So no one's going to discuss the elephant in the room ...?

[hoopsguy72]

IMO, it would be an unbelievablly reckless move at this point for Lyke to fire Stallings and hire anyone else. With the report out today from Thamel at YahooSports, it's clear that heads are going to roll in college hoops and the landscape could be permanently altered.

There's one thing Lyke confidently knows about Stallings: He's clean. There's nothing unseemly behind the curtain. But if reports, which estimate that 36 to 50 P5 schools are tainted by this scandal, Pitt could come out the other side looking really good.

At this point, I think Lyke has to give Stallings '18-'19 and let this play out. She'll save $ on the buyout, Stallings will bring more stability to program next year (highly likely the team gets close to or slightly above .500) and gets a CBI or NIT bid, and if Pitt's recruiting for '19-'20 doesn't see a significant uptick as a result of the scandal, she'll know who's radioactive and who she can pluck from the mid-major ranks. At that point, Pitt would be an attractive option, potentially to some very good coaches, because there would be no sanctions or pending sanctions.

On the other hand, if she hires this spring, she risks burying the PItt program permanently. A, she'd be firing a clean guy and potentially a coach who has been heavily criticized by this board for his lack of recruiting success precisely because of the scandal (that is, he couldn't recruit because he and, by extension, Pitt, didn't cheat), and B, she'd run the risk of potentially hiring a coach who could wind up either tainted, at best, or with a show cause, at worst. If that were to happen, Pitt's done. If you think this year's been bad, imagine it being like this for a decade. Because that's precisely what would happen.

But at this point, there's almost no downside risk to keeping Stallings. We could see men like Bill Self and Coach K having to retire as a result of what's coming, and the assistants won't be spared, either. Lyke can credibly say Pitt needs to give Stallings more time, in part because, well, he needs more time. But in addition, because of the buyout and the uncertain NCAA landscape and the risk inherent in hiring a new coach in this environment.

The only coaches in this environment she could plausibly hire without considerable concern that they'd be caught up in this mess are Tom Crean and Thad Matta. I'm on record as saying I think Matta would be a cataclysmic mistake. And if I'm Crean watching all this, I'm smiling because when the dust settles, I'm going to get my pick of a Blue Blood coaching job. I might have to deal with a year or two of sanctions, but I'll pay that cost to coach at Kansas, UNC, Michigan State, or another perennial college hoops power.

Someone will say she could hire a mid-major coach and be OK, but why do that? The right long-term play now, unquestionably, is to wait. Why gamble on a mid-major hire who may be Ben Howland, but could also be John Groce? Especially when you may well have a top 10 pick next spring when the shooting stops in the scandal-to-come.

While you wait, Stallings stabilizes the program (yes, haters, he will; this team's going .500ish next season no matter how much you guys hate him), which provides Lyke with options after the '18-'19 season. She can stick with Stallings, who could come out of all this looking like a rose (imagine some of the recruiting battles we're currently in if the cheaters against whom we're competing are exposed; guess who wins those battles?), or she could thank him for helping get the program back on track, pay a reduced buyout, then hire a coach who suddenly sees Pitt as a very attractive option. And if the current NCAA proposal to allow transfers to play immediately passes, as expected, that new coach would have the immediate ability to stock the cupboards with talent (or Stallings could as well).

 

[hoopsguy72]

For those who don't know what I'm talking about:

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-co...hes-top-programs-lottery-picks-224417174.html

 

[DiehardPanther]

IMO, it would be an unbelievablly reckless move at this point for Lyke to fire Stallings and hire anyone else. With the report out today from Thamel at YahooSports, it's clear that heads are going to roll in college hoops and the landscape could be permanently altered.

There's one thing Lyke confidently knows about Stallings: He's clean. There's nothing unseemly behind the curtain. But if reports, which estimate that 36 to 50 P5 schools are tainted by this scandal, Pitt could come out the other side looking really good.

At this point, I think Lyke has to give Stallings '18-'19 and let this play out. She'll save $ on the buyout, Stallings will bring more stability to program next year (highly likely the team gets close to or slightly above .500) and gets a CBI or NIT bid, and if Pitt's recruiting for '19-'20 doesn't see a significant uptick as a result of the scandal, she'll know who's radioactive and who she can pluck from the mid-major ranks. At that point, Pitt would be an attractive option, potentially to some very good coaches, because there would be no sanctions or pending sanctions.

