Pat Forde weighs in on the Stallings hire, and it's not good

[pittguy81]

"A seasoned, well regarded HC with a lot of experience at a Major Conference school [and little in the way of accomplishment to suggest he can succeed at the level we want here at Pitt]. He has already shown some recruiting ability, keeping the current team intact while retaining all 3 new recruits [Already setting the bar low, I see]. The staff he has been able to assemble appears to be very good ["appears" to who?... you? Bravo.]. Among his peer group he is highly respected and viewed as one of the better offensive minds in the current HC ranks. [You're basing that off... what? That article that was posted here a few days ago? Go read the comment section again. And what do you expect coaches to say publicly... negative things about each other?]

His media interviews have shown him to be articulate and intelligent. [Like when he articulated how he wanted to "f...ing kill" one of his players? Great composure. Smooth talking in front of a camera does nothing for me. Apparently you're sold, though.]

I was not enamored of the hire initially. After hearing him at his unduly hostile introductory presser and then in subsequent interviews I now have a favorable opinion of him and look forward to what his tenure will bring. [Fair enough.]

Certainly I am reasonable enough not to declare him a poor hire before he has coached one game for Pitt. [Then certainly you must be reasonable enough to offer numbers, figures... something other than an interview or kind word spoken about him as evidence I'm wrong in thinking this hire stinks.]

The know it alls never do. [I wish I didn't know so much in this case. It's really frustrating to understand so clearly how lame this hire is and how poorly Barnes handled this process. Glad you're happy, though. Ignorance is bliss, as you clearly attest.]

What you have is simply your opinion coupled with unwarranted and unbridled condescending arrogance...which you mistakenly seem to confuse with special insight and enlightenment.

Conflating issues of his being articulate and intelligent with his loss of anger control regarding one player in one instance is nothing but a red herring. It is meaningless.

As for Stallings coaching at Pitt, exactly what numbers or figures are you looking for? His current record stands at 0-0. As for your opinion that the hire stinks, you certainly are entitled to feel that way...as it is for you to presume future failure because you said so.

Psuedo-intellectual buffoons like you humor me.

 

[pittguy81]

There's a difference between a "poor hire" and poor results. Stallings is a poor hire, but I hope he gives us better results than his resume suggests.

Once again, I will be reasonable enough to let him coach some games at Pitt before casting my lot.

So I guess the corollary to your statement must also be true. There is a difference between a "good hire" and good results e.g. a good hire could have poor results. In my mind that would make it a poor hire.

 

[TD_6082]

In the 17 years previous to Stallings at Vanderbilt, they went to two Sweet 16s and 5 tournaments. They won 138 SEC conference games. Stallings went to two Sweet 16s and 7 tournaments. He won 138 SEC conference games. It was as much of an also-ran program while Stallings was there as before, if you are insinuating he took over an also ran program.

The myth of Stallings doing something miraculous at Vanderbilt is crazy.

It wasn't miraculous but it was very solid. He did very well at Illinois State too.

 

[GoPittO6]

What you have is simply your opinion coupled with unwarranted and unbridled condescending arrogance...which you mistakenly seem to confuse with special insight and enlightenment.

Conflating issues of his being articulate and intelligent with his loss of anger control regarding one player in one instance is nothing but a red herring. It is meaningless.

As for Stallings coaching at Pitt, exactly what numbers or figures are you looking for? His current record stands at 0-0. As for your opinion that the hire stinks, you certainly are entitled to feel that way...as it is for you to presume future failure because you said so.

Psuedo-intellectual buffoons like you humor me.

I am (and others are) making the case, based on things we can measure about Stallings... like his record, recruiting rankings, documented out-bursts... that Pitt could have hired better, given what we know about the search.

Is that my opinion? Yep, sure is. And it's based on things we can look at objectively.

You apparently don't want to say one way or the the other whether you think the hire was good or bad. That's fine. That's your prerogative. But if you want to challenge anything I've said (for whatever reason), you're going to have to come a little bit stronger than...

"...unbridled... condescending enlightenment... conflating articulate... psuedo-intellectual...."

....blah blah blah and and few other SAT words you remembered from English class.

Stop projecting your own pseudo-intellectual buffoonery onto me.

