Do you know what perspective is? By your definition imploding would be number 5 seeds consistently and going to the sweet 16's once in a 5 year period.
Mind boggling.
Pat Forde weighs in on the Stallings hire, and it's not good
- Thread starter Fredact
- Start date
Do you know what perspective is? By your definition imploding would be number 5 seeds consistently and going to the sweet 16's once in a 5 year period.
Mind boggling.
Not sure how including in a team that won its Conference and earned a 1-seed will make an implosion appear more vivid, but hey, do you.
I know you're pretty dead set on ignoring the reports and proclaiming that Pitt is a spectacular job that only a fool would turn down.
Fine, nitpick the syntax if you like.
The dude lost his mojo. He knew it. Everybody knew it. So he skipped town.
Get a pencil and ruler. Draw a dot representing Pitt's 2011 performance, however you choose to define it. Then draw a dot for 2016. Lastly, connect the dots.
Now, is the slope positive or negative... and does including 2011 make it steeper or not?
Can't believe I need to walk people through this, but I guess it's needed sometimes.
It's really bad. Was just killing the Pirates early last season for trading Snider even though everything was pointed to extreme luck in his start to the year. Ultimately muted him when he retweeted something about the Pirates passing on Schwarber to draft Meadows (Schwarber wasn't eligible to be drafted in Meadows' draft, and was taken 4th overall in a year when the Pirates picked 24th).
He's just really bad with basic facts and has a very neanderthal understanding of the game.
LOL I love how people will scream "body of work!" until they're blue in the face when it suits their arguments but then when it comes to Dixon it's all about parsing trend lines and playing hypotheticals.
By that logic, how is the program compared to 2011-12? Oh my god, Dixon took them from the CBI to a team that averaged 10 wins in-Conference and 3 out of 4 NCAA Tournaments. And this is after losing Ashton Gibbs after the 2011-12 season and seeing Steven Adams leave after one year. That's incredible!
The trend line was to simplify it for you, since it felt like you needed it.
I never screamed "body of work", and nobody is saying Dixon's body of work was bad. In fact, it was really good. I think you're arguing past me and with the wall behind me.. or something.
Many facets of the program were trending down in recent years. Dixon didn't appear able (or more likely willing) to come up with the answer. Dixon felt he needed to walk away from it. No hard feelings. I don't have any hard feelings against Dixon, in fact I'm grateful for what he did here. Amazingly my criticism of the Stallings hire is continually spun back to Dixon, though. I need to do a better job steering clear of it, or at least clearly differentiating.. apparently.
The trend line is utterly useless. That's my point.
Body of work is what matters.
Again, if people think that the wheels were falling off with 3 Tourneys in 4 years, an average of 10 wins in the ACC, and almost an entire roster returning -- THAT is why coaches were killing this job and had no interest.
There's no proof at all for your claim in the fird
Dixon made the Pitt job look somewhat unattractive because he was a pathetic recruiter. Any coach with a personality can recruit at Pitt.
Haven't looked at his trends, although I'd assume they're similar to Dixon. Can look either good or bad depending on which year you choose to begin with. My guess is he makes the Dance like 50% of the time and keeps Pitt from joining Wake Forest and Boston College in the basement of the ACC. Dixon is spotting him a solid jumping off point for next season.
Step down from Dixon, step up from what was likely if they went down to the low-major ranks. Still should be enough to show that Pitt isn't destined to be the bottom feeder it's always been outside of Dixon's time here.
Pitt has always been a bottom feeder outside of Dixon's time here?? this disqualifies you and all of your posts on the subject..
Looking at pretty much the entire 60 year period before Dixon -- yeah, that's certainly not the exception. Complete and total non-factor on a national level, and usually a non-factor in Conference.
If we wanted to hire a guy to make the Dance 50% of the time, there was a huge number of candidates who likely could have made that happen... many younger with more upside.
Stallings' all-important body of work includes 7 NCAAT appearances in 17 years. Feeling good about that?
But you've got one thing right... Dixon spotted him a team that's good for at least two games in the NCAA tournament next season. God help him if next year is not in the upper 50% of the very tame expectations you've set for him.
By the way...
“When I first met him and we talked, one of first questions he asked me was about the lay of the land, and I asked him, ‘Why Pitt?’” Barnes said. “He said, ‘Can you get to Final Four at Pitt?’ I said, ‘Absolutely,’ and he said ‘I’m in.’ That’s very, very important to him and it’s important to us.”
So by Barnes' own standards... we should expect more from Stallings.
“When I first met him and we talked, one of first questions he asked me was about the lay of the land, and I asked him, ‘Why Pitt?’” Barnes said. “He said, ‘Can you get to Final Four at Pitt?’ I said, ‘Absolutely,’ and he said ‘I’m in.’ That’s very, very important to him and it’s important to us.”
So by Barnes' own standards... we should expect more from Stallings.
I think 7 NCAAT in 17 years at Vanderbilt is fine. Not great, but it's not like he's putting those results up at a place like Indiana or UCLA or even an NC State. He's been more successful than the guys at Stanford since Montgomery left, as an example of other limited programs academically.
There are certainly younger coaches who have a solid chance to get Pitt to the Dance 50% of the time, but every single report out there has been that they all said no -- so at that point what are you going to do? You either go dumpster diving at the low-major level or you get a low-risk, low-upside guy to keep things somewhat going and then try again at a later date. (Or, apparently, you dig your heels in and say that all of the reports of coaches saying no are patently false but I'm trying to operate in reality instead of Fantasyland).
FWIW, I would have had the same expectations for Enfield that I have for Stallings. I didn't love Enfield much, either.
I also won't ever hold any coach to a set number of March wins. Too much randomness. I'm not going to feel good about Pitt if they go 17-15 next year, sneak in as a Last Four In, and make the Sweet 16 or better. I'm not going to feel bad about Pitt if they go 30-1, get a 1-seed, and get knocked out in the Round of 32. Weird stuff happens in March -- we see it every year.
You've left the biased area and are now officially standing in whack job land. Either do some research or start up a sabermetrics thread justifying Sean Rodriguez post.
So here's the nuance between your stance and mine, as far as I can tell:
1) You take the "Pitt job sucks" narrative at face value. I don't. I believe the search was not conducted in good faith for a number of well-documented and logical reasons which I'm guessing you haven't paid much attention to. Fine, you take your "reality" and I'll take mine.
2) You don't want to over-emphasize March wins. That's actually very reasonable. I also don't think we need a concrete number. All I need, personally, to support a coach is evidence that March winning is possible... at least once in a while... in a major way. Evidence of that can been outperforming seed once in a while... a deep run as high seed a couple of times... or even a flukey George Mason type of Final Four. I just need some evidence.
Dixon offered ample evidence that he's a March-pants-crapper. I have no doubt he'll get TCU to the tournament once in a while. I have huge doubts that he'll ever win more than one tourney game with them in a single season.
Stallings has taken an also-ran program to the Sweet 16 twice. That's not bad. Not Amazing. It doesn't offer much clear hope of improvement over Dixon.
I think this is a good point for us to shake hands and call it a day.
1) You take the "Pitt job sucks" narrative at face value. I don't. I believe the search was not conducted in good faith for a number of well-documented and logical reasons which I'm guessing you haven't paid much attention to. Fine, you take your "reality" and I'll take mine.
2) You don't want to over-emphasize March wins. That's actually very reasonable. I also don't think we need a concrete number. All I need, personally, to support a coach is evidence that March winning is possible... at least once in a while... in a major way. Evidence of that can been outperforming seed once in a while... a deep run as high seed a couple of times... or even a flukey George Mason type of Final Four. I just need some evidence.
Dixon offered ample evidence that he's a March-pants-crapper. I have no doubt he'll get TCU to the tournament once in a while. I have huge doubts that he'll ever win more than one tourney game with them in a single season.
Stallings has taken an also-ran program to the Sweet 16 twice. That's not bad. Not Amazing. It doesn't offer much clear hope of improvement over Dixon.
I think this is a good point for us to shake hands and call it a day.
Feel free to enlighten me, but in all the research that I've done and the games I've experienced, I have absolutely nothing that indicates notable periods of relevance on the part of Pitt's basketball program. Just random blips here and there.
No different than the football program. Random period of success, lots of mediocrity and irrelevance surrounding it.
Worst case scenario--
TCU makes the NCAAs. Pitt lands in the CBI.
Gadzooks! We better hope not.
TCU makes the NCAAs. Pitt lands in the CBI.
Gadzooks! We better hope not.
Pitt basketball existed before Jamie Dixon. To even think for one second that he put pitt on the map of the college basketball world makes me want to crash my car in the oncoming traffic
How is saying Pitt was irrelevant in basketball pre howls from and Dixon whack job land.
They absolutely were.
That's not really the enlightenment I was looking for, considering a little bit of research was all I should have needed to see the light. I'm assuming you have something more substantive that I overlooked. Or was I just supposed to see that, in a literal sense, Pitt basketball existed prior to Howland/Dixon coming in?
I mean, I was going to games before those guys got here so I didn't need to see it for myself on the internet or in a media guide.
Here are the facts. In the last 15 years, Pitt has 13 tourney appearances. In the previous 60, they had 13.
Now you may want to say that isn't fair, that the NIT used to be the measuring stick.Pitt only has 9 of those.
By every measure, Pitt was an irrelevant program until the last 15 years. Howland broke through, but Dixon solidified Pitt as a relevant player on the national stage.
Now you may want to say that isn't fair, that the NIT used to be the measuring stick.Pitt only has 9 of those.
By every measure, Pitt was an irrelevant program until the last 15 years. Howland broke through, but Dixon solidified Pitt as a relevant player on the national stage.
LOL!!!
So if I am overestimating them over the last 13 years, with multiple big east titles, 11 tourney appearances, number one rankings and seeds, where exactly would that put them before howland.
You just 100% contradicted yourself.
Existing, but really only in a literal sense for all intents and purposes. So he's been pretty consistent, actually.
Pitt basketball did indeed exist before Howland/Dixon.
More like TCU joined the Big 12 about 4 years ago...no way was Dixon going to coach a MWC team based in Texas.
That's where I don't completely agree with you--some of the best come from those mid-major ranks, and we hired a gem from NAU in Howland. Personally, I'd rather take the risk and hire the best one of those we could get. maybe take a little longer and work a little harder at finding the right guy. I don't think the goal was ever to maintain the status quo, which had become lackluster. Stallings has a long track record of mediocrity so the die is more or less cast. Like everyone else, I hope the the change of scenery works out for all involved, but I am skeptical that it will work out that way.
One thing I continue to belie strongly, and that's that we were going nowhere any time soon with Dixon at the helm. He let this thing get away from him and showed no signs of getting it back on track, so change wasn't the worst thing in the world--but this change, i have to admit, i never saw coming. I fully expected better.
I agree with you--just hiring a guy to prevent the wheels frOm falling off, and hopefully set us up better for the next guy, that doesn't fly. No way that;s what Barnes intended with this hire either.
You mean 3 tourneys in 5 years--with a CBI and a NIT rounding out the 5. The last 5 years have not been impressive. Barely making the tournament by beating 11 absolute patsies and going around .500 in the league is no way to fly.
the roster that's returning is one of the problems. Not much quality there, and lots of big holes at key spots--like capable backcourt scorers and a legit bigs. No experience at PG. The product of years of inadequate recruiting. The outlook was not rosy for next year. The guy in the best position to know that is Dixon, and he left under his own steam. Do you really think he would have done that if he thought his returning roster was capable of big things?
Or respected posters like Dt Pitt stating he wasn't forced out.
Or respected contributors like Matt Steinbrink saying he wasn't.
It doesn't matter. Again, people are dif
Poor grammar on my part, my apologies
Back at it i see. Dude your friggen relentless. Pitt has had 15 years of success. 4 with Howland. So again your full of shit. Saying Pitt's success is only tied to Dixon.
Take a hike. Your obviously not a Pitt fan
Dont argue with this troll. He is not a Pitt fan. He has NO IDEA who wanted the Pitt job. The fact he continues his agenda saying nobody wanted the job. Screams a moron
If you want to count Howland's 4 years, then it's 17 years. But they weren't all that good his first 2 years. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
But then, I'm sure you only started following college hoops around 2003 or so.
Nope. Ive followed Pitt hoops when we had Clyde Vaughn. Charles Smith, D. Gore, Jerome Lane, Brian Shorter, Bobby Martin and many others. Funny thing is Ralph Willard's first recruiting class was a Top 5 in the country.
So your right. Nobody wants a Pitt job. Because its impossible to recruit here. Your amazing
