ADVERTISEMENT

Retread or lottery ticket?

Sean Miller Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Oct 30, 2001
68,859
22,254
113
Curious what the board would prefer:

A retread like Crean, Gottfried, JT3, Matta

Or a lottery ticket like Becker, Oats, Grant, etc.

Do you want pretty much a guarantee of being Dixon II which is what I think the retread would get us to? Or do you buy the lottery ticket meaning we could get the next Howland/Dixon I or Stallings Part 2?

Personally, I'm not a gambler, nor do I play the lottery. I'd prefer the safe retread and the guarantee of Dixon II.
 
I can't see how it can get as bad as, or worse than what it is right now. I can't.

It would be difficult to get worse. However, as I've said a million times, Stallings is absolutely NOT a bad coach. He is the definition of mediocre who failed in a really tough spot here. The lottery ticket might possibly be a bad coach, there isn't enough evidence. Stallings has a career of medicority as evidence. 3 good seasons at a mid-major doesn’t prove anything which makes my question interesting.

This reminds me of an old Economics study we used to do in school. Game theory, actually.

Do you take $15 straight up or do you take a shot at either $0 or $40 depending on the random outcome. This is what it comes down to.

One could argue we already tried the retread and it didn't work. However, I think the fit with Stallings was real bad. He wasn't welcomed here and he had no experience recruiting at high levels. He made his career coaching up under the radar kids. You can do that in the old SEC, which was basically Kentucky, Florida and a bunch of mid-majors but there is too much talent to do that in the ACC. You have to have some Top 100s on your roster.
 
Curious what the board would prefer:

A retread like Crean, Gottfried, JT3, Matta

Or a lottery ticket like Becker, Oats, Grant, etc.

Do you want pretty much a guarantee of being Dixon II which is what I think the retread would get us to? Or do you buy the lottery ticket meaning we could get the next Howland/Dixon I or Stallings Part 2?

Personally, I'm not a gambler, nor do I play the lottery. I'd prefer the safe retread and the guarantee of Dixon II.
Oats
 
I can state 100% it will not be a retread. The athletic director is not considering another Stallings type. Crean can try to remake his image and smooze with certain alumni but it's not going to happen.
That would be good news. I just can't see a way that they hire anyone seen as a "retread" right after Stallings. It would be a PR disaster and would once again shorten any honeymoon period for that coach. The one veteran coach i could see being the exception would be Matta, if he were healthy once again. I think it's easy enough to explain his teams decline the last few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwh05
Curious what the board would prefer:

A retread like Crean, Gottfried, JT3, Matta

Or a lottery ticket like Becker, Oats, Grant, etc.

Do you want pretty much a guarantee of being Dixon II which is what I think the retread would get us to? Or do you buy the lottery ticket meaning we could get the next Howland/Dixon I or Stallings Part 2?

Personally, I'm not a gambler, nor do I play the lottery. I'd prefer the safe retread and the guarantee of Dixon II.

IDK, where do you put Danny Hurley?
Where do you put Micah Shrewsberry?
How about Mark Schmidt or Randy Bennett?

Those are my top picks. I don't really understand your division.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cabe23
Curious what the board would prefer:

A retread like Crean, Gottfried, JT3, Matta

Or a lottery ticket like Becker, Oats, Grant, etc.

Do you want pretty much a guarantee of being Dixon II which is what I think the retread would get us to? Or do you buy the lottery ticket meaning we could get the next Howland/Dixon I or Stallings Part 2?

Personally, I'm not a gambler, nor do I play the lottery. I'd prefer the safe retread and the guarantee of Dixon II.

Matta if healthy is #1. Then Oats from the lottery tickets at #2.

Anybody else from those pools is either needlessly stepping back, or replacing Stallings with the same guy who will be given the same treatment (Crean).

I don’t think you get a Dixon II out of any of those guys. Would need to poach somebody for that, probably.
 
I don't really want to hire Schmidt, sorry for my misleading post. I was more questioning the division of names. Really I was talking about Hurley and a professional assistant dark horse who has college coaching experience.
 
