Some Saturday Night Thoughts on Pitt Hoops & Other Dribbles ...

[CrazyPaco]

I am saying if performance and recruiting are the same as they are right now, yeah it is time to make a move.

It's not hard to understand at all. It's just stupid. Very stupid.

I'll spell it out for you. In three years, 2018, if performance and recruiting have been the same as they were in 2015, and you therefore think in 2018, that it would have been a good idea for the athletic department to have fired Dixon following the 2015 season, you fail to consider the repercussions of such an asinine decision would cause to the athletic department in 2015. It is a dumb stupid proposition, not even considering the impossibility of this hypothetical time-bending scenario and despite the fact that it ignores all prior precedence that Dixon has set improving and guiding the program. It's like saying we should have fired Ralph Willard after 1995. Yeah, it's easy to say that in hindsight with no thought of the consequences of how such a move would be perceived across the basketball community in 1995, but it is mind numbingly shortsighted. And Dixon has an infinitely more respect in the nation's basketball community than Willard ever did. I get your dumb hypothetical and my conclusion remains that it is ****ing stupid.

And that isn't to say that anyones seat wouldn't be massively hot after four straight early NIT exits. It is unlikely anyone not name Krzyzewski could survive that at a P5 school.

 

[Zaratoughda]

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.

Hey, in 10/11 the OBE put 11 teams in the NCAA Tourney, shattering the old record of 8, and there was NO DOUBT AT ALL it was the best BB conference in the country... and maybe the best conference EVER. And, we had the best record in all the conference... #1 in regular season record in the best conference season ever.

So, forgive me if I say that 10-8 or 11-7 in the ACC... is not something I am impressed with. We had a 15-3 record in the OBE that year. Do that in the ACC... or bust.

 

[NTOP]

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.

91-51 over the last 4 years. 64% . So I guess the St. Louis Cardinals are having an "average" year??

 

[Delpanther]

91-51 over the last 4 years. 64% . So I guess the St. Louis Cardinals are having an "average" year??

I made my statement about average performance as relates to the last 4 years and not Dixon's entire tenure. Check it out. Quit trying to smear me.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I made my statement about average performance as relates to the last 4 years and not Dixon's entire tenure. Check it out. Quit trying to smear me.

His numbers are from the past 4 years, too.

The only reasonsable way to call that disappointing, is only in relation to the high standards Dixon has set by his excellence.
Because historically, even the past 4 years is well above average for Pitt.

 

[Delpanther]

His numbers are from the past 4 years, too.

The only reasonsable way to call that disappointing, is only in relation to the high standards Dixon has set by his excellence.
Because historically, even the past 4 years is well above average for Pitt.

ok, my mistake. Once again though I believe the gross win/loss numbers are misleading when you take into account that a large number of those victories are against poor competition-40-48- of those wins are pre-conference play.. I know you feel differently.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

ok, my mistake. Once again though I believe the gross win/loss numbers are misleading when you take into account that a large number of those victories are against poor competition-40-48- of those wins are pre-conference play.. I know you feel differently.

I've defined my parameters for what is average in a season.
The average is NOT making the big dance.

With very few exceptions, most every team is acruing non conference wins largely the same way. But, that takes removing the myopia of Pitt centric viewing.

 

[Zaratoughda]

I just wonder, how well all those 'bad coaches from the past', would have done if they had a home court like The Pete to play their home games in?

Was rated by ESPN as the second best venu in the entire country (the Dukies had the top venu) and, great venues mean higher ranked recruits are more likely to go there.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I just wonder, how well all those 'bad coaches from the past', would have done if they had a home court like The Pete to play their home games in?

Was rated by ESPN as the second best venu in the entire country (the Dukies had the top venu) and, great venues mean higher ranked recruits are more likely to go there.

How good a venue has it been the past few years?

The fans support a winning team, nothing more.
Buildings contain no magic.

 

[Harve74]

I just wonder, how well all those 'bad coaches from the past', would have done if they had a home court like The Pete to play their home games in?

Was rated by ESPN as the second best venu in the entire country (the Dukies had the top venu) and, great venues mean higher ranked recruits are more likely to go there.

Actually, Zara, Dave Gavitt and the Big East quickly established a rule to prohibit "big" games in small, on-campus arenas after Pitt had several Top,20 upsets in the Fieldhouse in our first year of membership. Eastern Basketball magazine rated the Fitzgerald as one of the top 5 hardest places to play. So, that theory goes out the window.

 

[Zaratoughda]

Actually, Zara, Dave Gavitt and the Big East quickly established a rule to prohibit "big" games in small, on-campus arenas after Pitt had several Top,20 upsets in the Fieldhouse in our first year of membership. Eastern Basketball magazine rated the Fitzgerald as one of the top 5 hardest places to play. So, that theory goes out the window.

Harve.... there is a difference between a 'really nice venu'... and one, like the Fieldhouse or the Rac, where it is difficult for other teams to get wins. Hey, if you want to play in a gym where you have a huge advantage over visiting teams, you can always go to NJIT, but most top players would rather play in a place like Cameron Indoor Stadium or The Pete.