On the other hand, if she hires this spring, she risks burying the PItt program permanently. A, she'd be firing a clean guy and potentially a coach who has been heavily criticized by this board for his lack of recruiting success precisely because of the scandal (that is, he couldn't recruit because he and, by extension, Pitt, didn't cheat), and B, she'd run the risk of potentially hiring a coach who could wind up either tainted, at best, or with a show cause, at worst. If that were to happen, Pitt's done. If you think this year's been bad, imagine it being like this for a decade. Because that's precisely what would happen.

But at this point, there's almost no downside risk to keeping Stallings. We could see men like Bill Self and Coach K having to retire as a result of what's coming, and the assistants won't be spared, either. Lyke can credibly say Pitt needs to give Stallings more time, in part because, well, he needs more time. But in addition, because of the buyout and the uncertain NCAA landscape and the risk inherent in hiring a new coach in this environment.

The only coaches in this environment she could plausibly hire without considerable concern that they'd be caught up in this mess are Tom Crean and Thad Matta. I'm on record as saying I think Matta would be a cataclysmic mistake. And if I'm Crean watching all this, I'm smiling because when the dust settles, I'm going to get my pick of a Blue Blood coaching job. I might have to deal with a year or two of sanctions, but I'll pay that cost to coach at Kansas, UNC, Michigan State, or another perennial college hoops power.

Someone will say she could hire a mid-major coach and be OK, but why do that? The right long-term play now, unquestionably, is to wait. Why gamble on a mid-major hire who may be Ben Howland, but could also be John Groce? Especially when you may well have a top 10 pick next spring when the shooting stops in the scandal-to-come.

While you wait, Stallings stabilizes the program (yes, haters, he will; this team's going .500ish next season no matter how much you guys hate him), which provides Lyke with options after the '18-'19 season. She can stick with Stallings, who could come out of all this looking like a rose (imagine some of the recruiting battles we're currently in if the cheaters against whom we're competing are exposed; guess who wins those battles?), or she could thank him for helping get the program back on track, pay a reduced buyout, then hire a coach who suddenly sees Pitt as a very attractive option. And if the current NCAA proposal to allow transfers to play immediately passes, as expected, that new coach would have the immediate ability to stock the cupboards with talent (or Stallings could as well).

How many games have you attended in person, and how many people were in attendance? What is Pitt’s record? What is our recruiting class ranked?

 

[thom67]

When you say there is no downside to firing Stallings, how about by not firing Stallings there may not be anyone in the stands next year and it will take years longer to get fans back in the Pete.

 

[CJsE]

Hey, guess what happens if 50 of the top universities are caught up in this scandal...the rules will be changed. If this is as big as the reports are saying, there is no way the NCAA to try and take on all of the Power 5 conferences. The more widespread the scandal, the more watered down the punishment.

 

[hoopsguy72]

I've been to Miami, Duke, and BC and watched every game, non-con and ACC, on ESPN3. I've watched some of the games twice. At the BC game, the other night, the crowd was, like most of the games, pretty sparse. Announced was close to 3,000, and I'd say that was about right. What any of that has to do with my point, I have no idea, but since you seem to be keeping score, there you go. Not sure what our record is currently, other than knowing we've won 8 games and lost all of our ACC contests. I'd guess we're somewhere around 8-18 or 8-19 (know we were 8-5 in non-con, and I think we're either 0-13 or 0-14 in ACC). I have no idea where our recruiting class is ranked and don't really care, but I know every player in the class and I've watched film on all of them (Golden, Kingsby, Ellison, and, technically, Luther, since you're keeping score).

 

[HOF Coach]

Bye-bye!

 

[hoopsguy72]

When you say there is no downside to firing Stallings, how about by not firing Stallings there may not be anyone in the stands next year and it will take years longer to get fans back in the Pete.

This is such an inane argument. Except for the histrionic people on this board, no one is staying away from Pitt basketball because of Kevin Stallings. They're staying away because Pitt sucks. Period. When Pitt sucks less next year, more people will attend, whether KS is the coach or any of this board's wish-list coaches are on the sideline. Will season tickets decrease next year with Stallings back? Likely. But the long-term play here is waiting. ... Will the NCAA punish all 50 schools? No way to know. But if this is big as is being suggested, it's not going to get swept under the rug. Boeheim, K, Self, Izzo, and others will retire rather than have their legacies indicted and dragged through the social-media ringer. And many schools will self-sanction, regardless of what the NCAA does or does not do.

The idea that it's just going to be business-as-usual is asinine. The landscape is going to change in a significant, perhaps irreparable, way. In light of that, Pitt would be very wise to stand pat and wait. The upside to waiting is terrific. The downside? Another year of KS, but a year that most certainly will be better than this one.

 

[HOF Coach]

Bye-bye!

 

[hoopsguy72]

Bye-bye!

View embedded media

Yes, that is what the crowd looked like at tip-off. It was abysmal, and I commented on how bad it was to some folks sitting next to me. But that's not what it looked like midway through the game. A lot of people arrived after the tip.

 

[HOF Coach]

Bye-bye!

 

[HOF Coach]

Bye-bye!

 

[HOF Coach]

Bye-bye!

 

[BFo8]

I've been to Miami, Duke, and BC and watched every game, non-con and ACC, on ESPN3. I've watched some of the games twice. At the BC game, the other night, the crowd was, like most of the games, pretty sparse. Announced was close to 3,000, and I'd say that was about right. What any of that has to do with my point, I have no idea, but since you seem to be keeping score, there you go. Not sure what our record is currently, other than knowing we've won 8 games and lost all of our ACC contests. I'd guess we're somewhere around 8-18 or 8-19 (know we were 8-5 in non-con, and I think we're either 0-13 or 0-14 in ACC). I have no idea where our recruiting class is ranked. I'm a basketball guy and coach, and I generally think recruiting rankings are unreliable garbage. While I don't know our ranking, I know every player in the class, and I've watched film on all of them (Golden, Kingsby, Ellison, and, technically, Luther, since you're keeping score).

You’re not a basketball guy, and whether or not you’re a coach is immaterial.

Nothing you’ve said reflects any kind of insight on basketball at this level.

 

[hoopsguy72]

Bye-bye!

View embedded media

I am not here to have a general argument about Stallings next year. That discussion has been had on this board ad infinitum. I've read all the threads here, and I've chosen not to participate. The vast majority of people here have their strong opinions, and nothing I say is going to change them. If you want to engage the point I raised in my original post, please do. Otherwise, to quote you, "Bye-bye!"

You’re not a basketball guy, and whether or not you’re a coach is immaterial.

Nothing you’ve said reflects any kind of insight on basketball at this level.

You’re not a basketball guy, and whether or not you’re a coach is immaterial.

Nothing you’ve said reflects any kind of insight on basketball at this level.

Man, so good to know that playing college hoops, coaching for a decade-plus at the high school level, and working for a national basketball organization doesn't make me a basketball guy. I must have missed the certification memo you sent out earlier.

If you want to engage the argument I made in my original post, which is, after all, why I posted it, I'm happy to discuss. But if you just want to attack my credibility and engage in ad hominem attacks, I'll pass. It's the reason I rarely engage on this board to begin with. Most of the responses to my original post so far are ridiculously juvenile.

 

[BFo8]

I am not here to argue about Stallings next year. I've read all the threads on this board, and I've chosen not to participate. The vast majority of people here have their strong opinions, and nothing I say is going to change them. If you want to engage the argument I made in my original post, please do. Otherwise, to quote you, "Bye-bye!"




Man, so good to know that playing college hoops, coaching for a decade-plus at the high school level, and working for a national basketball organization doesn't make me a basketball guy. I must have missed the certification memo you sent out earlier.

If you want to engage the argument I made in my original post, which is, after all, why I posted it, I'm happy to discuss. But if you just want to attack my credibility and engage in ad hominem attacks, I'll pass. It's the reason I rarely engage on this board to begin with. Most of the responses to my original post so far are ridiculously juvenile.

You’re statements sound small time and pedantic.

Being a high school coach and touting that as some sort of knowledge about the comings and goings of big time basketball only lessens your credibility.

How about this, I’ve been an oddsmaker at the absolute highest level in the US (certainly not Pinny but not that far off) and still do consultant work for a very highly respected group that actually moves numbers on college basketball.

Forgive me if I don’t respect your opinion.

 

[hoopsguy72]

You’re statements sound small time and pedantic.

Being a high school coach and touting that as some sort of knowledge about the comings and goings of big time basketball only lessens your credibility.

How about this, I’ve been an oddsmaker at the absolute highest level in the US (certainly not Pinny but not that far off) and still do consultant work for a very highly respected group that actually moves numbers on college basketball.

Forgive me if I don’t respect your opinion.

Well, again, if you disagree with my opinion, tell me why. Instead, you're essentially just yelling, "You're an idiot." I was only referencing my basketball background as it related to my comment that I didn't put a lot of stock in recruiting rankings. I mean, good grief, the first comment I got on here to my post was a guy asking me to prove that I know anything about Pitt basketball (how many games have you been to? what's their record? how many people attended the game? what's their recruiting ranking?) ... I didn't know I had to prove my bona fides to proffer an opinion on this board. I said nothing about being a HS basketball coach in my post. I made an argument about what I think Pitt should do in light of what's happening in the broader college hoops landscape? Have you any thoughts on that, or do you just want to continue to belittle me?