That would be good news. I just can't see a way that they hire anyone seen as a "retread" right after Stallings. It would be a PR disaster and would once again shorten any honeymoon period for that coach. The one veteran coach i could see being the exception would be Matta, if he were healthy once again. I think it's easy enough to explain his teams decline the last few years.

One component of the blowback when word got out Stallings was the pick was that Barnes had insinuated he was looking for the kind of coach the fan base was looking for - a recruiter, up tempo offense, and he hired a flaming out, completely non descript guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andypappas
It would be difficult to get worse. However, as I've said a million times, Stallings is absolutely NOT a bad coach. He is the definition of mediocre who failed in a really tough spot here. The lottery ticket might possibly be a bad coach, there isn't enough evidence. Stallings has a career of medicority as evidence. 3 good seasons at a mid-major doesn’t prove anything which makes my question interesting.

This reminds me of an old Economics study we used to do in school. Game theory, actually.

Do you take $15 straight up or do you take a shot at either $0 or $40 depending on the random outcome. This is what it comes down to.

One could argue we already tried the retread and it didn't work. However, I think the fit with Stallings was real bad. He wasn't welcomed here and he had no experience recruiting at high levels. He made his career coaching up under the radar kids. You can do that in the old SEC, which was basically Kentucky, Florida and a bunch of mid-majors but there is too much talent to do that in the ACC. You have to have some Top 100s on your roster.

Stallings was a bad fit.
1) Older, retread, not that dynamic of a personality.
2) No geographical ties to traditional recruiting areas
3) Mediocre (low ceiling) coach to begin with
4) From the moment he was hired, a distrust and a contemptuous relationship with fans and media from the get that I think took Stallings by surprise, and from that moment he wondered and thought twice about the job and maybe hindsight wished he didn't take it.
 
Matta if healthy is #1. Then Oats from the lottery tickets at #2.

Anybody else from those pools is either needlessly stepping back, or replacing Stallings with the same guy who will be given the same treatment (Crean).

I don’t think you get a Dixon II out of any of those guys. Would need to poach somebody for that, probably.


I keep thinking about Matta. If Heather wants to keep emphasizing "culture of winning"...a guy with multiple final fours, a ridiculous winning percentage in a top league, it fits..but its all about the health.

Shrewsberry is to me the best lottery ticket, but Oats would be ok too.
 
A healthy Thad Matta would be a grand slam for Pitt. But if he is really healthy, I am sure he will have a lot of options.

I like Shrewsberry although he has been out of the NCAA coaching circle since 2013. He might be great, but I think he probably carries a decent amount of risk to him as well.

Oates is a solid choice although I doubt he moves the excitement needle among the average Pitt fan.

Danny Hurley would be a grand slam as well but I don't see how Pitt really has any realistic chance of getting him unless they go way outside of their norm and really open up the wallet.
 
Matta if healthy is #1. Then Oats from the lottery tickets at #2.

Anybody else from those pools is either needlessly stepping back, or replacing Stallings with the same guy who will be given the same treatment (Crean).

I don’t think you get a Dixon II out of any of those guys. Would need to poach somebody for that, probably.


I keep thinking about Matta. If Heather wants to keep emphasizing "culture of winning"...a guy with multiple final fours, a ridiculous winning percentage in a top league, it fits..but its all about the health.

Shrewsberry is to me the best lottery ticket, but Oats would be ok too.

I kind of equate assistant coaches to being low-major coaches. So of the assistant/low major tier I think Sanchez and Shrewsberry are probably the most interesting bets. Maybe Grant but you’re pretty much looking at a less accomplished Brad Brownell at this point.

I think Oats is more mid-major than low-major, so I’d put him a little above that tier just because he has a bit better experience and is similar in age. Plus he has Jeenathan Williams so you can kind of convince yourself he can do that at Pitt.

Either way, I think if they’re hiring from down here they were told “no” an awful lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarshallGoldberg
I can state 100% it will not be a retread. The athletic director is not considering another Stallings type. Crean can try to remake his image and smooze with certain alumni but it's not going to happen.

Happy to hear. Retread is not what this program needs at this point.
 
I know he would never come here but someone fill me in, has anyone ever made a big run at St. Mary’s HC Randy Bennett?
 
I can state 100% it will not be a retread. The athletic director is not considering another Stallings type. Crean can try to remake his image and smooze with certain alumni but it's not going to happen.

Happy to hear. Retread is not what this program needs at this point.

The problem is that several of these retreads are the same age as some of the mid-major names. So what do you do in that case?

If Pitt can’t poach somebody or get a mid-major guy in his mid-40’s or younger they may have no choice but to go for a retread.

For example, the gulf between Eric Musselman’s and Tom Crean’s resumes is vast, but Crean is 2 years younger. So, yeah, Crean is a retread and not exciting, but he’s still far superior to Musselman. Musselman doesn’t get Pitt any younger, which has been the drum most beaten by Pitt fans. He’s literally the same age as Jamie Dixon, who Pitt fans thought was getting too old and out of touch and who they wanted to get younger than.

Also, remarkably, Thad Matta is only 50. Pretty much the same age as John Becker. I would have never pegged Matta for that young. What a shame if his career is really over.
 
A healthy Thad Matta would be a grand slam for Pitt. But if he is really healthy, I am sure he will have a lot of options.

I like Shrewsberry although he has been out of the NCAA coaching circle since 2013. He might be great, but I think he probably carries a decent amount of risk to him as well.

Oates is a solid choice although I doubt he moves the excitement needle among the average Pitt fan.

Danny Hurley would be a grand slam as well but I don't see how Pitt really has any realistic chance of getting him unless they go way outside of their norm and really open up the wallet.

Oats scares the crap out of me. He was a HS coach at a regular HS, not a bball factory school until Hurley hired him and now he's winning with Hurley's team. He has to be the biggest risk/reward. Probably too big of a risk.

The other mid-majors just aren't that exciting.

Pitt fans seem united in not wanting a retread. Lyke has really got to get Gallagher to open the pocket books to get Hurley or some other WTF hire.
 
They first have to open pocket books to make a change to begin with. Then open again pay top 10-20 for another? That would be the Pitt day of Giving.
 
They first have to open pocketbooks to make a change to begin with. Then pay top 10-20 for another?

The buyout money shouldn't come out of the arhletics budget. Gallagher has to find that money somewhere. Its his fault for hiring a bafoon for an AD and signing off on the Stallings hire.
 
The problem is that several of these retreads are the same age as some of the mid-major names. So what do you do in that case?

If Pitt can’t poach somebody or get a mid-major guy in his mid-40’s or younger they may have no choice but to go for a retread.

For example, the gulf between Eric Musselman’s and Tom Crean’s resumes is vast, but Crean is 2 years younger. So, yeah, Crean is a retread and not exciting, but he’s still far superior to Musselman. Musselman doesn’t get Pitt any younger, which has been the drum most beaten by Pitt fans. He’s literally the same age as Jamie Dixon, who Pitt fans thought was getting too old and out of touch and who they wanted to get younger than.

Also, remarkably, Thad Matta is only 50. Pretty much the same age as John Becker. I would have never pegged Matta for that young. What a shame if his career is really over.
71- 24 (NCAA)
108–138 (NBA)
270–122 (CBA)
53–3 (USBL)
77–30 (D-League)

Musselman has a far better resume than Crean. He would bring in immediate help if hired, and provide the quickest turnaround.
 
The problem is that several of these retreads are the same age as some of the mid-major names. So what do you do in that case?

If Pitt can’t poach somebody or get a mid-major guy in his mid-40’s or younger they may have no choice but to go for a retread.

For example, the gulf between Eric Musselman’s and Tom Crean’s resumes is vast, but Crean is 2 years younger. So, yeah, Crean is a retread and not exciting, but he’s still far superior to Musselman. Musselman doesn’t get Pitt any younger, which has been the drum most beaten by Pitt fans. He’s literally the same age as Jamie Dixon, who Pitt fans thought was getting too old and out of touch and who they wanted to get younger than.