The red squiggly line underneath your words means you should take another look at the spelling, Mr. Articulate.

 

[sherepower]

Pitt was on probation from actions by John Sanandrea under Evans. He lined up a guy to pay for Jamal Faulkner to go to prep school. Shere is either purposely forgetful on this or oblivious to what went on here for years.

Pitt hired a guy who formerly worked for the NCAA and he self-reported Pitt for a bunch of minor offenses, pleading down to a bunch of minor offenses rather than getting hit for the major one. They couldn't dodge the Faulkner case because his mother went public with it.

That can be Goggled pretty easily.

Anybody who doesn't believe plenty happened is in denial. It certainly wasn't a coincidence that several dozen jocks were driving around in brand-new Monte Carlo's with stickers from a well-known booster. Or that Charles Smith who came from an impoverished single parent home had apartments in Shadyside and Mount Washington and drove a BMW and a Jaguar as an upperclassman.

I don't know a whole lot about how Williard got his guys. The people I used to get my inside info from had retired by that time. I do know Williard reached and signed a lot of guys with major character issues. Several of them ended up in jail.

It's not a pretty picture. It WAS a different era then but that doesn't justify what went on. We didn't have a pedofile assistant but other than that, just about any sordid incident that went on elsewhere happened here, too. Wanny's team's Southside antics are pretty tame compared to what happened and was swept under the rug here in the Golden Panther years.

Almost every D1 program committs minor infractions. Thats hardly cheating.

I consider cheating when a program is put on probation.
When the NCAA takes scholarships or does not allow teams to play in bowls or NCAA tournaments. Neither happened at Pitt.

So again, if Ralph Willard could bring in a top 5 class in his 1st year. So can someone else who coaches at Pitt.......geezus

 

[sherepower]

I find it funny guys claim Pitt was paying players during the Willard and Evans era.

Wasn't that during the Bozik era? Hardly a man that would allow Pitt to pay football and basketball players. When he was clearly trying to destroy both programs.

 

[levance2]

Once again, I will be reasonable enough to let him coach some games at Pitt before casting my lot.

So I guess the corollary to your statement must also be true. There is a difference between a "good hire" and good results e.g. a good hire could have poor results. In my mind that would make it a poor hire.

No, that's really lousy logic. You make the best decisions with the information available at the time. Hiring Dixon in 2003 wasn't a great hire either, but it worked out really well.

If you choose the unanimous #1 guy in the NBA draft, and he gets injured and never does anything for you, that doesn't mean you made a poor selection. You made the smartest decision possible.

 

[GoPittO6]

No, that's really lousy logic. You make the best decisions with the information available at the time. Hiring Dixon in 2003 wasn't a great hire either, but it worked out really well.

If you choose the unanimous #1 guy in the NBA draft, and he gets injured and never does anything for you, that doesn't mean you made a poor selection. You made the smartest decision possible.

Stop. That's too nuanced for the reasonable Mr. Articulate.
He's just a reasonable guy, that's all.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Almost every D1 program committs minor infractions. Thats hardly cheating.

I consider cheating when a program is put on probation.
When the NCAA takes scholarships or does not allow teams to play in bowls or NCAA tournaments. Neither happened at Pitt.

So again, if Ralph Willard could bring in a top 5 class in his 1st year. So can someone else who coaches at Pitt.......geezus

Shere, but we weren't "minor infractioning" back in that day. We were doing things to make Kentucky or Miami blush. Then again, we were just doing what most other top 25 programs were doing.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I find it funny guys claim Pitt was paying players during the Willard and Evans era.

Wasn't that during the Bozik era? Hardly a man that would allow Pitt to pay football and basketball players. When he was clearly trying to destroy both programs.

Shere, come on. From Bozik's obituary of all things in the Pitt News:

Bozik became Pitt athletics director on Sept. 1, 1982, retiring from the post on July 1, 1991. Those years saw a number of controversies in the athletics department as well as the decline of Pitt's football teams from perennial top 10 contenders to also-rans. But Bozik also was credited with upgrading the University's sports facilities, toughening academic standards for student-athletes and improving their graduation rates.

Bozik was criticized for extending football coach Foge Fazio's contract in 1984 only to fire him a year later. Bozik later hired former football coaches Mike Gottfried and Paul Hackett, both of whom would resign under pressure, and basketball coach Paul Evans, whose contract was not renewed this year.