It's not a huge thing re recruiting but it is a factor for sure. Showing possible recruits the Fieldhouse would have been a lot less impressive on possible recruits than showing them The Pete.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Harve.... there is a difference between a 'really nice venu'... and one, like the Fieldhouse or the Rac, where it is difficult for other teams to get wins. Hey, if you want to play in a gym where you have a huge advantage over visiting teams, you can always go to NJIT, but most top players would rather play in a place like Cameron Indoor Stadium or The Pete.

It's not a huge thing re recruiting but it is a factor for sure. Showing possible recruits the Fieldhouse would have been a lot less impressive on possible recruits than showing them The Pete.

The rac has no resistance for opponents.

 

[NTOP]

I made my statement about average performance as relates to the last 4 years and not Dixon's entire tenure. Check it out. Quit trying to smear me.

Not trying to smear you....the last 4 years haven't been up to his past record....but it just isn't AVERAGE. It's better than average. Your surliness needs no additional input to establish your personna.

 

[NTOP]

ok, my mistake. Once again though I believe the gross win/loss numbers are misleading when you take into account that a large number of those victories are against poor competition-40-48- of those wins are pre-conference play.. I know you feel differently.

How many wins do the Cardinals have over the Phillies, etc.?? It's part of sports. That 10-game stretch we had last year was as tough as any we faced in the BE.

 

[JS School]

No. Not at all. Again, shut up if you don't understand the question.

Sorry if I offended you, but it's your answers I don't understand, not the question. Your position seems to be:

Don't fire Dixon now. But if the next 3 years are mediocre, then he should have been fired now. And the next few years will probably be mediocre. But don't fire Dixon now.

And then, for some strange reason, you found it necessary to insult 17-15, of all people. Maybe you should heed your own advice about shutting up.

 

[Delpanther]

Ya know Del.... you seem to be pretty good at stating your OPINION as if it were FACT... with little or no facts to back up your opinion.

YAWN[/QUOTE. My
Opinions are more fact based than all the nonsense you post blaming the fan base for all problems with Pitt athetics-most of your posts on this issue belong in the Guinness world book of stupidity. Yawn.

 

[NTOP]

speaking of personas, my
Purported surliness is only superceded by your marked defensiveness and self righteous stance in defending the current regime under all circumstances. Accordingly, your credibility in characterizing me and anyone else who criticizes Dixon et al is a big zero!

Hmmm, so I'm the polar opposite of your marked offensiveness and self righteous stance in attacking the current regime under all circumstances?? Great, I'd rather be optimistic & happy than surly and gloomy. I worry about more important things...Pitt hoops is just a nice distraction. My cup is full to the brim.

 

[Delpanther]

Hmmm, so I'm the polar opposite of your marked offensiveness and self righteous stance in attacking the current regime under all circumstances?? Great, I'd rather be optimistic & happy than surly and gloomy. I worry about more important things...Pitt hoops is just a nice distraction. My cup is full to the brim.

Your characterization of my criticism of this staff is completely off base. It's a complete fabrication.

 

[Delpanther]

Blaming the fan base???????????????

What, are you on drugs Del?

Or, are you trying to be... the next GOLDY?

You're third man in- mind your own business!

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

You're third man in- mind your own business!

He's confused..
He quoted me and addressed you...so who the hell knows what he's talking about.

 

[NTOP]

Your characterization of my criticism of this staff is completely off base. It's a complete fabrication.

And your characterization of me isn't??? I'd appreciate your ego if it had a basis.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Ya know Del.... you seem to be pretty good at stating your OPINION as if it were FACT... with little or no facts to back up your opinion.

YAWN

It's not opinion, it's fact.

Do you think Rutgers road record is statistically worse in
conference than at home??

I'd like to see you Support your opinion on the rac with facts.

I'll give you a hint, the toughest venues are those with really good teams.
Building's don't matter.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Not trying to smear you....the last 4 years haven't been up to his past record....but it just isn't AVERAGE. It's better than average. Your surliness needs no additional input to establish your personna.

I disagree. It is pretty much average. One NCAA tourney win. Remember, we can LOOK out at 330 or how many teams there are in D1, but let's be realistic, HALF of those teams are in ONE bid conferences, and another 25% is in conferences that need a lot of success to get more than a team or 2 in. So, really you comparing Pitt's performance with the P5 and say Big East, Missouri Valley and Big West Conference teams. So when you look at that, yeah it is rather pedestrian.

At least that is my opinion.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It's not opinion, it's fact.

Do you think Rutgers road record is statistically worse in
conference than at home??

I'd like to see you Support your opinion on the rac with facts.

I'll give you a hint, the toughest venues are those with really good teams.
Building's don't matter.

I won't bother to look it up again, but a few years back when a Rutgers fan was on here talking about how tough it was to win at the RAC I did add it up. At that point, all time in Big East home games they had won well less than half of their games. Percentage-wise they were somewhere in the low to mid-40s.

Of course the Rutgers idiot said that was proof that the RAC was tough to play in, because that winning percentage was much better than their winning percentage on the road. Which must mean that 100% of all college basketball arenas are tough to play in, because 100% of all college basketball teams win more games at home than on the road.