Also, remarkably, Thad Matta is only 50. Pretty much the same age as John Becker. I would have never pegged Matta for that young. What a shame if his career is really over.
71- 24 (NCAA)
108–138 (NBA)
270–122 (CBA)
53–3 (USBL)
77–30 (D-League)

Musselman has a far better resume than Crean. He would bring in immediate help if hired, and provide the quickest turnaround.

I’m not sure how many of those things translate to a P5 job, as he’s mostly being given a roster and making decisions based on what people above him hand him and tell him to do.

At the college level, he’s built Nevada by getting guys to transfer from P5 programs where they aren’t playing as much as they want, and I don’t think Pitt getting sloppy seconds is going to lead to much sustained success at the ACC level.

I don’t see a 53 year old rebuilding and trying to figure out how to compete at the P5 level exciting fans or leading to a particularly fruitful tenure
 
I’m not sure how many of those things translate to a P5 job, as he’s mostly being given a roster and making decisions based on what people above him hand him and tell him to do.

At the college level, he’s built Nevada by getting guys to transfer from P5 programs where they aren’t playing as much as they want, and I don’t think Pitt getting sloppy seconds is going to lead to much sustained success at the ACC level.

I don’t see a 53 year old rebuilding and trying to figure out how to compete at the P5 level exciting fans or leading to a particularly fruitful tenure
Nevada was terrible before he got there. He turned them around in no time. He is a good recruiter and coach. He is the best realistic option at turning this around quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BFo8
I’m not sure how many of those things translate to a P5 job, as he’s mostly being given a roster and making decisions based on what people above him hand him and tell him to do.

At the college level, he’s built Nevada by getting guys to transfer from P5 programs where they aren’t playing as much as they want, and I don’t think Pitt getting sloppy seconds is going to lead to much sustained success at the ACC level.

I don’t see a 53 year old rebuilding and trying to figure out how to compete at the P5 level exciting fans or leading to a particularly fruitful tenure
Nevada was terrible before he got there. He turned them around in no time. He is a good recruiter and coach. He is the best realistic option at turning this around quickly.

Again, I don’t think the recipe for a quick turnaround at the P5 level is to go out and get transfers who were bench players at other P5 programs.

That’s fine at a mid-major but nothing about what he’s done screams quick fix at a P5 school.

Bruce Pearl couldn’t quick fix Auburn, Musselman isn’t quick fixing Pitt.
 
The problem is that several of these retreads are the same age as some of the mid-major names. So what do you do in that case?

If Pitt can’t poach somebody or get a mid-major guy in his mid-40’s or younger they may have no choice but to go for a retread.

For example, the gulf between Eric Musselman’s and Tom Crean’s resumes is vast, but Crean is 2 years younger. So, yeah, Crean is a retread and not exciting, but he’s still far superior to Musselman. Musselman doesn’t get Pitt any younger, which has been the drum most beaten by Pitt fans. He’s literally the same age as Jamie Dixon, who Pitt fans thought was getting too old and out of touch and who they wanted to get younger than.

Also, remarkably, Thad Matta is only 50. Pretty much the same age as John Becker. I would have never pegged Matta for that young. What a shame if his career is really over.
71- 24 (NCAA)
108–138 (NBA)
270–122 (CBA)
53–3 (USBL)
77–30 (D-League)

Musselman has a far better resume than Crean. He would bring in immediate help if hired, and provide the quickest turnaround.

I’m not sure how many of those things translate to a P5 job, as he’s mostly being given a roster and making decisions based on what people above him hand him and tell him to do.

At the college level, he’s built Nevada by getting guys to transfer from P5 programs where they aren’t playing as much as they want, and I don’t think Pitt getting sloppy seconds is going to lead to much sustained success at the ACC level.

I don’t see a 53 year old rebuilding and trying to figure out how to compete at the P5 level exciting fans or leading to a particularly fruitful tenure

The route which made Musselman successful (ie transfers) doesn't seem like it would translate
 
The route which made Musselman successful (ie transfers) doesn't seem like it would translate
He has landed four star HS recruits, regular transfers, and grad transfers. He runs a good system, his players develop, and he can recruit. If the NCAA allows open transfers in the next year or so, then even more reason to hire him.
 
