Here’s what was said to him about Pitt by an anonymous ACC coach
Seth Davis anonymous coaches chatter
- Thread starter JD1976
- Start date
Well they do have imo a nice inside presence in Federiko. He has come on strong the past month.
I agree with pretty much all of that other than the favorable league schedule.
Well we haven’t had a favorable league schedule TO THIS POINT
We have a favorable league schedule FROM THIS POINT
We have a favorable league schedule FROM THIS POINT
FF has 11 blocks in our last 4 games so YES we do have an inside presence. He does not score a ton but he is very disruptive and that constitutes a presence!
The schedule comment is ridiculous.
Unfavorable really. All Q3/4 games left but 2. Losing more than 1 of those would be a killer.
I think all of the comparisons back to the Dixon era teams are pretty lazy. Yes the guards are physical and experienced but what else is similar?
Lol nothing. They're old maybe???
Hinson might be the most un-dixon effective player player since Dixon left.
I too didn’t get the favorable schedule comment. Their first 5 games of the season were back-to-back road games at NC ST and Cuse and then a three-game homestand with UNC, UVA and Clemson. Hardly favorable.
The only favorable point that I could see argued is the fact that Pitt has had UNC, UVA, Miami, Wake and Clemson at home.
The only favorable point that I could see argued is the fact that Pitt has had UNC, UVA, Miami, Wake and Clemson at home.
having "easy" games isn't unfavorable. They only become unfavorable if you lose.
Not sure I agree with Nelly. He has been a solid addition at eat and has helped us win a few games. Let’s see how he does come in tourney time.
they don’t beat UNc in chapel hill without Nelly for sure. He rescued them at a time when it looked like UNc could pull away. They need him and he’s been a great addition.
If you take Burton off this team they’re a bad team. If you take nelly/Nike/Elliot off this team they prob have lost 3 more games.
Burton is invaluable but I definitely wouldn’t diminish the other 3 who have all stepped up when Pitt needed it
I think it depends on how you look at the definition of "favorable". We have maybe 1 game left, maybe 2, where we can get a win that will be highly impactful to our ranking, NET, whatever you want to call it. Beating L'ville won't move the needle. Maybe beating VT. But the rest of the schedule is not exactly strong. So the rest of the schedule is not favorable for us in that definition. But it is favorable for us to get wins.
They left out the final sentence for the sake of protecting the anonymity of the ACC coach..."Nelly Cummings has been an unbelievable addition. In this current state of affairs you get what you pay for and Pitt must have ponied up big time for this kid"...
I agree that Nelly has been a very good addition. I also agree that our front court presence is the team's weakness. However, I'd argue that Fede has been as unbelievable of an addition as Nelly. Imagine where we would be right now without him?
Dixon would have a stroke with some of the shots Hinson and Cummings take.
If the losses to WVU and Michigan were by say... 8-10 points instead of 20+ points.... our NET rating would be much higher.
The NET takes into account scoring margins. Pitt has a lot of CLOSE wins. And 2 of our losses are by massive blowouts.
The NET needs to be changed to put less emphasis on margin of victory and more on actual victory/loss. Margins can be skewed by playing walkons at the end of game or garbage time scoring on outcomes that are not in doubt.
If Pitt played their starters in the final 2 minutes against WVU and turns that into say... a 12-15 point loss... it might've helped their NET ranking a little bit. And that's stupid.
How old and physical they are and how ownership is given to those 5 players in their 5th or 6th year that run the show and play their best in the final minutes. It's the same reason, given all or most of those old guys are gone after this season (Hinson being the only of the 5 that can return), why some fans question whether this remarkable, awesome, unexpected season so far is simply a one off. Or, hopefully, a sign of things to come.
But that's not at all what I'm talking about. A coach said we've benefited from a favorable league schedule. I disagree.
I have no idea how NET and quads are calculated, but I find it all stupid. I'm shocked by how many people talk about it like it isn't some dumb formula some jackass came up with in his basement.
Most of us watch nearly every game. We shouldn't pay much attention to coaches or announcers who have only seen Pitt play a handful of times. They are generally accurate but get occasional details wrong.
Have you not watched TCU at all over the past few years? Dixon has evolved, just like any successful coach does.
Bingo - why not just weigh outcomes based on something simple, like outcome of >=10 or <10?
Agree. I am just saying Nelly on his own is not the difference for our turnaround. Up until a few games ago nobody here wanted Nelly to shoot. And he was a high turnover guy.
They've all contributed and won games for us. I'd argue without Federiko we lose the second UNC game and Miami game. But I can do that with a bunch of our guys. Without Burton, without Nelly or Elliott or Hinson.
Because its efficiency based and every possession matters the same to a certain extent. Vegas is looking at which teams are better not necessarily who wins games. Its why a school like TCU is 30 spots higher in NET than RPI.
I don't even like that. A 74-65 game could've been 70-50 with 2 mins to go and the loser made it look better against the winner's walk-ons. Conversely a 81-70 game could have been 73-70 with a minute to go and FTs made the margin >10.
A win is a win and a loss is a loss. The scoring margin should have almost nothing to do with how valuable a win is or how costly a loss is.
What Vegas looks at and what the tournament committee looks at should NOT be the same metric.
I agree but RPI was very flawed also. If they just use NET how they are supposed to (as in only to make the quads) then its fine. But you just cant seed a team like UNC ahead of Pitt because they're 12 spots higher in NET when they lost twice and they are 1-7 in Q1 compared to Pitt's 4-2
I assume they mean Pitt era Dixon. It’s great he’s evolved but I wish he had done it here.
Sounds like Boeheim was very angry Saturday night. At least that’s who I assumed this coach was.
I dont watch non Pitt games often- the comparison wasn't made to TCU though. This team is being compared to Dixons Pitt teams. Jamie Dixon of 2008 or 2009 would call timeout and remove Hinson from the game when he pulls up and shoots an NBA 3 with 17 on the shot clock.
Amazing that each game someone different has stepped up. Burton is still the key to this group.
When I’ve watched TCU I’ve noticed that Dixon micromanages in much the same way he did at Pitt. If he’s slowed down it’s because he is older.
Good stuff other than the favorable schedule. It’s not hard to see that we have had one of the hardest conference schedules to this point.
And 1 of the easiest going forward - only 2 games against teams with winning conference records, Syracuse and Miami, and we have beat both of them already. Just have to take care of business these last 8 games.
At some level, sure they should. The committee is supposed to be picking the best teams, and you simply cannot do that if you pay no attention to margin of victory. When you start doing that you end up with metrics like the RPI, which made no sense what so ever. It was literally something some guy made up in his basement.
