Pat Forde weighs in on the Stallings hire, and it's not good
- Thread starter Fredact
- Start date
17 years before Stallings at Vanderbilt - 5 NCAA tournament appearances, 2 Sweet 16's, 138 SEC wins, 1 top ten finish
17 years with Stallings at Vanderbilt - 7 NCAA tournament appearances, 2 Sweet 16's, 138 SEC wins, 0 top ten finishes
Didn't improve the program one iota.
He did have worse recruiting rankings than Dixon, and don't make it sound like he did great with those recruits. 4 less tournament appearances in 4 more years than Dixon, less Sweet 16's, no Elite 8, plus an under .500 SEC record.
Obviously a well liked/loved luminary in the Huskies basketball lore. I find him to be a sub-par X's and O's HC despite winning a NC with Calhoun's players. He's a good recruiter who can fire up his players.
Last edited:
Here are the rules for discussing this with playtowin1 and pittguy81:
#1) The past is not admissible.
#2) If you reference facts and those facts are unfavorable to Stallings, then you have applied bias judgement and you must refer to rule #1.
#3) You must accept that they watch basketball in an absolute state of zen... year in, year out... never forming an opinion or having a critical thought about anything they've seen.
...you know.. brain dead.
Now what could you have possibly based that on? What can you possibly think is sub-par about his X's and O's? And I'm not sure I understand your assessment of him being a "good" recruiter either.
Again, to some, just like "spending" money, "recruiting rankings" seem to be more of a measurement of success than actual on the field (court) results. Again, I have my criticisms of Jamie over the years, especially the last 5. And while recruiting is one of them, it was just because of the end results. Paul Evans and Ralph Williard recruited circles around Jamie Dixon as far as on paper talent. However their actual results were far, far below what Jamie's were.
But do you guys have to respond to each other's every single post in trying to get the last word in? It has become boring.
Personal observation and opinion.
I suspect your camp would have been livid with his hire. An assistant with no head coaching experience taking over a program that had multiple NC's. UConn could certainly do better and should.
Last edited:
Ok. Since you seem to think you know everything. Tell me.
Why didn't the NCAA hit Pitt with sanctions?
I mean since everyone knew Pitt was paying players. You would think the NCAA would of been alerted to this nonsense. Guess not
Since his NCAA title with Calhoun's players his trend line has been way down. He missed the NCAA's the next year with a 20-15 record. This year his team was 25-11 and didn't make it past the first weekend. The past 2 years he is only 21-15 in a watered down ACC, a .583 winning percentage in conference and .633 overall.
I think the real reason Pitt got a lot of the players you named. John Calipari. Its amazing what a school can do in recruiting when you have a young,energetic coach with a great personality can do. Which i why i think Pitt pulled those types of players.
If he was at another school. He would of done the exact same thing
If he was at another school. He would of done the exact same thing
Last edited:
I certainly don't know everything nor do I pretend to. As for why the NCAA didn't come down on Pitt, I frankly don't know. I suspect they cut a deal on minor violations to escape a major and had plausible deniability on their side. In the late 70's early 80's no show summer jobs for football players were a regular occurrence. Charles Smith lived in fancy digs and drove luxury cars.
Plus it's the NCAA. They never actually catch the schools themselves because the money goes through third parties and gets funneled to the players that way. That's why they'll do stuff like come down on Bruce Pearl for a barbecue or get schools for academic improprieties -- they can't follow the money back to the coach or school itself so they come down super hard on something else.
It's the Al Capone strategy.
And, again, it's the NCAA. Louisville had strippers and prostitutes IN STUDENT DORMS, and the only reason it was discovered was because the person who was selling the strippers and prostitutes came out and blew the whistle. The NCAA doesn't uncover that stuff on their own, they're too busy counting their money.
And Vanderbilt won the SEC in 1993. The guy didn't improve the program one bit in 17 years there.
You win. Pitt cheated as much as SMU did.
Funny thing though. Back then the NCAA was trying to curb wide spread cheating. Giving SMU the death penalty. Putting Alabama and many other programs on probation. Yet, the ignored Pitt?
Pitt self reported and had sanctions put on them. SMU fought them every step of the way and continued to pay players after having sanctions put on them. That is why the received the death penalty. Had Pitt not self reported, they would've been on probation.
Yeah but Pitt didn't get PROBATION. Only sanctions. See the huge difference there? Pitt totally didn't cheat at all and John Calipari has had all of his success due to his "Aw, shucks" Western Pennsylvania charm.
Like
My point is if Pitt was flat out paying players. There's no doubt Pitt would of faced major sanctions.
So looking back at the facts. Pitt never recieved a reduction of Scholarships or never recieved a post season ban. Like the schools who did get caught over the years
Like i said earlier. Every school commits minor infractions. Which they bring forth to the NCAA. I admit Pitt falls in that category. As do 90 percent of D1 schools. Heck, Penn st comitted 4 or 5 infractions just this past year. All minor.
My point is if Pitt was flat out paying players. There's no doubt Pitt would of faced major sanctions.