Within months after Bozik became athletic director, the NCAA reprimanded Pitt for a recruiting violation involving an all-state high school basketball player. In 1992, one of Bozik's aides, Bob Heddleston, was sentenced to four years of probation after pleading guilty to misapplication of funds and commercial bribery. Heddleston had been executive director of the Golden Panthers booster organization.

On the other hand, Bozik was given much of the credit for Pitt's move into the Big East Conference in 1982. Also during his tenure, lights were installed at Pitt Stadium and the University renovated Fitzgerald Field House and built the Cost Sports Center. Bozik also was active in NCAA reform efforts, particularly on issues of academic integrity.

 

[sherepower]

Shere, but we weren't "minor infractioning" back in that day. We were doing things to make Kentucky or Miami blush. Then again, we were just doing what most other top 25 programs were doing.

Perhaps recruits. My point is if we were cheating as bad as the programs you mentioned. Why did we not lose scholarships and not allowed to compete in the post season. Surely, if Pitt cheated as much as those teams. The NCAA would of put all types of sanctions on Pitt.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Perhaps recruits. My point is if we were cheating as bad as the programs you mentioned. Why did we not lose scholarships and not allowed to compete in the post season. Surely, if Pitt cheated as much as those teams. The NCAA would of put all types of sanctions on Pitt.

NCAA incompetency? Or....LOL....the NCAA showing mercy because of our own ineptitude and incompetency, they figured Pitt would unintentionally sanction its own programs and kill them.

 

[DT_PITT]

Perhaps recruits. My point is if we were cheating as bad as the programs you mentioned. Why did we not lose scholarships and not allowed to compete in the post season. Surely, if Pitt cheated as much as those teams. The NCAA would of put all types of sanctions on Pitt.

I cannot speak for the Willard era, but I can assure you 100% that the parade of top players who were brought in by Chipman were "paid" very well for their commitments. I am 100% certain of this. I can even speak about one particular player who received a car for his entire senior year of high school. When this player decided to go another school, Chipman simply said, "ok ... leave the keys in the visor and someone will be by tomorrow to pick up the car." This is not a second hand story I'm telling here. This is something directly out of his mouth to me by this recruit.

We didn't receive sanctions because we were not caught. I'm sure this went on in so many other places too, and so many of these were not caught either.

 

[sherepower]

Shere, come on. From Bozik's obituary of all things in the Pitt News:

Bozik became Pitt athletics director on Sept. 1, 1982, retiring from the post on July 1, 1991. Those years saw a number of controversies in the athletics department as well as the decline of Pitt's football teams from perennial top 10 contenders to also-rans. But Bozik also was credited with upgrading the University's sports facilities, toughening academic standards for student-athletes and improving their graduation rates.

Bozik was criticized for extending football coach Foge Fazio's contract in 1984 only to fire him a year later. Bozik later hired former football coaches Mike Gottfried and Paul Hackett, both of whom would resign under pressure, and basketball coach Paul Evans, whose contract was not renewed this year.

Within months after Bozik became athletic director, the NCAA reprimanded Pitt for a recruiting violation involving an all-state high school basketball player. In 1992, one of Bozik's aides, Bob Heddleston, was sentenced to four years of probation after pleading guilty to misapplication of funds and commercial bribery. Heddleston had been executive director of the Golden Panthers booster organization.

On the other hand, Bozik was given much of the credit for Pitt's move into the Big East Conference in 1982. Also during his tenure, lights were installed at Pitt Stadium and the University renovated Fitzgerald Field House and built the Cost Sports Center. Bozik also was active in NCAA reform efforts, particularly on issues of academic integrity.

So your saying Bozik was a good AD?

NCAA incompetency? Or....LOL....the NCAA showing mercy because of our own ineptitude and incompetency, they figured Pitt would unintentionally sanction its own programs and kill them.

Well recruits, one of my best friends growing up was recruited by everyone. Went to Pitt. Started for 3 years and was drafted in the NFL. He never got paid to choose Pitt. Thats exactly the time guys on here are saying Pitt paid players.

 

[DT_PITT]

So your saying Bozik was a good AD?

Well recruits, one of my best friends growing up was recruited by everyone. Went to Pitt. Started for 3 years and was drafted in the NFL. He never got paid to choose Pitt. Thats exactly the time guys on here are saying Pitt paid players.

Did your friend go to Gateway?

 

[playtowin1]

I am (and others are) making the case, based on things we can measure about Stallings... like his record, recruiting rankings, documented out-bursts... that Pitt could have hired better, given what we know about the search.

Is that my opinion? Yep, sure is. And it's based on things we can look at objectively.

You apparently don't want to say one way or the the other whether you think the hire was good or bad. That's fine. That's your prerogative. But if you want to challenge anything I've said (for whatever reason), you're going to have to come a little bit stronger than...

"...unbridled... condescending enlightenment... conflating articulate... psuedo-intellectual...."

....blah blah blah and and few other SAT words you remembered from English class.

Stop projecting your own pseudo-intellectual buffoonery onto me.

The red squiggly line underneath your words means you should take another look at the spelling, Mr. Articulate.

Objectively, now that is a term that is tossed around quite a bit and when people want to make 2 and 2 equal 5 to ft their opinion, they cleverly back it up with the term OBJECTIVITY.

 

[sherepower]

Did your friend go to Gateway?

No DT

 

[GoPittO6]

Objectively, now that is a term that is tossed around quite a bit and when people want to make 2 and 2 equal 5 to ft their opinion, they cleverly back it up with the term OBJECTIVITY.

Stallings' record is a fact. His recruiting rankings are fact. His hot-head potty-mouth is documented on video.

The previous employment relationship between Barnes and Todd Turner, and Stallings and Todd Turner... is fact.

What Barnes stated were his expectations for Pitt's next coach is a direct quote. Something that can be fact-checked.

Do I need to explain what facts have to do with objectivity?

I'm making a claim: Given what we know about Stallings, stated expectations, and the search process... this hire was not the best Pitt could have done.

If you struggle to understand the objectivity in that claim... I really can't help you. I can't break this down any more simply for you. You're on your own at this point.

If the reason you're trying to argue me in nonsense circles is because my opinion has hurt your precious feelings, just say so. I'll apologize for hurting your feelings and we'll both go about our days.

 

[DT_PITT]

No DT

Just had a hunch about who were talking about. Doesn't matter, really.

 

[sherepower]

He played on the opposite end of town from Gateway . He was in the same class as Step, and Cherp.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

So your saying Bozik was a good AD?

Well recruits, one of my best friends growing up was recruited by everyone. Went to Pitt. Started for 3 years and was drafted in the NFL. He never got paid to choose Pitt. Thats exactly the time guys on here are saying Pitt paid players.

I had one too and likely he didn't get paid. But.......

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...1_darnell-dickerson-pitt-stadium-pitt-program

Hackett was hit with a bombshell the day he left for a Florida vacation in February. A newspaper report claimed that former assistant coach Frank D`Alonzo allegedly made cash payments and provided other benefits to players during his time at the school, from 1986 to 1988. Although D`Alonzo worked for former coach Mike Gottfried, Pitt-which hired a special investigator to conduct an in-house probe-could be hit with major NCAA sanctions

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=92MEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1711,7412692&hl=en

And just to show you what a good guy he was, this was well after he was at Pitt.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/former_toms_river_school_offic.html

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

He played on the opposite end of town from Gateway . He was in the same class as Step, and Cherp.

I know who u mean. DC?

 

[Delpanther]

Not to a good coach and recruiter.

Your post just further substantiates what a horrible, completely clueless recruiter JD was- he had more than any other previous Pitt coach had going for him from a recruiting capability standpoint and he squandered it away.

 

[pittguy81]

I find it funny guys claim Pitt was paying players during the Willard and Evans era.

Wasn't that during the Bozik era? Hardly a man that would allow Pitt to pay football and basketball players. When he was clearly trying to destroy both programs.

You are clueless

 

[playtowin1]

Stallings' record is a fact. His recruiting rankings are fact. His hot-head potty-mouth is documented on video.

The previous employment relationship between Barnes and Todd Turner, and Stallings and Todd Turner... is fact.

What Barnes stated were his expectations for Pitt's next coach is a direct quote. Something that can be fact-checked.

Do I need to explain what facts have to do with objectivity?

I'm making a claim: Given what we know about Stallings, stated expectations, and the search process... this hire was not the best Pitt could have done.

If you struggle to understand the objectivity in that claim... I really can't help you. I can't break this down any more simply for you. You're on your own at this point.

If the reason you're trying to argue me in nonsense circles is because my opinion has hurt your precious feelings, just say so. I'll apologize for hurting your feelings and we'll both go about our days.

. My friend you can connect any dots you want to, that does not make your assumptions based on fact. For instance in looking at Stallings record at Vanderbilt and ISU, he had some rather good years and it is obvious he did improve the program at Vandy after he took over. He did have some down years also. You can skew the facts based on his down years only. that is not being totally objective. If by his episode, that is chewing out a kid and perhaps going overboard, yes he was wrong,but his intentions were not wrong. The kid was acting like a jerk. As for Barnes, his idea of PITT'S expectation of a coach is different than yours and that whole thing will be played out in the future. Just perhaps he had a better feeling based on his experiences than you that Stallings was a good fit for PITT. Perhaps you will be right, but I doubt that you would ever admit that Barnes was right. By the way since you are going to be judging Stallings and Barnes, what will be your criteria for making your final decision? You know, record wise. What would you expect? Lastly, almost forgot to mention. By recruiting, if you are saying that he had a worse recruting average than Jamie, then he must have done pretty well in coaching those kids because
he did take his team to several trips to the tourney and had amazingly 2 sweet sixteens.

 

[pittguy81]

No, that's really lousy logic. You make the best decisions with the information available at the time. Hiring Dixon in 2003 wasn't a great hire either, but it worked out really well.

If you choose the unanimous #1 guy in the NBA draft, and he gets injured and never does anything for you, that doesn't mean you made a poor selection. You made the smartest decision possible.

OK so who was the unanimous #1 College Head Coaching guy Pitt should have "selected"? Your analogy is not on point.

I would guess that for most people a guy who has a very good record after he was hired would be viewed as a good hire. A guy who was thought to be a good hire who had a mediocre or poor record would be viewed as a bad hire.

Of course until they actually coach a game at their current school, it is unknown and unknowable.

 

[pittguy81]

Stallings' record is a fact. His recruiting rankings are fact. His hot-head potty-mouth is documented on video.

The previous employment relationship between Barnes and Todd Turner, and Stallings and Todd Turner... is fact.

What Barnes stated were his expectations for Pitt's next coach is a direct quote. Something that can be fact-checked.

Do I need to explain what facts have to do with objectivity?

I'm making a claim: Given what we know about Stallings, stated expectations, and the search process... this hire was not the best Pitt could have done.

If you struggle to understand the objectivity in that claim... I really can't help you. I can't break this down any more simply for you. You're on your own at this point.

If the reason you're trying to argue me in nonsense circles is because my opinion has hurt your precious feelings, just say so. I'll apologize for hurting your feelings and we'll both go about our days.

Your "objectivity" is anything but objective. In fact is it completely subjective. It's comical, in a tragic sort of way, to see you continually paint others as stupid because they disagree with your assessments and opinions..which you continue to present as fait accompli.

 

[GoPittO6]

. My friend you can connect any dots you want to, that does not make your assumptions based on fact. For instance in looking at Stallings record at Vanderbilt and ISU, he had some rather good years and it is obvious he did improve the program at Vandy after he took over. He did have some down years also. You can skew the facts based on his down years only. that is not being totally objective. If by his episode, that is chewing out a kid and perhaps going overboard, yes he was wrong,but his intentions were not wrong. The kid was acting like a jerk. As for Barnes, his idea of PITT'S expectation of a coach is different than yours and that whole thing will be played out in the future. Just perhaps he had a better feeling based on his experiences than you that Stallings was a good fit for PITT. Perhaps you will be right, but I doubt that you would ever admit that Barnes was right. By the way since you are going to be judging Stallings and Barnes, what will be your criteria for making your final decision? You know, record wise. What would you expect? Lastly, almost forgot to mention. By recruiting, if you are saying that he had a worse recruting average than Jamie, then he must have done pretty well in coaching those kids because
he did take his team to several trips to the tourney and had amazingly 2 sweet sixteens.