 

[HailToPitt1985]

What's going to happen has nothing to do with the NCAA or sanctions. This is the FBI. The 50 or so schools and coaches associated with those schools are being investigated by the FBI. Punishments will come down hard on every one of the schools. Nothing will be diluted because there are so many of them. College basketball AND college football are changing and will change.

I don't think any of this will affect Pitt. We don't recruit with the big boys, we don't pay our players and our coaches don't pay anyone. That doesn't mean, however, that it's not time for Stallings to get the hell out of here. The 2 events and series of events are not related. Stallings has done nothing to improve the Pitt basketball program and has actually done harm to the program that may be irreversible. It's time for him to leave. The penalties from the FBI don't have anything to do with that.

 

[HOF Coach]

hoopsguy72,
First, let me state that I am a long time season ticket holder.
Second, I, in no way, was attacking you. I get your original point, however what might occur due to the FBI investigation takes second fiddle to the immediate challenges that PITT's program is faced with.

SOME OF THOSE DETAILS:
1. I wanted Stallings to succeed. When he was originally hired, and with PITT returning so many players from an NCAA qualifying team, I could accept bringing in an experienced P5 coach to manage a veteran team in hopes of keeping it going.
2. When last season unraveled and the team's discipline deteriorated which resulted in a rare losing season, I gave Stallings the benefit of doubt and blamed the players (even though red flags went up as i wondered how could a veteran coach lose a team like he did?).
3. I had no false expectations for this season. When you turnover almost the entire roster and have to rely on so many freshmen (who were not highly ranked or recruited) to compete in the top conference in college hoops, ACC victories would be scarce.
4. Early in the season, I was encouraged. The team was running the offense sets, a complete reversal from the previous year. This is what I wanted to see and thought that this gave them a chance to improve as the season went on, the thought being that the sum of the parts would be more successful than they could be by playing an individual, one-on-one style game.
5. Unfortunately, that wasn't sustained. Instead of scoring off pick and rolls, backdoor cuts and offensive rebound putbacks, PITT took the path of least resistance by passing the ball around the perimeter and tossing up low percentage 3-point shots. At the same time, there was no development of a coordinated defense, that included defending the paint, hedging and helping to stop penetration, and one shot and done rebounding by everyone boxing out and then clearing the glass. Again, all I wanted to see was improvement in team play that comes from proper teaching and coaching. That hasn't occurred and that points to a coaching staff failure.
6. Moving on from X's and O's, the program is in a death spiral as fans and students have stopped buying tickets and attending the games. This must be addressed immediately for if not, any chance of attracting prized recruits are practically nil. The Pete is like a morgue.
7. Even though the administration and the fans would prefer stability with a coaching staff, there must be a pivot to a new direction for the current staff gives the fan base little hope or excitement. Maintaining the status quo will not return the program to the top tier of the ACC and beyond.

No doubt, the administration will have to be keen in their due diligence when searching for a new head coach to avoid potential disasters caused by the FBI's expected upheaval of the college basketball landscape. But, in my opinion, it is a risk that must be taken now in order to regain their fanbase before many have written off the program for good.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

Let’s just say for conversation purposes a lot of heads ( coaches ) roll with this FBI investigation . What if Pitt then sees no improvement next season on the court and in recruiting and they wish to move on from KS , now they’re competing with 20 or 30 schools for a new head coach . How does Pitt fair in such a coaches market ? I’d think Pitts interests would be better served acting ahead of such an event with a contract that includes a very expensive buyout if the coach tries to leave early .

 

[PittFathead87]

How can you say there's no downside to keeping Stallings another year? How about risking your entire fan base (or what's left of it) becoming completely indifferent to Pitt hoops? Much like people who bailed on the NFL this year, once you realize how much time and money you get back when you stop watching, you may never come back. Maybe you decide the hell with Pitt, I'll just buy some Pens games instead, or any other source of entertainment that's much more enjoyable than watching this team. If you bought season tickets this year, you paid a ton of money to watch horrific basketball. How many people are going to stop pissing money down the drain if Stallings returns? I already did stop this year and as much as I miss Pitt hoops, I sometimes don't even remember there's a game on.

As far as highly likely they go 500 or higher next year?? Based one what? Just because these players have one more year of experience and Luther and Ellison play? Please. What are the odds Luther even makes it through a season healthy given his track record? The current team shows absolutely no improvement under Stallings.

There are many coaches and programs at smaller schools who don't cheat. Find a good one and move on.

It would be reckless at this point NOT to do so.

