ADVERTISEMENT

Pitt's Move To The ACC

Joe Magarac

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 10, 2015
4,462
4,859
113
Question to the board:
Why was Pitt's move to ACC from the BIg East perceived to be difficult and posed a recruiting barrier to attracting good recruits.
While the same move, at the relatively the same time period was perceived to be not so difficult and not such a recruiting barrier for:
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Louisville
Your thoughts please.
 
Question to the board:
Why was Pitt's move to ACC from the BIg East perceived to be difficult and posed a recruiting barrier to attracting good recruits.
While the same move, at the relatively the same time period was perceived to be not so difficult and not such a recruiting barrier for:
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Louisville
Your thoughts please.
To soften the blow when losses mount up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Z
Syracuse and Louisville have been elite programs.
Notre Dame is a nationally renowned school that recruits kids from anywhere in the country.
Pitt is neither of those things.
 
Syracuse and Louisville have been elite programs.
Notre Dame is a nationally renowned school that recruits kids from anywhere in the country.
Pitt is neither of those things.

We were, considering there was a stretch when we were regularly in the top 10, occasionally sitting at number 1 for a few weeks each season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HunkyPanther
Question to the board:
Why was Pitt's move to ACC from the BIg East perceived to be difficult and posed a recruiting barrier to attracting good recruits.
While the same move, at the relatively the same time period was perceived to be not so difficult and not such a recruiting barrier for:
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Louisville
Your thoughts please.
Honestly, it's just a convenient excuse. Only 5 years ago, the Big East sent a record 11 teams to the NCAA Tournament. Guess who won that league outright in the regular season? Pitt played in and won titles during a period when the Big East was better than what the ACC is now. The program was slipping and the move to the ACC just became an excuse for that slippage.
 
I believe the old Big East masked how poor of a recruiter Jamie was. Not that he recruited that great in the Big East, but his Plan B recruits were sufficient (Ramon,GB, Nas, guys like that). He basically said, "Syr, Gtown, UConn, and Nova dont want you but we are better than SHU, Prov, and SJU so come on and play on Big Monday and MSG." It was a fairly easy sell.

With the demolition of the Big East and Pitt's move to the ACC, it created more competition and Pitt's job became tougher. Take for example all the Philly kids Chambers is getting. Those are Pitt recruits (at least a couple) if the BE was left intact. But, the destruction of it let other programs (BE, ACC, B10, Bruce Pearl, etc) to come in and Jamie simply couldn't recruit well enough. His pitch was "play in the Big East, play at MSG." He had to shift to "play for me, play in the best league." At the end of the day, he couldn't sell himseld. Period. End of story.
 
Question to the board:
Why was Pitt's move to ACC from the BIg East perceived to be difficult and posed a recruiting barrier to attracting good recruits.
While the same move, at the relatively the same time period was perceived to be not so difficult and not such a recruiting barrier for:
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Louisville
Your thoughts please.

Our recruiting got worse. We missed out on some targets, had some different things happen (Birch being a baby Adams leaving after one year), and recruited a different type of player for the move. It backfired. It could be because we tried to recruit more "athletic" players or we lost out on players and settled for others.
 
I don't put much stock in what Chambers has done other than he is spending the time in Philly schools. That said, I think Jamie got a little lazy. Look at how Narduzzi recruits and how his staff behaves. Was hosting HS coaches at practice this week. I really can't say I've seen anything like that on the basketball side.

Going to add that I thought we had a pretty good assistant that recruited NYC hard for us but he left the program. Name escapes me but it just seems like things started to slip when that happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Piranha
I don't put much stock in what Chambers has done other than he is spending the time in Philly schools. That said, I think Jamie got a little lazy. Look at how Narduzzi recruits and how his staff behaves. Was hosting HS coaches at practice this week. I really can't say I've seen anything like that on the basketball side.

Going to add that I thought we had a pretty good assistant that recruited NYC hard for us but he left the program. Name escapes me but it just seems like things started to slip when that happened.
Slice. Barry Rohrrson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittdan77
Question to the board:
Why was Pitt's move to ACC from the BIg East perceived to be difficult and posed a recruiting barrier to attracting good recruits.
While the same move, at the relatively the same time period was perceived to be not so difficult and not such a recruiting barrier for:
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Louisville
Your thoughts please.
Cuse and Louisville were college basketball program that have juice due to their history. ND is a school that can recruit nationally because of name recognition.