So looking back at the facts. Pitt never recieved a reduction of Scholarships or never recieved a post season ban. Like the schools who did get caught over the years
Yeah your right. John Calipari who is known as one of the best recruiters in history. Played no part at Pitt bringing in talent while he was at Pitt Really man. You have to be kidding. If not? I feel sorry
I'm saying it's extremely naive to believe he got kids here for reasons outside of paying out the nose for them. Which he has done everywhere he's been.
Taking the whole "well Pitt never got put on probation so they've never paid a bunch of money to kids" is just a really simplistic view of everything and is clearly just a coping mechanism.
Even now, the schools that get put on probation don't get put on probation for paying for players. They make sure it's the boosters, runners, agents, and businesses that pay the kids and parents and AAU handlers on behalf of the school, thus giving them a buffer and some plausible deniability when it comes to having a "rogue [insert title for individual]" to act as their scapegoat.
That's why these schools are getting hit with academic issues or on technicalities surrounding barbecues. It's the only way to actually connect anything illegal back to the schools.
Unless there's a whistleblower that comes forth and says "I did this", the NCAA is powerless when it comes to tracing cash received back to the coaches and Universities.
Come on Shere, I gave you some facts on at least the football side. Let's take off the blue and gold glasses. DT gave you some more concrete evidence. I mean Calipari, Sarandrea, Williard.
And here is more smoking gun evidence. Which the NCAA did put us on sanctions.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19931116&slug=1732014
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/17/s...itt-punished-by-ncaa-over-its-recruiting.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...etic-director-oval-jaynes-pitt-jamal-Faulkner
I mean we have to be close in age. How did you forget all of this?? Here's your evidence. Just please, don't act like we weren't guilty.
They're building a statue of Todd Turner and Scott Barnes in Nashville. The Vanderbilt fans take turns laughing at them and thanking them.
Plus Cal is very good at making sure HE is not directly implicated. Cal leaves UMass...UMass is forced to vacate a Final Four. Cal leaves Memphis...Memphis is forced to vacate a Final Four. Others take the fall and Cal skates.
You were the one who brought up the inverse. There was likely no obvious, realistic #1 candidate, which is obviously something that should've been considered earlier, but let's leave that out of the current discussion.
If you dine out somewhere nice downtown, and are shot, that does not make the decision to eat at a restaurant a poor decision. If you are married for 30 years and your wife suddenly has an affair, that doesn't mean you made a poor decision 30 years prior. There was likely no reasonable way of predicting those poor outcomes in advance.
Would you rather sign a 3* recruit or a 5*? You're probably going to have more success with the 5*, but that's not certain. Teams with more 5*s are probably better than teams with 3*s. That's called probability.
Making a "good hire" is more likely to be successful than making a "poor hire" and hoping to prove everyone wrong.
We DID get put on probation and lose scholarships. Google "pitt ncaa probation" and get educated, if you really "forgot" this stuff. And, the items we self-reported were minor compared to what actually occurred. We reported stuff that had already been written about in Sports Illustrated and in published books., stuff that was basically already in the public knowledge abd couldn't really be denied. We pled down and got a slap on the wrist, loss of one scholarship for two years and a reduction in recruiting visits allowed.
You are completely wrong on this subject. Anybody familiar with the programs in that era knows it.
Last edited:
So you're now contradicting yourself- you said a good coach could recruit when Pitt played in the field house yet Fixon couldn't get out of his own way when he wa recruiting players to play at the Pete. The guy was a dud when it came to recruiting just as your post indicated. Too bad you didn't realize that you were impeaching the recruiting success of the coach you idolize in your earlier post. Not understanding logic gets one into binds like that.
Jesus Christ, do I post in invisible ink. I linked all of the articles from those days on both football and basketball from that era in regards to investigations and sanctions.
Not at all.
I judge recruiting based on results of the team...not internet rankings.
Because, as a fan, it's the ONLY thing I care about.
By results, Dixon was the most successful recruiter we've ever had.
You are right, we are biased. You are not. Do you actually read what you write? Stallings did do a decent job while at Vandy and ISU. Look at his overall performance. By the way, if he was not a good recruiter, then he did a hell of job coaching, 7 tourney appearances, 2 sweet 16 in a period of time not like you present. He took a down program from the previous coach. Look at the difference in one year there. They had three down years after that, but part of that is related to rebuilding. After those three years, within a period of10 years they appeared in the tourney that I mentioned above. You present it as though he was a totally inept coach, and nothing could be further from the truth. Facts as you want to present them. I don't have a dog in this fight other than to see someone treated fairly.
I will enjoy watching the games and time will tell if he is a good coach, not the facts as you present them today.
Last edited:
Del, as much as I want to disagree with Souf.........I can't. At the end of the day, it is about results on the court, not on some list in April.
So you agree then that Dixon can't carry Calipari's jock as a recruiter then because Dixon hasn't achieved anything near what Cal has in terms of the comparative performance of their teams?
Of course .
Calipari is one of the top 5 coaches in the country .
He's the big dog recruiter at the big dog program .
Coach k is also hands down way better as is izzo and pitino.
Sheeeeiiiiit.
Bring it better than that.
You only admitted that because you had to- you couldn't be any more transparent. You've been a Cal basher for years.
You have no idea what you're talking about, per usual.
Latest posts
-
-
Recruiting Update Guerrier sets July 1st commitment date- Latest: Chris Peak
-
