Some Saturday Night Thoughts on Pitt Hoops & Other Dribbles ...
- Thread starter DT_PITT
- Start date
For the last time.....I AM NOT ADVOCATING FIRING JAMIE DIXON! NOT AT ALL. NOT EVEN DID I INFER. CAN'T SAY THE SAME ABOUT THE ASSISTANTS, BUT NOT JAMIE. NOT AT ALL. And I say he gets likely 3 more years to return back to a Top 25 program. Based on the majority of our key players this past year were Sophomores. But in 3 years, if we are still a middling, mostly on the outside looking in at the NCAA's and very mediocre recruiting, I believe you must make a change. And for f#cks sake, stop with the "WHO WOULD YOU REPLACE HIM WITH" because that is 3 years from now. And again, I am not saying "FIRE HIM 3 YEARS FROM NOW!", I am saying if performance and recruiting are the same as they are right now, yeah it is time to make a move. AND on that note, in this thread someone mentioned Dan Bylsma and I mentioned "in hindsight" it was likely the better move to fire Bylsma in 2012 after the Flyers series and this would apply to Jamie right now, if, again, IF, the next 3 years are mediocre.
What is so hard to understand about this? And worse, what is the argument against this? I don't care if a lot of you don't like me because I speak my mind, challenge the board elders and don't hold Pitt BB in reverence. Sorry. I am just being honest. And I am not being honest on my personal viewpoint, because honestly Pitt BB is probably 5th on my sports interests, I am just explaining on how big time sports works. Which evidently a lot of you think this is some CYO program. Which it is not.
What is so hard to understand about this? And worse, what is the argument against this? I don't care if a lot of you don't like me because I speak my mind, challenge the board elders and don't hold Pitt BB in reverence. Sorry. I am just being honest. And I am not being honest on my personal viewpoint, because honestly Pitt BB is probably 5th on my sports interests, I am just explaining on how big time sports works. Which evidently a lot of you think this is some CYO program. Which it is not.
The last 4 years have been average(making the tournament and one and done) and below average( not making the tournament and losing to $hit teams like GW in the NIT in the first round)..
Despite what I have argued and continue to argue below I want as much as anyone else for Pitt to rebound to higher levels--(i.e., returning to the point of having a legit shot at the final 4 and the National Championship). Nevertheless, being a realist I have to honestly say that--
Anyone who believes that making the NCAA's every other year (even if it is one and done or two and done) and the NIT otherwise is mediocre is way off base in their thinking. Considering the entire world of college hoops, such results are well above average or mediocre. The vast majority of fans for the vast majority of colleges would kill to have their school's hoops team do that well on a consistent basis.. Those results can only be considered mediocre if you are a Kentucky or a Duke or similar.
If you believe Pitt will fire Dixon if he maintains that level of relative success (no losing seasons and NCAAs every other year) you are going to be extremely disappointed and disillusioned. It simply won't happen. Dixon only gets canned if the program collapses to a degree similar to Berenato's women's program. It will take 2-3 consecutive years with losing seasons for Dixon to be let go. As long as there are winning seasons every year and post season play every year (even if half the time it is the NIT) Dixon wont be canned. That's just the reality--even if we don't like it.
Anyone who believes that making the NCAA's every other year (even if it is one and done or two and done) and the NIT otherwise is mediocre is way off base in their thinking. Considering the entire world of college hoops, such results are well above average or mediocre. The vast majority of fans for the vast majority of colleges would kill to have their school's hoops team do that well on a consistent basis.. Those results can only be considered mediocre if you are a Kentucky or a Duke or similar.
If you believe Pitt will fire Dixon if he maintains that level of relative success (no losing seasons and NCAAs every other year) you are going to be extremely disappointed and disillusioned. It simply won't happen. Dixon only gets canned if the program collapses to a degree similar to Berenato's women's program. It will take 2-3 consecutive years with losing seasons for Dixon to be let go. As long as there are winning seasons every year and post season play every year (even if half the time it is the NIT) Dixon wont be canned. That's just the reality--even if we don't like it.
So.. You think it's average to make the tournament???
That's a pretty skewed bell curve.
I wasn't going to get involved but what the hell. It's so hard for people to understand for one of two reasons. Either you are really, really bad at making some really insightful point, or you are arguing something absolutely, utterly moronic. And it's not the first one.
I mean essentially your point is that if things get really bad over the next few years we may look back and decide that it would have been better if we had fired Dixon now. True, and so what? If Dixon does something that gets Pitt put on probation in the next year we may look back and decide that it would have been better if we had fired Dixon now. True, and so what? Jamie Dixon could go on a multi-state killing spree, and we may look back and decide that it would have been better if he had been fired now. True, and so what?
Your whole point is that the day may come when we can look back with 50/50 hindsight (Walt Harris: pleased) and decide that we would have been better off making a change now. Well no sh!t. And so what? Unless you know what path the next three years (or whatever time frame you want to choose) is going to bring, so what?
None of us know the future. So to say that if we knew the future we might act differently now is both true and completely immaterial at the same time.
Sorry I took it the wrong way. My apologies.
I was a street ball player...he played in the Roundball when it was still the "roundball." He used to announce high school hoops....I'll leave it at that. I respect his opinion on hoops. Wine? No. Hoops? Yes.
Now with my son in AAU ( I am an old Dad) I have a front seat to basketball development and its ugly side. I never thought it was a place for the saints of the world, but AAU has taken to a level that is horrid IMO. On the other hand, few kids play pick up games anymore....at least not that I have seen.
Let's take it a step in the retrospective machine...
When it was announced Howland left, if I would have told you Dixon would be what it's been, only a moron would say no thanks.
When it was announced Howland left, if I would have told you Dixon would be what it's been, only a moron would say no thanks.
Top 65? That's average. Can't do any damage whatsoever in the tournament, that's average. Don't crash the top 65 in today's game, not very good. This is against the backdrop of a coach who for the better part of a decade had his team in the top 20 and often the top 10 and seriously contended for the championship of the best conference in BB. In the last 4 years, the peaks have been lower and the nadirs lower yet. That's a sign of a program in decline.
Like I said, heavily skewed bell curve... Or you don't know what average means.
I agree that Del has an inaccurate understanding of "average." However, I think it is worth noting that the rest of his post is factually correct.
Or, Dixon could win the National Championship at Pitt in 5 years and we could be sitting around wondering why we ever thought about firing the guy.
Like you said ... true and so what?
Or, we could fire Dixon, he gets hired by Marquette, and wins a National Championship, and we say, gee, guess we made a mistake firing him.
Have a job yet? Anyways......the only reason I was arguing anything is because stupid people can't comprehend. There was never a point in "3 years from now", it was just a response bringing the Dan Bylsma situation as an analogy, where again, it would have been ludicrous to fire him 2 years removed from winning the cup, but when you have 3 more years of hindsight, you have come to the conclusion it would have been the prudent move.
That's it. Everyone else made it more than what it was. I am done with this.
Hey, but just think how really keen your dribbles will be. And what wonderful prose 17-15 could spew forth celebrating this event?
Except that you & others have a silly notion of "mediocre". Because2 years in 12 don't make a true judgment. If we get back to our winning ways, the noise will then turn to: we DESERVE better. That doesn't work.
It'll be moot after this year. As for the $3 million.....a large chunk of that was DEFERRED PAY. His salary wasn't $3 million. He got paid for his prior excellence, much of which was incentive arrangements. Was he underpaid as coach of a #1 ranked team?? Or underpaid??
And what keeps flying over your head, is no person three years prior would ever suggest firing someone two years from winning a championship without knowing what was coming. You can't go back in a time machine and say we should have done something that would have been illogical at the time, no matter how obvious It became three years after the fact. Unless you are Marty McFly with a sports book of all future sport results. The kind of hindsight you are suggesting is circular and without value. "If I knew I was going to be in a car accident today, I would have stayed home or left a few minutes later". It's the same thing.
I don't know what it is that I said to you in this thread to deserve this snark.
But even worse, never once has 17-15 ever engaged anyone in any kind of negative way. Each and every one of his words have always been filled with class.
Why would you direct your snark at him?
We have different view/opinions on what constitutes average. The fact your view differs from mine doesn't make you "right". To get into the tournament, Pitt essentially has to beat 10-12 games on the OOC schedule, most of which are average to poor teams and go a couple of games over .500 in the conference. That's average in my estimation.
Nothing silly at all about my view of what constitutes "mediocre" when you consider, that almost assuredly what gets you into the tournament today is cleaning up on a poor OOC cast of teams and going a game or two over .500 in the conference. That's average; that's nothing to crow about particularly given JD's record before the last 4 years. You didn't read my posts very closely. I emphasized that JD gets the chance to turn things around because of what he did as HC before the last 4 years because in this period he delivered outstanding results. What I don't believe, which I said above, is that he gets to remain HC for the life of his contract if he repeats the last four years-of course, I could be wrong and perhaps the Pitt admin.'s view is the same as yours and others on the board which is: before JD came along Pitt never accomplished anything in BB so why make a change given we believe that we have nothing to offer a HC as a university paying a coach 2-3 mil. per year playing in the ACC and we'd simply do worse if we replaced him. I don't share that ultra-conservative, fear-based philosophy.
At any given point a coach may be underpaid or overpaid. In Dixon's case, he may have been underpaid initially but this was his first HCing gig and he had no prior track record to warrant paying him big money. Hell. he couldn't even convince Montana St. or whoever to hire him. Pitt gave him a huge break. He's getting big money now and it's reasonable to expect that he deliver results commensurate with his salary. College HC gigs are pressurized positions(because of the big salaries) and Dixon hasn't accomplished enough to be guanteed a lifetime contract-his resume doesn't match that of coaches who have earned that right.
Del, virtually nobody shares your view of average or mediocre. Many can aspire to better but your definition of mediocre is, simply, ridiculous. They are not factually correct so, yeah, the other poster is right and you are wrong, based on reality. Your opinion is skewed.
You can have whatever personal standards you chose but you are very rarely going to achieve them in any real world. They remain just as indefensible by rational evaluation as always. Setting your personal standards remains your right but don't expect the word t agree.
I cn't argue that Dixon isn't underperforming his current contract. But, as discussed ad infinitum, he was signed to match a competitive offer. Pitt overaid for stability. Today it looks like a bad decision. Who knows what it will look like in 3 or 4 more years? Long term contracts in sports are always a gamble.
Last edited:
It would be stupid to fire JD now for a whole lot of reasons but if he were to win a nat'l championship in 5 years you can bet that from now until then we will have seen the steady, positive progress everyone wants to see between now and then in recruiting and on the court performance. One thing I absolutely guarantee is that he will not win a national championship five years from now if the the intervening next four years are comparable to what we've seen the last 4 years in terms of recruiting an on the court performance.
Last edited:
It's only you and the insecure, defensive, vehement JD defenders who don't agree with what constitutes "average". You live in fear of worse results and and with modest expectations. That drives your very modest expectations. I think you should support Duquesne-their ceiling and your tepid expectations are better aligned.
Sorry, this is a little misleading. A bunch of the automatic bids go to lesser conferences. Odds are if you make the field you are more in the Top 40 range.
And going 10-8 or 11-7 in the best conference in the country is nothing to sneeze at either.
I understand your perspective-just don't agree. However, your point that in the last 2 years that the ACC was the best conference in the country is simply wrong! Add to that he ACC hasn't been as good a conference top to bottom as what the BE was during the years that JD delivered outstanding results.
Del, it's math. It's that simple. Go argue with Pythagorus and his contemporaries. As the Moynihan quote goes, "You are entitled to your own opinions, just not your own facts."
I watch sports for entertainment. Yeah, I'm happier when my team wins. But, it's entertainment. The Sun comes up the next day either way. If the teams play hard, I'm happy.
Those are my expectations. They're better for my blood pressure than worrying about things over which I have no control. I'm exactly the opposite of insecure. Life is too short to be obsessed over the small stuff.
It's called perspective. I suggest you relax and enjoy it.
Del -- like the others have said, I think we are arguing about a "definition" of average. The definition is pretty much not an opinion thing.
So again, I can't tell you that it's wrong to feel the way you do that a couple of games over .500 in the ACC is not unsatisfactory. I don't agree, but I can't say you are wrong.
But this IS above average.
It's pretty much the case of needing to choose a different word here than "average."
While we are at it and talking about math. Given all the mid-major and lower conferences with auto bids to the NCAA tourney--if you don't win a P5 or other major hoops conference outright you had better be a top 40 team to be on the bubble and probably a top 30-35 team to be sure of getting in. Over the years quite a number of teams in the Sagarin computer rankings within the top 30-40 range have been left out (usually because they were over aggressively scheduled and failed to win 20 games as a result) even though they really were better than a number of teams that were selected and far better than quite a few weak teams that were the champs of auto bid conferences. This is why I would prefer the tourney, since it already is expanded with play in teams beyond 64 teams, make one more change regarding teams being selected.
I would propose putting the top 64 teams (as rated by a consensus of computer rankings) in automatically. Then, I would have all remaining conference champs not rated in the field of 64, but who are from conferences that have historically had an auto bid, placed in the play in round.
I would propose putting the top 64 teams (as rated by a consensus of computer rankings) in automatically. Then, I would have all remaining conference champs not rated in the field of 64, but who are from conferences that have historically had an auto bid, placed in the play in round.
Let me ask a couple questions ......
1) If Pitt does not make the NCAA Basketball Tournament at all (even once) in the next 3 years, will we have a new head basketball coach 4 years from now ?
2) If your answer to the question above is that we will have a new coach if we don't make the NCAAT even once over the next 3 years, then how many times over the next 3 years do we have to make the NCAA Tournament and how far do we have to go in the NCAAT for Jamie to still be our coach 4 years from now ?
1) If Pitt does not make the NCAA Basketball Tournament at all (even once) in the next 3 years, will we have a new head basketball coach 4 years from now ?
2) If your answer to the question above is that we will have a new coach if we don't make the NCAAT even once over the next 3 years, then how many times over the next 3 years do we have to make the NCAA Tournament and how far do we have to go in the NCAAT for Jamie to still be our coach 4 years from now ?
Making the time tournament consistently more than missing it is good.
Qualifying for the nit is average.
Average means about half the teams are better and half the teams are worse.
It's a pretty simple concept, and has nothing to do with Dixon.
Whom has has had 1 average season, 1 below average season, and has been no worse than good in all the rest.
1. I think a parting of ways is very likely.
2. At least 1 time , but the seat is still hot, 2 and his job is safe.
I don't see the relevance of mathematical definitions of "average" in determining what constitutes "average" or "mediocre" results in an NCAA BB season. In the NCAA, to say that the playing field is the same for every team "eligible" to play in the NCAA tournament such that a win over Stetson is equivalent to a win over any team in the ACC is ridiculous. That's why your an others' reliance on mathematical definitions of "average"(win more than you lose) doesn't hold water. In any event, you and I seem to meander down the same paths in our discussions . I'm sure you agree.
IMHO it depends. If all three years were 19-21 win years with NIT bids and 2 or more of those years involved advancing to MSG or winning the NIT I think he is kept. I still basically contend we would have to see a least two actual losing seasons with no post season at all for Dixon to be let go. Pitt is not going to fire a coach who keeps winning every year just because he isn't winning enough for fans who have had their expectations (I include myself) ratcheted-up by past levels of success.
DC .... I respectfully disagree ....... I think making the NCAAT is an important benchmark for a coach especially in an ACC program and a much bigger benchmark then either his won-loss record or the NIT record ..... if Jamie doesn't make the NCAAT at all in the next 3 years, I think his job will be in jeopardy whether you and I like it or not.
Last edited:
You don't see the relevance of using the word average by its actual definition?
That's clear.
The vast majority of programs are below average in your world, and very few Above average.
Your expectations are your own, for what they are worth. But you don't get to change the meaning of words to fit them.
I've had one for a long time. Thanks for asking.
The problem isn't that the stupid people can't understand, it's that you are making an argument that is both true and completely immaterial at the same time. Well, OK, maybe some stupid people can't understand that, but that doesn't seem to be the problem for most.
Which is why i keep asking him the parameters for the next 3 years for his time travel machine to matter at all.
And the penguins are no better from their change so far.