 

[Chaos]

IMO, it would be an unbelievablly reckless move at this point for Lyke to fire Stallings and hire anyone else. With the report out today from Thamel at YahooSports, it's clear that heads are going to roll in college hoops and the landscape could be permanently altered.

There's one thing Lyke confidently knows about Stallings: He's clean. There's nothing unseemly behind the curtain. But if reports, which estimate that 36 to 50 P5 schools are tainted by this scandal, Pitt could come out the other side looking really good.

At this point, I think Lyke has to give Stallings '18-'19 and let this play out. She'll save $ on the buyout, Stallings will bring more stability to program next year (highly likely the team gets close to or slightly above .500) and gets a CBI or NIT bid, and if Pitt's recruiting for '19-'20 doesn't see a significant uptick as a result of the scandal, she'll know who's radioactive and who she can pluck from the mid-major ranks. At that point, Pitt would be an attractive option, potentially to some very good coaches, because there would be no sanctions or pending sanctions.

On the other hand, if she hires this spring, she risks burying the PItt program permanently. A, she'd be firing a clean guy and potentially a coach who has been heavily criticized by this board for his lack of recruiting success precisely because of the scandal (that is, he couldn't recruit because he and, by extension, Pitt, didn't cheat), and B, she'd run the risk of potentially hiring a coach who could wind up either tainted, at best, or with a show cause, at worst. If that were to happen, Pitt's done. If you think this year's been bad, imagine it being like this for a decade. Because that's precisely what would happen.

But at this point, there's almost no downside risk to keeping Stallings. We could see men like Bill Self and Coach K having to retire as a result of what's coming, and the assistants won't be spared, either. Lyke can credibly say Pitt needs to give Stallings more time, in part because, well, he needs more time. But in addition, because of the buyout and the uncertain NCAA landscape and the risk inherent in hiring a new coach in this environment.

The only coaches in this environment she could plausibly hire without considerable concern that they'd be caught up in this mess are Tom Crean and Thad Matta. I'm on record as saying I think Matta would be a cataclysmic mistake. And if I'm Crean watching all this, I'm smiling because when the dust settles, I'm going to get my pick of a Blue Blood coaching job. I might have to deal with a year or two of sanctions, but I'll pay that cost to coach at Kansas, UNC, Michigan State, or another perennial college hoops power.

Someone will say she could hire a mid-major coach and be OK, but why do that? The right long-term play now, unquestionably, is to wait. Why gamble on a mid-major hire who may be Ben Howland, but could also be John Groce? Especially when you may well have a top 10 pick next spring when the shooting stops in the scandal-to-come.

While you wait, Stallings stabilizes the program (yes, haters, he will; this team's going .500ish next season no matter how much you guys hate him), which provides Lyke with options after the '18-'19 season. She can stick with Stallings, who could come out of all this looking like a rose (imagine some of the recruiting battles we're currently in if the cheaters against whom we're competing are exposed; guess who wins those battles?), or she could thank him for helping get the program back on track, pay a reduced buyout, then hire a coach who suddenly sees Pitt as a very attractive option. And if the current NCAA proposal to allow transfers to play immediately passes, as expected, that new coach would have the immediate ability to stock the cupboards with talent (or Stallings could as well).

Stallings clearly doesn't want to be here, so all of these points are kind of moot.

 

[ScrantonicityIII]

IMO, it would be an unbelievablly reckless move at this point for Lyke to fire Stallings and hire anyone else. With the report out today from Thamel at YahooSports, it's clear that heads are going to roll in college hoops and the landscape could be permanently altered.

There's one thing Lyke confidently knows about Stallings: He's clean. There's nothing unseemly behind the curtain. But if reports, which estimate that 36 to 50 P5 schools are tainted by this scandal, Pitt could come out the other side looking really good.

At this point, I think Lyke has to give Stallings '18-'19 and let this play out. She'll save $ on the buyout, Stallings will bring more stability to program next year (highly likely the team gets close to or slightly above .500) and gets a CBI or NIT bid, and if Pitt's recruiting for '19-'20 doesn't see a significant uptick as a result of the scandal, she'll know who's radioactive and who she can pluck from the mid-major ranks. At that point, Pitt would be an attractive option, potentially to some very good coaches, because there would be no sanctions or pending sanctions.

On the other hand, if she hires this spring, she risks burying the PItt program permanently. A, she'd be firing a clean guy and potentially a coach who has been heavily criticized by this board for his lack of recruiting success precisely because of the scandal (that is, he couldn't recruit because he and, by extension, Pitt, didn't cheat), and B, she'd run the risk of potentially hiring a coach who could wind up either tainted, at best, or with a show cause, at worst. If that were to happen, Pitt's done. If you think this year's been bad, imagine it being like this for a decade. Because that's precisely what would happen.

But at this point, there's almost no downside risk to keeping Stallings. We could see men like Bill Self and Coach K having to retire as a result of what's coming, and the assistants won't be spared, either. Lyke can credibly say Pitt needs to give Stallings more time, in part because, well, he needs more time. But in addition, because of the buyout and the uncertain NCAA landscape and the risk inherent in hiring a new coach in this environment.

The only coaches in this environment she could plausibly hire without considerable concern that they'd be caught up in this mess are Tom Crean and Thad Matta. I'm on record as saying I think Matta would be a cataclysmic mistake. And if I'm Crean watching all this, I'm smiling because when the dust settles, I'm going to get my pick of a Blue Blood coaching job. I might have to deal with a year or two of sanctions, but I'll pay that cost to coach at Kansas, UNC, Michigan State, or another perennial college hoops power.

Someone will say she could hire a mid-major coach and be OK, but why do that? The right long-term play now, unquestionably, is to wait. Why gamble on a mid-major hire who may be Ben Howland, but could also be John Groce? Especially when you may well have a top 10 pick next spring when the shooting stops in the scandal-to-come.

While you wait, Stallings stabilizes the program (yes, haters, he will; this team's going .500ish next season no matter how much you guys hate him), which provides Lyke with options after the '18-'19 season. She can stick with Stallings, who could come out of all this looking like a rose (imagine some of the recruiting battles we're currently in if the cheaters against whom we're competing are exposed; guess who wins those battles?), or she could thank him for helping get the program back on track, pay a reduced buyout, then hire a coach who suddenly sees Pitt as a very attractive option. And if the current NCAA proposal to allow transfers to play immediately passes, as expected, that new coach would have the immediate ability to stock the cupboards with talent (or Stallings could as well).

Your premise is broken. You assume that any coach who has any success is not clean. Maybe that's true to some degree, but clean cannot mean being blown out by 30 every game. I bet the University of Buffalo coach must be EXTREMELY dirty to be doing so well.

If we keep Stallings, I truly believe we may as well just stop the charade and move to the MAC. And I'm not even talking about being top 5 in the ACC. At this point I would be happy with about mid way in the ACC and making the tourney. We are nowhere near that. But at least we're "clean". How do you know we're clean? We could be dirty as heck and just suck at that too.

 

[rockypanther]

I've been to Miami, Duke, and BC and watched every game, non-con and ACC, on ESPN3. I've watched some of the games twice. At the BC game, the other night, the crowd was, like most of the games, pretty sparse. Announced was close to 3,000, and I'd say that was about right. What any of that has to do with my point, I have no idea, but since you seem to be keeping score, there you go. Not sure what our record is currently, other than knowing we've won 8 games and lost all of our ACC contests. I'd guess we're somewhere around 8-18 or 8-19 (know we were 8-5 in non-con, and I think we're either 0-13 or 0-14 in ACC). I have no idea where our recruiting class is ranked and don't really care, but I know every player in the class and I've watched film on all of them (Golden, Kingsby, Ellison, and, technically, Luther, since you're keeping score).

Why did you just join the Pitt board a month ago if you are such a big fan?

 

[Pittx9]

This is a valid point. However, Thad Matta is not coaching because of back issues. If he were healthy enough to coach he would be one of the biggest home run hires Pitt could imagine.

 

[bobfree]

You’re statements sound small time and pedantic.

Being a high school coach and touting that as some sort of knowledge about the comings and goings of big time basketball only lessens your credibility.

How about this, I’ve been an oddsmaker at the absolute highest level in the US (certainly not Pinny but not that far off) and still do consultant work for a very highly respected group that actually moves numbers on college basketball.

Forgive me if I don’t respect your opinion.

 

[bobfree]

Why did you just join the Pitt board a month ago if you are such a big fan?

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

It's a shame this thread is so bad. The topic of what post-Stallings Pitt looks like if this investigation takes down a lot of big names is an important one, but we're debating Stallins again.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

How do we know Stallings is clean?

Maybe he sucks at cheating, too?

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

IMO, it would be an unbelievablly reckless move at this point for Lyke to fire Stallings and hire anyone else. With the report out today from Thamel at YahooSports, it's clear that heads are going to roll in college hoops and the landscape could be permanently altered.

There's one thing Lyke confidently knows about Stallings: He's clean. There's nothing unseemly behind the curtain. But if reports, which estimate that 36 to 50 P5 schools are tainted by this scandal, Pitt could come out the other side looking really good.

At this point, I think Lyke has to give Stallings '18-'19 and let this play out. She'll save $ on the buyout, Stallings will bring more stability to program next year (highly likely the team gets close to or slightly above .500) and gets a CBI or NIT bid, and if Pitt's recruiting for '19-'20 doesn't see a significant uptick as a result of the scandal, she'll know who's radioactive and who she can pluck from the mid-major ranks. At that point, Pitt would be an attractive option, potentially to some very good coaches, because there would be no sanctions or pending sanctions.

On the other hand, if she hires this spring, she risks burying the PItt program permanently. A, she'd be firing a clean guy and potentially a coach who has been heavily criticized by this board for his lack of recruiting success precisely because of the scandal (that is, he couldn't recruit because he and, by extension, Pitt, didn't cheat), and B, she'd run the risk of potentially hiring a coach who could wind up either tainted, at best, or with a show cause, at worst. If that were to happen, Pitt's done. If you think this year's been bad, imagine it being like this for a decade. Because that's precisely what would happen.

But at this point, there's almost no downside risk to keeping Stallings. We could see men like Bill Self and Coach K having to retire as a result of what's coming, and the assistants won't be spared, either. Lyke can credibly say Pitt needs to give Stallings more time, in part because, well, he needs more time. But in addition, because of the buyout and the uncertain NCAA landscape and the risk inherent in hiring a new coach in this environment.

The only coaches in this environment she could plausibly hire without considerable concern that they'd be caught up in this mess are Tom Crean and Thad Matta. I'm on record as saying I think Matta would be a cataclysmic mistake. And if I'm Crean watching all this, I'm smiling because when the dust settles, I'm going to get my pick of a Blue Blood coaching job. I might have to deal with a year or two of sanctions, but I'll pay that cost to coach at Kansas, UNC, Michigan State, or another perennial college hoops power.

Someone will say she could hire a mid-major coach and be OK, but why do that? The right long-term play now, unquestionably, is to wait. Why gamble on a mid-major hire who may be Ben Howland, but could also be John Groce? Especially when you may well have a top 10 pick next spring when the shooting stops in the scandal-to-come.

While you wait, Stallings stabilizes the program (yes, haters, he will; this team's going .500ish next season no matter how much you guys hate him), which provides Lyke with options after the '18-'19 season. She can stick with Stallings, who could come out of all this looking like a rose (imagine some of the recruiting battles we're currently in if the cheaters against whom we're competing are exposed; guess who wins those battles?), or she could thank him for helping get the program back on track, pay a reduced buyout, then hire a coach who suddenly sees Pitt as a very attractive option. And if the current NCAA proposal to allow transfers to play immediately passes, as expected, that new coach would have the immediate ability to stock the cupboards with talent (or Stallings could as well).

Yeah? How can he recruit? Unless you can guarentee that 25 programs ahead of us are going on probation and we will have a chance at top 100 recruits, this whole post by you is meaningless.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

The Elephant in the Room.
This thread deserves this picture!
Be careful shaking hands with her?

"it's five o'clock somewhere"
Signed: Mr Buffett
Go PITT & CSU Rams!

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

How do we know Stallings is clean?

Maybe he sucks at cheating, too?

We don't know If Stallings or his assistants when he was at Vandy were clean, either. Also, for all we know some of Dixon's former Pitt assistants weren't clean and Pitt will be among the 50 implicated. So, assuming Pitt and/or Stallings comes out as clean is far from a given.

 

[DT_PITT]

I've been to Miami, Duke, and BC and watched every game, non-con and ACC, on ESPN3. I've watched some of the games twice. At the BC game, the other night, the crowd was, like most of the games, pretty sparse. Announced was close to 3,000, and I'd say that was about right. What any of that has to do with my point, I have no idea, but since you seem to be keeping score, there you go. Not sure what our record is currently, other than knowing we've won 8 games and lost all of our ACC contests. I'd guess we're somewhere around 8-18 or 8-19 (know we were 8-5 in non-con, and I think we're either 0-13 or 0-14 in ACC). I have no idea where our recruiting class is ranked and don't really care, but I know every player in the class and I've watched film on all of them (Golden, Kingsby, Ellison, and, technically, Luther, since you're keeping score).

Crowd was announced at 2,800.

There was absolutely no way the crowd was a single person more than 1,500 at the BC game and that's if you include the band, cheerleaders, the teams, trainers, officials and the ushers.

In fact, it was likely closer to 1,000.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

I am not here to have a general argument about Stallings next year. That discussion has been had on this board ad infinitum. I've read all the threads here, and I've chosen not to participate. The vast majority of people here have their strong opinions, and nothing I say is going to change them. If you want to engage the point I raised in my original post, please do. Otherwise, to quote you, "Bye-bye!"




Man, so good to know that playing college hoops, coaching for a decade-plus at the high school level, and working for a national basketball organization doesn't make me a basketball guy. I must have missed the certification memo you sent out earlier.

If you want to engage the argument I made in my original post, which is, after all, why I posted it, I'm happy to discuss. But if you just want to attack my credibility and engage in ad hominem attacks, I'll pass. It's the reason I rarely engage on this board to begin with. Most of the responses to my original post so far are ridiculously juvenile.

Zeise??

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

To change the subject somewhat from solely Pitt implications to something more generic--

If the scandal proves to be as bad or worse than speculated, then NCAA rules changes could go in strange directions. The somewhat recent changes allowing Grad Transfers (the academic intent of which is currently being abused ) and the proposed/expected freedom to transfer without sitting out are all rules favoring the stronger programs and hurting the weaker ones (i.e.,"helping the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker").

Perhaps due to scandal things could switch and go in the opposite direction as a means of making things cleaner (i.e., we could see a return to the past, or something more, emphasizing academic integrity over sports. Perhaps some or all of the following could happen--

1. Freshmen ineligible (return of freshman teams and 3 year varsity eligibility) to kill off the one and done market as a lure to paying off agents. One and done types go straight to the NBA D-League from HS.
2. Maximum of 4 recruits per incoming class, including JUCOs (to help level competition).
2. No grad or other transfers allowed for the purpose of playing hoops (to help level competition).
3. Guaranteed 4-year ships unless a player fails out academically.
4. Coaches prohibited from signing shoe contracts as a condition of coaching employment.
5. Schools prohibited from receiving money from shoe companies to promote their products (i.e., no more Addidas or Nike schools except voluntarily without compensation from the shoe company).
6. Other requirements?

I am not saying these things would happen. I am just saying they could happen if scandal is so large that the Academicians are upset enough.

 

[DiehardPanther]

I've been to Miami, Duke, and BC and watched every game, non-con and ACC, on ESPN3. I've watched some of the games twice. At the BC game, the other night, the crowd was, like most of the games, pretty sparse. Announced was close to 3,000, and I'd say that was about right. What any of that has to do with my point, I have no idea, but since you seem to be keeping score, there you go. Not sure what our record is currently, other than knowing we've won 8 games and lost all of our ACC contests. I'd guess we're somewhere around 8-18 or 8-19 (know we were 8-5 in non-con, and I think we're either 0-13 or 0-14 in ACC). I have no idea where our recruiting class is ranked and don't really care, but I know every player in the class and I've watched film on all of them (Golden, Kingsby, Ellison, and, technically, Luther, since you're keeping score).

You’ve taken the time to watch film on these recruits, but yet you do not know where they are ranked. Yeah...okay.

Attendance - Terrible
Team isn’t progressing
Recruiting - 0 Top 100 Recruits
Stallings System - Not a good fit

 

[whirlybird optio]

Crowd was announced at 2,800.

There was absolutely no way the crowd was a single person more than 1,500 at the BC game and that's if you include the band, cheerleaders, the teams, trainers, officials and the ushers.

In fact, it was likely closer to 1,000.

3,000 would mean, what, 1 out of every 4 seat occupied?

That’s crazy talk. If you count non-band students and fans, if there were 1,200 people there I’d say that’s close. 1 out of 10 seats full.

 

[yourhired]

A couple of items and Matt can clarify. 1. Heather has not given Coach Stallings the dreaded vote of confidence. 2. I believe Coach Stallings has stopped visiting potential recruits that it's been assistants not the HC while I understand that might be a norm in season he hasn't been noticeable for quite awhile and with the record he would be more visible. It's starting to add up Kevin isn't coming back.

 

[Parkview57]

(highly likely the team gets close to or slightly above .500) and gets a CBI or NIT bid,

I disagree with this part of your argument because of what is happening on the court in ACC play. Our players talent level is like that of dedicated , JV 2nd teamers. The opposing coaches prepare differently, sub differently, work on in game adjustments, put their players in less than favorable spots, etc. like the game were a scrimmage. Then when they feel they have their work in, the other team goes on to their real patterns and in 20 minutes or so Pitt is down by 25. This includes low middle pack teams like BC who last I checked was getting smoked by Louisville in their next outing. Being competitive in the league ain't happening with this guy.

 

[whirlybird optio]

The elephant in the room is that the decision has already been made