Let's both give our criteria for success and failure, shall we? You first.

Is it possible to look at a hiring decision at a single point in time given the facts available at that point in time and make a judgement? I think so. And when I do that, my judgement is that the hire stinks. Take it or leave it, it doesn't matter. If you want to take a more Machiavellian stance on it, that's perfectly fine, too.

 

[sherepower]

You are clueless

Lol. This might be the most hypocritical post ive ever read. Well done!

Just when you think you seen it all. A duzzy like this just makes you shake your head.

Plus, why are you even responding to me? I would never try to carry a conversation with you after reading some of your posts. Now go crawl under your rock.

 

[GoPittO6]

Your "objectivity" is anything but objective. In fact is it completely subjective. It's comical, in a tragic sort of way, to see you continually paint others as stupid because they disagree with your assessments and opinions..which you continue to present as fait accompli.

You have totally misunderstood my point. I'm not telling you that to disparage you or be condescending. Honestly, you're just not understanding my angle here.

 

[sherepower]

Your "objectivity" is anything but objective. In fact is it completely subjective. It's comical, in a tragic sort of way, to see you continually paint others as stupid because they disagree with your assessments and opinions..which you continue to present as fait accompli.

Wow! Look in the mirror before making a fool of yourself.

 

[pittguy81]

You have totally misunderstood my point. I'm not telling you that to disparage you or be condescending. Honestly, you're just not understanding my angle here.

My apologies in that case.

 

[GoPittO6]

My apologies in that case.

It's OK. It's my fault. I should either be prepared to get people over the hump or not have these discussions at all.

 

[pittguy81]

Wow! Look in the mirror before making a fool of yourself.

I guess I'll give some thought to that. After all you are the subject matter expert in making a fool of yourself....with regularity.

 

[pittguy81]

It's OK. It's my fault. I should either be prepared to get people over the hump or not have these discussions at all.

Honestly a lot of people simply disagree with your assessments, conclusions and opinions. It has nothing to do with "getting them over the hump".

We are all Pitt fans who wish for the best. I'll save my angst and ire for things more important than college sports.

 

[playtowin1]

Let's both give our criteria for success and failure, shall we? You first.

Is it possible to look at a hiring decision at a single point in time given the facts available at that point in time and make a judgement? I think so. And when I do that, my judgement is that the hire stinks. Take it or leave it, it doesn't matter. If you want to take a more Machiavellian stance on it, that's perfectly fine, too.

I'm not the one being judgemental. I am just here to enjoy basketball and hate to see someone painted unfairly without any games played. You are great at being judgemental based on your perception of facts. What will the actual facts be based on, record that you will use as criteria? Don't ask me. I am just watching, not judging. These two gentlemen deserve a fair chance. Don't you agree?
J

 

[pittguy81]

Lol. This might be the most hypocritical post ive ever read. Well done!

Just when you think you seen it all. A duzzy like this just makes you shake your head.

Plus, why are you even responding to me? I would never try to carry a conversation with you after reading some of your posts. Now go crawl under your rock.

I speak from first hand knowledge. Did you know Charles Smith? Did you ever wonder why Pitt suddenly started landing players the caliber of him, Jerome Lane, Bobby Martin, Jason Matthews (from Cali), Rod Brookins, Clyde Vaughn et.al. It wasn't because they loved playing in the Field House...or they loved Pittsburgh weather...

 

[GoPittO6]

I'm not the one being judgemental. I am just here to enjoy basketball and hate to see someone painted unfairly without any games played. You are great at being judgemental based on your perception of facts. What will the actual facts be based on, record that you will use as criteria? Don't ask me. I am just watching, not judging. These two gentlemen deserve a fair chance. Don't you agree?
J

Let me ask you a question that I think we'll help us get on the same page.

What is your opinion of Kevin Ollie as a coach?

 

[pittguy81]

Let me ask you a question that I think we'll help us get on the same page.

What is your opinion of Kevin Ollie as a coach?

He's a great cheerleader

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Your post just further substantiates what a horrible, completely clueless recruiter JD was- he had more than any other previous Pitt coach had going for him from a recruiting capability standpoint and he squandered it away.

Yep, squandered it away to the most successful stretch of basketball in our entire history.
Great point.