Ontario Lett, Antonio Graves, Cam Johnson, Ryan Luther were all pretty good players who were lottery tickets.
Jamie going dancing
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Yes on Cam but Luther and Jones were average at best.
You are correct in that this TCU team resembles his Pitt team. Lumpkin and Miller underneath. Miller at PG. Im jealous. Hope to see Nova/TCU.
It does but you always need luck (he got a 300ish big who is good) and get a little dirty (his best player was part of a package deal with an assistant)
Cam was a guy that developed later & left the program.
Luther averaged 8 pts and 4 rebounds for an Arizona team that finished below .500 in a horrible conference.
Artis & Young weren't anything special.
He didn't have a PG.
Once you go beyond Cam, none of the underclassmen were guys you can win with in any major conference.
You don't know who else he would've brought in + one of his strengths was player development.
I think I will actually shed tears in TCU gets slated in Pittsburgh. I know I will cry if they play Villanova in round 2. I would just be left to wonder why oh why the basketball gods hate Pitt Hoops fans so much.
Fair or not, reasonable or not a lot of Jamie's downfall at Pitt was due to trajectory. And his last 5 seasons at Pitt, the product was not particularly entertaining.
For all the success Jamie Dixon had his first 8 years, he left Pitt basketball in significantly worse shape than when he took over.
Pitt went 23-5, 13-3 conference record, top 10 ranking with a Sweet 16 appearance in Ben's last year. That is significantly better than 21-12, 9-9 conference record, unranked 10 seed with an ugly first round NCAA loss. In fact, all 3 NCAA exits in Jamie's last 5 years were brutally ugly losses. All of them on the first weekend of the tourney & 2 in the first round.
If the program weren't mired in mediocrity for FIVE consecutive years, with seemingly nothing on the horizon to give any reason to think things would significantly improve, no booster would would have had the audacity to start meddling.
Serious question: If Jamie had bolted after 2011, and the next coach delivered the exact same results as Dixon did his last 5 years, don't you think that coach would find himself on the hot seat, or most likely out of a job after 5 years?
For all the success Jamie Dixon had his first 8 years, he left Pitt basketball in significantly worse shape than when he took over.
Pitt went 23-5, 13-3 conference record, top 10 ranking with a Sweet 16 appearance in Ben's last year. That is significantly better than 21-12, 9-9 conference record, unranked 10 seed with an ugly first round NCAA loss. In fact, all 3 NCAA exits in Jamie's last 5 years were brutally ugly losses. All of them on the first weekend of the tourney & 2 in the first round.
If the program weren't mired in mediocrity for FIVE consecutive years, with seemingly nothing on the horizon to give any reason to think things would significantly improve, no booster would would have had the audacity to start meddling.
Serious question: If Jamie had bolted after 2011, and the next coach delivered the exact same results as Dixon did his last 5 years, don't you think that coach would find himself on the hot seat, or most likely out of a job after 5 years?
Serious question: If Jamie had bolted after 2011, and the next coach delivered the exact same results as Dixon did his last 5 years, don't you think that coach would find himself on the hot seat, or most likely out of a job after 5 years?
They would have been on a hot seat, yes. But this question is based on the premise you can't build any good will or more patience with earlier wins. Going to our first elite eight since 1974 has to buy you some time. So does winning two Big East regular season titles and a Big East tournament as well. Three sweet sixteens. I would have traded any of that for a final four, but no such Genie seemed to exist.
This is an old discussion of course but hey, 10 minutes left in the work week. If Jamie truly wanted to leave, so be it. But not making the rich oil Baptists of TCU buy out the full contract was horrible. That is big money from a school that relied on tuition and tax payments for athletics..
They would have been on a hot seat, yes. But this question is based on the premise you can't build any good will or more patience with earlier wins. Going to our first elite eight since 1974 has to buy you some time. So does winning two Big East regular season titles and a Big East tournament as well. Three sweet sixteens. I would have traded any of that for a final four, but no such Genie seemed to exist.
This is an old discussion of course but hey, 10 minutes left in the work week. If Jamie truly wanted to leave, so be it. But not making the rich oil Baptists of TCU buy out the full contract was horrible. That is big money from a school that relied on tuition and tax payments for athletics..
It had been 7 years since the Elite 8 year. And fair or not, some good will & equity Jamie built of at Pitt was probably offset somewhat by his overall lackluster results in the NCAA tourney. I think Jamie was entering hot seat territory and I think both parties knew that if the marriage between Pitt and Jamie continued, chances are it wasn't going to end well.
I don't understand why people have a problem with Pitt lowering the buyout. I think it was a nice gesture on Pitt's part and the very least they could do for Jamie after his stint as the most successful coach in Pitt history. If you have a coach/school that both feel strongly there is a buyout via termination coming a couple years down the road, it just seems logical to negotiate the buyout with TCU.
Lowering the buyout not only spared Pitt from having to straight out fire the most successful coach in school history, but it allowed Jamie to save a lot of face. Jamie has went over a decade with only 1 win in the NCAA tourney and only 2 seasons where he has finished above .500 in his conference. - and he has yet to be fired. How many other coaches can you name that has that kind of track record in a 10 year period that hasn't been booted? I'm pretty sure that it would be a short list.
Brief reply is 1.) TCU has a lot of money and our very brief term athletic director should have taken his fiduciary responsibility more seriously even if he was ready to move on from Dixon and 2.) that last stat is misleading because TCU had been a bottom dweller for decades. Jamie will likely take then now to 2 NCAA tournaments -- they had gone twice before in the last 42 years.
I'm not going to deny I was frustrated with the direction things headed as we went to the ACC and struggle to adjust to new recruiting regions and rule changes/style of play.
I'm not going to deny I was frustrated with the direction things headed as we went to the ACC and struggle to adjust to new recruiting regions and rule changes/style of play.