Pitt on the other hand is a new comer to the top tier of college basketball, we lost our best recruiters and lost our recent recruiting grounds...even if some don't want to admit it.
 
Question to the board:
Why was Pitt's move to ACC from the BIg East perceived to be difficult and posed a recruiting barrier to attracting good recruits.
While the same move, at the relatively the same time period was perceived to be not so difficult and not such a recruiting barrier for:
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Louisville
Your thoughts please.
Because Dixon said it was.
And he was right....he couldn't recruit in the ACC.
But Pitt can....and will.
 
First, there are NO recruiting grounds for most ACC schools. Look at Virginia's roster: Brogdon. Nolte, and Wilkins - Atlanta, Gill - North Carolina, Tobey - New York, Shayok - Ontario, Nichols and Thompson - Tennessee, Perrantes - Southern California, Reuter - Massachusetts, Hall - Virginia, Diakite - Guinea, Salt - New Zealand. Recruiting at this level is national. Second, it seems to me that Pitt's recent problems have less to do with recruiting failures than premature attrition. There is attrition and then there is real attrition. UVa has had a number of players leave, but most did so because they were buried on the depth chart and left to pursue playing time. This only opens up opportunities, IMO. It seems to me that Pitt has prematurely lost too many players that would have be making significant contributions. That type of attrition is extremely disruptive, and only a few programs can experience it and not show decline. I think Michigan's problems right now are similar to Pitt's for the same reasons. Certainly recruiting fits into the matrix, but it is just a part of the issue.
 
First, there are NO recruiting grounds for most ACC schools. Look at Virginia's roster: Brogdon. Nolte, and Wilkins - Atlanta, Gill - North Carolina, Tobey - New York, Shayok - Ontario, Nichols and Thompson - Tennessee, Perrantes - Southern California, Reuter - Massachusetts, Hall - Virginia, Diakite - Guinea, Salt - New Zealand. Recruiting at this level is national. Second, it seems to me that Pitt's recent problems have less to do with recruiting failures than premature attrition. There is attrition and then there is real attrition. UVa has had a number of players leave, but most did so because they were buried on the depth chart and left to pursue playing time. This only opens up opportunities, IMO. It seems to me that Pitt has prematurely lost too many players that would have be making significant contributions. That type of attrition is extremely disruptive, and only a few programs can experience it and not show decline. I think Michigan's problems right now are similar to Pitt's for the same reasons. Certainly recruiting fits into the matrix, but it is just a part of the issue.

Pitt has not had much of a "national" looking roster in years. If memory serves, our last player from So California who was worth a darn was Jason Matthews and he played in the late 1980's.
 
Pitt has not had much of a "national" looking roster in years. If memory serves, our last player from So California who was worth a darn was Jason Matthews and he played in the late 1980's.

The furthest player we got from the west of Pitt is McGhee who I believe was from Indiana. I think so anyway.
 
Here's what DeCourcy said in a radio interview when the host asked him about why the ACC was going to be tougher for Pitt and his response was pretty much this. I don't know what people will think, but this is his reasoning:

1. Previously, the BE's footprint was such that you were recruiting regionally (Philly, NY, NJ) and not really straying from there. In general, for a school like Pitt, you're going to walk into most kids' houses being, like, their 7th-8th choice behind the elite schools and the local schools right off the bat. For Pitt, they could go into those regions and hit those kids hard and develop relationships while the elite schools were chasing the national All-American types. Then, you could chip away at a school like Seton Hall or Rutgers or a downtrodden Maryland or Penn State by playing the "look at all the games we'll play in NY, NJ, and Philly, being local doesn't matter because we will have so many games in your area just due to scheduling". So, Pitt could pitch the Garden and the BE to kids and overcome the "local" factor that Rutgers and Seton Hall had over those NY/NJ/Philly kids.

2. NY basketball has died. Plain and simple, it's really been struggling. Lance Stephenson is the only NBA player to play in the NY public school leagues. That's amazing.

3. In the ACC, Pitt loses their "stay local, even if you come to Pitt" with the NY/NJ/Philly kids. Their focus shifts more to the Maryland/Virginia area for kids, and are facing the same challenges as before. They're probably walking in already being behind the elite schools and the local schools, but now if the kid wants to stay local, they are in a much more heavily contested area. You don't have the Rutgers/Seton Hall/Penn State type of schools around anymore, now you have Georgetown and Virginia Tech as the 2 weakest teams in the power conferences in the area. You just simply have more schools that are much more viable "local" schools in the DMV area. Corey Manigault was a legitimately strong get this recruiting cycle, having an offer from Georgetown (among others).

Essentially, Pitt had an easier time beating out local schools and pitching kids about "staying local by way of picking a BE team" in the Big East when they were fighting SHU and RU than they do now.

Personally, I think there are other issues outside of that (IMO, they used to do a really good job of identifying likely "Plan B" kids for elite schools and just hounding them -- they'd build a rapport and then if the elite school struck out Pitt still had a shot at landing the Plan B kid over them), but I wouldn't be totally dismissive of the shift in region either.

As KOAMB sort of gets at, Pitt doesn't recruit nationally and probably won't ever have a truly national presence. Few schools do.
 
Here's what DeCourcy said in a radio interview when the host asked him about why the ACC was going to be tougher for Pitt and his response was pretty much this. I don't know what people will think, but this is his reasoning:

1. Previously, the BE's footprint was such that you were recruiting regionally (Philly, NY, NJ) and not really straying from there. In general, for a school like Pitt, you're going to walk into most kids' houses being, like, their 7th-8th choice behind the elite schools and the local schools right off the bat. For Pitt, they could go into those regions and hit those kids hard and develop relationships while the elite schools were chasing the national All-American types. Then, you could chip away at a school like Seton Hall or Rutgers or a downtrodden Maryland or Penn State by playing the "look at all the games we'll play in NY, NJ, and Philly, being local doesn't matter because we will have so many games in your area just due to scheduling". So, Pitt could pitch the Garden and the BE to kids and overcome the "local" factor that Rutgers and Seton Hall had over those NY/NJ/Philly kids.

2. NY basketball has died. Plain and simple, it's really been struggling. Lance Stephenson is the only NBA player to play in the NY public school leagues. That's amazing.

3. In the ACC, Pitt loses their "stay local, even if you come to Pitt" with the NY/NJ/Philly kids. Their focus shifts more to the Maryland/Virginia area for kids, and are facing the same challenges as before. They're probably walking in already being behind the elite schools and the local schools, but now if the kid wants to stay local, they are in a much more heavily contested area. You don't have the Rutgers/Seton Hall/Penn State type of schools around anymore, now you have Georgetown and Virginia Tech as the 2 weakest teams in the power conferences in the area. You just simply have more schools that are much more viable "local" schools in the DMV area. Corey Manigault was a legitimately strong get this recruiting cycle, having an offer from Georgetown (among others).

Essentially, Pitt had an easier time beating out local schools and pitching kids about "staying local by way of picking a BE team" in the Big East when they were fighting SHU and RU than they do now.

Personally, I think there are other issues outside of that (IMO, they used to do a really good job of identifying likely "Plan B" kids for elite schools and just hounding them -- they'd build a rapport and then if the elite school struck out Pitt still had a shot at landing the Plan B kid over them), but I wouldn't be totally dismissive of the shift in region either.

As KOAMB sort of gets at, Pitt doesn't recruit nationally and probably won't ever have a truly national presence. Few schools do.

I mentioned not long ago about how up til abt the late 80s the Pgh area produced a good bit of hoops talent and was somewhat puzzled why it dried up except for an occasional player here and there. The shortish answer was declining population and maybe demographics changed a bit (I think).

The death of the New York scene is REALLY hard to wrap your head around.

Basketball was accessible to almost anyone. There were courts everywhere - even in Pittsburgh. All you needed was someone to have a ball. I played many a game myself with no net on a cracked asphalt court that was less than ideal. How in The hell did NY basketball fall so far??
 
I think the change in conference is not a factor in Pitt's fall from grace. The same thing would have occurred if they would have stayed in the BE

Consider Pitt Conf rank their final 3 BE years was. 1st, 13th, 4th. Their first 3 years in ACC were 5th, 9th, 9th. Pitt had 2 uncharacteristic losing steaks at the end of the last 2 ACC seasons which really caused a free fall. It wasn't that they lost to teams that were better. They actually had beaten some of those teams already. They just lost some close games.

Despite Pitt not playing great, everyone on this board thought those last few games in both seasons were very winnable. They just needed to make a few more shots to end the Conf schedule with 2 more wins and Pitt would have chalked up Conf standings of 5th, 5th, 4th.

If that would have happened Pitt would have no detractors. The reality is, they lost a few close games and everyone has overreacted.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT