Honest question-Does Pitt make the Ncaa Tournament

[steel_curtain]

just 1 time in the 3 next years?


Pitt only has 2 recruits for 2015. And 5 players are already gone from last year going into next year, with the possibility of more.


Pitt has 1 recruit on life support in 2016, Manigault. Who is starting to get noticed a lot with his recent play, bigger sharks will call him and with Pitt's track record he probably decommits unfortunately.


That said, if Pitt fails to make the Ncaa's in the next 3 years, that will be 5 seasons out of 7 with no Ncaa Tournament including 4 seasons in a row.

Does that get Dixon fired?

I have Pitt preseason 11th-13th in the ACC right now going into next year.

 

[whirlybird optio]

Yea, that would get him fired

But 3 seasons is a lifetime in college basketball. I also think JD would leave on his own before he would get fired.

I also think he's not likely to get fired, or quit, and that he's more likely to figure it out. Huggins did, and there was a mass exodus from that program. I'm really interested in the 2016 class...manigault can sign in like 6 months. We have a ton of offers out, I think, hope, the coaches recognize the trouble they are in.

But, people on this board are acting like he's on the verge of getting fired, when in reality he's nowhere close. Like you said, at least 2, probably 3 more bad years.

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

As far as making the NCAAs who knows. A lot can happen good and bad.

I'm sure your comment on Manigault is out of frustration. And I get it. And of course other schools might come calling but why is it on life support? He committed to this staff. Heron was Slice's guy.

And my opinion - if they miss the next 3 years - I'd say it's a good possibility he'd be gone although buying out his contract even then would be pricey unless the number of years is less than I think it is.

This post was edited on 4/17 8:57 PM by King Of All Message Boards

 

[Piranha]

Let's see how the roster fills out, and if there are any coaching changes.

 

[NTOP]

Lol. Time for Midol.

Get real.

 

[chethejet]

The buyout will be an issue for sure. I see Dixon here next year and my guess is the year after that. If things are not improved as to recruiting wins ect., he will be gone and that leaves six years of a salary of 12 million that Pitt pays. The outside shoe deals media ect. are part of his package but not directly his base salary. So yes I can see a buyout closer to 3 to 4 million being the case. Buyouts tend to be front loaded to insure a coach stays for example HCPC had a buyout of approx 2 million or less when he left. But I believe his buyout was much higher his first and second year.

 

[Harve74]

The offer by USC that was matched was 10 years, $30 million. The last two years of his existing contract at about $1.5 and 2 million were rolled into the 10 years, $30MM. This year is the first year under the "new" portion and has been generally reported as about $3MM. So, he has received about 6.5 and has $23.5MM remaining. His yearly rate at the end of the deal has to be above the $3MM average. If he gets the same $3MM each of the next two years, there would be 17.5MM remaining. Over 5 years, that's $3.5MM yearly.

I don't see how you can say Pitt will owe him only $12 million in two years. Agreed media and shoe companies pay a portion but I don't see that totaling over 1/3 of his salary.

Chryst's buy-out was basically everything remaining on his contract. Why would Dixon's be less?

His agent would have to have been a fool to accept a buyout for the last half of the contract about equal to ONE year's wages. And, his agent was no fool. He played Pitt VERY successfully for big raises every time Jamie's contract got within a year or two of expiring.

I can maybe see PITTLAW's figure of around $10MM, but not ONE year's salary.

I can't argue with the need to make a change if it doesn't turn around after two more seasons. But it's not going to be easy financially.

This post was edited on 4/18 11:48 AM by Harve74

 

[cruzer]

Steve Pederson - the gift that just keeps on giving.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It seems to me...

that some people are confusing a coach's buyout with what happens when a coach gets fired. If Jamie Dixon wants to leave and go someplace else, he is responsible for buying out his contract with Pitt. These days it seems as if most of these deals include a buyout that is $X times Y years left on the contract, so that the amount to buy the deal out decreases as the length remaining on the contract lessens. In other words, if Dixon wants to leave with six years left on his contract and the number is $1.5 million per year left, he owes Pitt $9 million. If he wants to leave with five years left on his deal then he would owe Pitt $7.5 million, and so on.

However that situation is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what happens if Pitt wants to fire Dixon. I have certainly not seen Dixon's contract, but in most situations where a coach gets fired the school owes the coach the full value of what remains on the contract. If Dixon were to have 5 years at $3 million per season left on his contract and Pitt were to fire him, then for the next five years Pitt would owe Jamie Dixon $3 million every year. Typically, the one and one one way that that number gets reduced (not eliminated, reduced) is if the coach who gets fired gets a job coaching someplace else. So that if Pitt fired Dixon with 5 years and $3 million per year left on his contract and Dixon takes the Ben Howland route and doesn't coach for two seasons before signing on to coach somewhere else, Pitt would owe Dixon the full $3 million for both the first and the second seasons, and then they would owe him some amount smaller than $3 million for years three, four and five. That's what typically gets negotiated in these types of deals, what the discount is off of full value if the fired coach takes a position somewhere else. When Ben Howland didn't work for two seasons, UCLA owed Ben Howland the full value of the contract they signed for those two years.

The notion that a school can get out of their financial obligations to a coach simply by firing him is wrong. Completely and totally wrong. If Pitt were to fire Jamie Dixon when he has 6 years at $3 million per year left on his contract and Dixon decides to leave coaching forever and return to his real first love, acting, then Pitt will almost certainly be paying Jamie Dixon $18 million over those next 6 years.

When a school fires a coach, they are NOT buying out the coaches contract. They may negotiate an agreement that would say that instead of paying you $18 million over the next 6 years the school will make one lump sum payment of $14 million (or some such number) right now, but that number is based on the present value of the installment payments remaining on the contract, not on the buy out clause in the contract. Because a coach buying out a contract to leave and go elsewhere and a coach getting fired are two completely different situations.

The fact that schools who fire coaches basically owe the coach the full value of the money remaining on their deal is one reason why you almost never see a coach who has four or five or six years left on their contract get fired. Because most schools simply will not pay a guy that much money to do nothing.



This post was edited on 4/18 12:56 PM by Joe the Panther Fan

 

[UPitt129]

Really?

They might make the NIT...they also might win 25 games.

 

[Fredact]

Is this a serious question? I think the question for the next 2 years is how far will they go in the NCAAs, not if they will be in them.