In short, the notion that the RAC is a difficult building to play in is a myth. It isn't, and the proof is in the winning percentage.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I won't bother to look it up again, but a few years back when a Rutgers fan was on here talking about how tough it was to win at the RAC I did add it up. At that point, all time in Big East home games they had won well less than half of their games. Percentage-wise they were somewhere in the low to mid-40s.

Of course the Rutgers idiot said that was proof that the RAC was tough to play in, because that winning percentage was much better than their winning percentage on the road. Which must mean that 100% of all college basketball arenas are tough to play in, because 100% of all college basketball teams win more games at home than on the road.

In short, the notion that the RAC is a difficult building to play in is a myth. It isn't, and the proof is in the winning percentage.

As far as buildings being tough to play in, they are always a myth. Aren't they? It usually has to do with the team playing in that building. The Pete used to be impossible to win in as a visitor, now not so much? Did the building get softer, or did the team?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Exactly. Buildings are tough to win in because good teams play there. Everyone wins more often at home than on the road. Doing that is no great feat, it's expected.

 

[DT_PITT]

Exactly. Buildings are tough to win in because good teams play there. Everyone wins more often at home than on the road. Doing that is no great feat, it's expected.

In addition to this, any reputation that the RAC ever had, like Joe said, was purely mythical. I recall reading an article about this in the mid 2000's. Rutgers had one top 10 upset in the RAC around 2000 or so, and played another top team very close (or something like this -- I probably don't have my facts correct, but one gets the idea).

And after that, it became the broadcast media narrative that it was a tough place to play, even though the record did not support it nor did they are really get anymore huge wins. Basically, it was never a tough place to play, neither by record or by noteworthy wins, even though that's what people said about it.

 

[Zaratoughda]

In addition to this, any reputation that the RAC ever had, like Joe said, was purely mythical. I recall reading an article about this in the mid 2000's. Rutgers had one top 10 upset in the RAC around 2000 or so, and played another top team very close (or something like this -- I probably don't have my facts correct, but one gets the idea).

And after that, it became the broadcast media narrative that it was a tough place to play, even though the record did not support it nor did they are really get anymore huge wins. Basically, it was never a tough place to play, neither by record or by noteworthy wins, even though that's what people said about it.

I think Rutgers.... was a LOT worse on the road than they were at home.

(Yeah, this one is not worth pulling the stats on... someone else can if they want.)

Playing Rutgers at home... usually a piece of cake (unless you only score 39 points).

At the RAK.... you could get upset if you did not bring your game.

 

[levance2]

I disagree. It is pretty much average. One NCAA tourney win. Remember, we can LOOK out at 330 or how many teams there are in D1, but let's be realistic, HALF of those teams are in ONE bid conferences, and another 25% is in conferences that need a lot of success to get more than a team or 2 in. So, really you comparing Pitt's performance with the P5 and say Big East, Missouri Valley and Big West Conference teams. So when you look at that, yeah it is rather pedestrian.

At least that is my opinion.

There are 10 conferences that have earned >2 bids per year in the last 4 seasons. 36 teams in those conferences have made it 3+ times in those 4 years (i.e., more than Pitt), out of their 121 total teams (29.8%).

In the P5 conferences + American/BE, 29 teams in those conferences have made it 3+ times in those 4 years (i.e., more than Pitt), out of their 86 total teams (33.7%).

Should Pitt aim to be in at least the top one-third of basketball teams in those sample sets? Absolutely. Is making the tournament twice in 4 years below average? Absolutely not.

EDIT: Additional context:

44 teams in those 10 conferences made it 1-2 times, out of the 121 schools (36.4%).
27 teams in those 10 conferences made it exactly 1 time, out of the 121 schools (22.3%).
That means 80 teams in those 10 conferences made it 1+ times, out of the 121 schools (66.1%).
That means 41 teams in those 10 conferences made it zero times, out of the 121 schools (33.9%).

More teams in those multi-bid conferences have made zero tournaments than have made more tournaments than Pitt (33.9% vs 29.8%).

 

[DT_PITT]

There are 10 conferences that have earned >2 bids per year in the last 4 seasons. 36 teams in those conferences have made it 3+ times in those 4 years (i.e., more than Pitt), out of their 121 total teams (29.8%).

In the P5 conferences + American/BE, 29 teams in those conferences have made it 3+ times in those 4 years (i.e., more than Pitt), out of their 86 total teams (33.7%).

Should Pitt aim to be in at least the top one-third of basketball teams in those sample sets? Absolutely. Is making the tournament twice in 4 years below average? Absolutely not.

EDIT: Additional context:

44 teams in those 10 conferences made it 1-2 times, out of the 121 schools (36.4%).
27 teams in those 10 conferences made it exactly 1 time, out of the 121 schools (22.3%).
That means 80 teams in those 10 conferences made it 1+ times, out of the 121 schools (66.1%).
That means 41 teams in those 10 conferences made it zero times, out of the 121 schools (33.9%).

More teams in those multi-bid conferences have made zero tournaments than have made more tournaments than Pitt (33.9% vs 29.8%).

Interesting and well done -- thank you.