The problem is that several of these retreads are the same age as some of the mid-major names. So what do you do in that case?

If Pitt can’t poach somebody or get a mid-major guy in his mid-40’s or younger they may have no choice but to go for a retread.

For example, the gulf between Eric Musselman’s and Tom Crean’s resumes is vast, but Crean is 2 years younger. So, yeah, Crean is a retread and not exciting, but he’s still far superior to Musselman. Musselman doesn’t get Pitt any younger, which has been the drum most beaten by Pitt fans. He’s literally the same age as Jamie Dixon, who Pitt fans thought was getting too old and out of touch and who they wanted to get younger than.

Also, remarkably, Thad Matta is only 50. Pretty much the same age as John Becker. I would have never pegged Matta for that young. What a shame if his career is really over.
71- 24 (NCAA)
108–138 (NBA)
270–122 (CBA)
53–3 (USBL)
77–30 (D-League)

Musselman has a far better resume than Crean. He would bring in immediate help if hired, and provide the quickest turnaround.

I’m not sure how many of those things translate to a P5 job, as he’s mostly being given a roster and making decisions based on what people above him hand him and tell him to do.

At the college level, he’s built Nevada by getting guys to transfer from P5 programs where they aren’t playing as much as they want, and I don’t think Pitt getting sloppy seconds is going to lead to much sustained success at the ACC level.

I don’t see a 53 year old rebuilding and trying to figure out how to compete at the P5 level exciting fans or leading to a particularly fruitful tenure

The route which made Musselman successful (ie transfers) doesn't seem like it would translate

Right, which is why, even if he’s a fine coach, I don’t think he’s a good fit.

He’d basically be Stallings’ age by the time he has a competitive team and I have read that Stallings is too old and past his prime so I don’t know why we would rush to Musselman unless we’re just pushing agendas.
 
The route which made Musselman successful (ie transfers) doesn't seem like it would translate
He has landed four star HS recruits, regular transfers, and grad transfers. He runs a good system, his players develop, and he can recruit. If the NCAA allows open transfers in the next year or so, then even more reason to hire him.

They decided not to do that
 
Right, which is why, even if he’s a fine coach, I don’t think he’s a good fit.

He’d basically be Stallings’ age by the time he has a competitive team and I have read that Stallings is too old and past his prime so I don’t know why we would rush to Musselman unless we’re just pushing agendas.

Guy has intangibles as well. The NBA experience is kind of a big deal, has Euro ties also. Wife is young, attractive, and has worked in national media.

For a middle aged guy he seems to have a ton of energy and enthusiasm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DiehardPanther
Right, which is why, even if he’s a fine coach, I don’t think he’s a good fit.

He’d basically be Stallings’ age by the time he has a competitive team and I have read that Stallings is too old and past his prime so I don’t know why we would rush to Musselman unless we’re just pushing agendas.

Guy has intangibles as well. The NBA experience is kind of a big deal, has Euro ties also. Wife is young, attractive, and has worked in national media.

For a middle aged guy he seems to have a ton of energy and enthusiasm.

I don’t care about intangibles, I think they’re just used as a way to justify why something is a fatal flaw in Coach X but should be disregarded in Coach Y.

I also don’t think NBA experience or having a hot wife matters. Reggie Theus was supposed to be a Star with his NBA ties. Andy Enfield was supposed to be a huge upgrade over Dixon because he had a hot wife and a fun style of play and he was just in it for the love of coaching since he’s independently wealthy.

I just don’t think any of that stuff is predictive. The only thing I think NBA ties predicts is that the coach is probably paying kids. That seems to be the correlation.
 
Right, which is why, even if he’s a fine coach, I don’t think he’s a good fit.

He’d basically be Stallings’ age by the time he has a competitive team and I have read that Stallings is too old and past his prime so I don’t know why we would rush to Musselman unless we’re just pushing agendas.

Guy has intangibles as well. The NBA experience is kind of a big deal, has Euro ties also. Wife is young, attractive, and has worked in national media.

For a middle aged guy he seems to have a ton of energy and enthusiasm.

I would totally disregard success his transfers have had and look at how he has recruited HS players
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT