough personality to recruit other big money alums to pony up cash specifically for football and basketball.

Another thing, people with lots of money, usually have lots of money because they are smart and no how to make deals. And part of that is not parting their money without some return or some influence. I think what has happened with Pitt since Nordy/Pedey regime purged alot of he booster groups, Pitt expected these guys to donate like good soldiers and shut up and be seen and not heard.
Exactly right, but to be fair, it seems to be the attitude by every regime since the legendary Golden Panther "scandal" and/or fears about the SMU death penalty in the 80s. The influence was deemed too much at the time, right or wrong ... and ever since, the attitude of "give blindly" seems paramount.

Well, most know that simply isn't how it works in real life. Those with significant money and willing to donate it to something as, face it, frivolous as sports programs are not doing it for the good of humanity. They are type A (whatever term beginning with A you wish to affix) people with giant egos. Some good souls like the Petersens might be that way, but more are like T Boone or (shudder) Lubrano.

Pitt brass ... several iterations... hopefully are smart enough to know this too, but seem willing to accept being (and receiving) small potatoes in exchange for freezing out influence.

Some will now say that the release of Dixon is proof that our donors get too much influence. Well, my counter opinion on that (and it's all opinion of course, theirs and mine) is that Pitt was happy to leverage the gripes of donors to rid themselves of Jamie's big contract...but not interested in the least to give influence on the hiring to replace him. IMO, because there's no way in heck a donor with any real influence would have been willing to sanction Stallings. None. Zero.

The other side now will likely say, "the donors didn't donate enough to deserve that influence, aka, enough to afford a splash hire. " but my opinion would be, "if Pitt isn't going to give the influence, don't expect the big checks." (And, I'll also ask why did Pitt listen to them about Dixon in the first place?)

I'd really like to know which perspective is the correct one. Alas, there are no true reporters in this junk town. :(
 
There is no way the buyout for Stallings is 10 mil
I ballparked it but he had 5 years left so 1.5 - 2 million a year could be more don't think it is published anywhere.

There really is no buyout if you fire someone. You have to pay them the rest of their contract.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT