But remember this....the program was WORSE what Jamie left than what he inherited. Contrast that with Ben who left the program MUCH BETTER than what he inherited.
The Future of Pitt Basketball & Other Dribbles ...
- Thread starter DT_PITT
- Start date
But remember this....the program was WORSE what Jamie left than what he inherited. Contrast that with Ben who left the program MUCH BETTER than what he inherited.
Just some thoughts........again, IMO, the biggest issue was not Jamie Dixon leaving, it was the follow up search and hiring of the next coach.
The program was in much worse shape at Dixon's end of tenure than it was at the beginning. It really degraded and again we see this with the lack of talent out on the court, and especially the youngest players who we can't trust for 10-15 minutes of playing time.
Barnes and all of what went down is the true villains here.
These noted Basketball Powers hired the following coaches:
Mississippi State. Ben Howland
Auburn. Bruce Pearl.
Va Tech. Buzz Williams
TCU. Jamie Dixon.
The point here, those 4 schools, which I don't think it is even debatable that those 4 are probably amongst the worst 6-7 Power Five level basketball programs, and they could somehow manage to hire some big name coaches. So I don't buy we couldn't find someone..... We didn't try.
This doesn't even count the younger up and comers.
The program was in much worse shape at Dixon's end of tenure than it was at the beginning. It really degraded and again we see this with the lack of talent out on the court, and especially the youngest players who we can't trust for 10-15 minutes of playing time.
Barnes and all of what went down is the true villains here.
These noted Basketball Powers hired the following coaches:
Mississippi State. Ben Howland
Auburn. Bruce Pearl.
Va Tech. Buzz Williams
TCU. Jamie Dixon.
The point here, those 4 schools, which I don't think it is even debatable that those 4 are probably amongst the worst 6-7 Power Five level basketball programs, and they could somehow manage to hire some big name coaches. So I don't buy we couldn't find someone..... We didn't try.
This doesn't even count the younger up and comers.
Jamie inherited a program that was Sweet 16 level and when he left we were an every other year NCAA bubble team level. Ben inherited a program completely off the radar and when he left, we were a top Big East program reaching the Sweet 16's. I don't think that is refutable.
Is it that hard to understand what I was saying?
You'd have to explain this to me.
The 2017 class is nothing to write home about. At best, its average. If we fire Stallings, its possible all or most of the players will stay committed to the new coach. If we dont, its possible the new coach can sign similar players.
I dont see how firing Stallings after this season sets us back any.
I mean, two things, going strictly off of howland's last two years, your expectation would be atop 5 program or so, maybe top 10. Is that really a fair standard to hold a coach at Pitt to,
Two, Dixon did not take over an established program. A two year run does not make you an elite or great program. He inherited a great base, but he maintained that and built it into what would be one of the best programs in the country over the next 8 years. It is rather silly to
Minimize Dixon's accomplishments by saying he simply reaped the benefits of howland.
Yea, I dont see how that is even debatable. Dixon left it far worse than when he took over. Heck, you can argue he left it worse than Willard did. In fact, I think he did. Willard's parting gift to Pitt were Brandin Knight, Jaron Brown, and Ricky Greer (who helped kick-start everything during that initial BE Tourney run).
I think he's saying Jamie inherited a stronger program than Stallings did. Given the foundation his mentor, Howland had built for him, I think that's indisputable. The program was solid and getting stronger.
Jamie then did a great job taking it to a higher level and building a BE powerhouse. But ultimately he left a down-trending program and a team with some fatal personnel flaws.
And of course removing Jamie and adding Stallings to the situation was like throwing a brick on the accelerator while approaching the cliff.
I'm not sure in the end how Jamie did over 13 years compared to howland and what he left the next coach is relevant.
Absolutely. Don't know how many times it needs repeated. What JD was producing was worsening here. Whether due to lack of support or his own burning out, he showed no inclination he could get it back.
So replacing him was not the issue. Not bothering to attempt to at least equal him, let alone upgrade ... or at minimum a young coach on the rise ... was and remains the problem.
Say all they want that he'll be here for many years, so grin and bear it. Easy to say but few will, including even students eventually. In a metropolitan city used to winning teams, with one of the world's best playing a dozen blocks or so down Center Ave, there are far better options for spending one's time and money in the winter here.
It's never a great thing to part ways with a coach so early, but this guy has no chance. Zero. He isn't a good coach even WITH great talent (with 20 years evidence to prove it). And he's shown he can't attract talent here, perhaps not totally his fault (again, the admin needs to play the whole game). Either way this is a guy who just ain't got it. Things will just get worse.
I don't know or think that recruits was minimizing what Dixon accomplished. I'd find it real hard to believe anyone herein minimized/minimizes what he accomplished, and no, varied posters lamenting his lack of success in the tourney doesn't equate to minimizing his accomplishments. Now, stupid media talking heads would minimize/criticize his accomplishments every year because of his lack of success in the tourney. Probably the same talking heads that dump on Pitt and Pitt's fanbase for being so ludicrous to think they could get a better coach than Jamie.
But I don't understand how you or DT can question that he left the program worse off than when he took over. Doesn't really matter if Howland only had 2 or 3 years of success when he left, it's hard to deny that the program was on fairly big upward swing at that point. And it's really not a stretch to say it was on a fairly big downward slide when he left.
Yes, in the literal sense, he left the program worse off.
In the real world sense it is an absolutely asinine argument because making that argument means you were expecting him to either constantly keep Pitt as a top 5 program, and to get to the FF as much as Duke.
First, the 2017 class is not done. If we were to fire Stallings, it does reduce the chance of grabbing quality players to finish it because of the year's worth of work that has already been done. And if Stallings is fired, some of the four decent players we do already have may or may not stay.
Second, the 2018 class is SO critical. Hopefully it will be the class we need to get us back on track. The work and the relationships needed for such a class do take a while to build up. Firing Stallings just moves that back another year regardless.
So imagine if you fire Stallings, 2 of the four 2017 recruits leave, and the other 6 players we get are of really low ability.
Then in 2018, you may not see a class better than the 2017 class we have now.
Also, let's think about who we might even be able to get to be the coach after firing a guy after one year. Don't forget that we got the guy who we have because folks weren't exactly lining up to take the job in the first place.
In fact, I think we'd have to take "head coaches" off the table (which maybe not necessarily be a bad thing.)
That's not true and I think it's an unfair exaggeration. Do you really think even a few posters on this board expect Pitt to constantly be a top 5 program and to get to the FF as much as Duke. Me personally, I thought the program was in a pretty bad state because it seemed like Jamie was struggling mightily to get recruits, I'm not talking good recruits, I'm talking any recruits at all. It's been a real struggle for a few years and it didn't seem like it was changing/improving at all.
I'm sure my viewpoint can be debated because it is just my opinion. But that's the way it looked to me.
Nah, I realize I am wrong,. Some of the Hoops Experts have labeled me as a Jamie Hater and therefore they cannot process any comments I make without thinking it is just piling on Jamie. So they just dismiss anything I say, in fact some wait for me to get mad then go to the moderators and report on me.
I only hate Jamie now. I will admit, I am rooting for him to fail miserably, because some have decided Jamie Dixon was the only person who could have ever coached this basketball program to an NCAA level. Even though the former coach took a 10-17 type program to a BET Title and top 10, Sweet 16 team. Which evidently is not "relevant" because some of these people want to just completely wallow in the "woe is me, Jamie is no longer here and that big dumb baldy Stallings is here".
I will take the stance of some......it is what it was. Ben's teams were a top 5 program when he left. Jamie's teams were not when he left.
Yes. Frankly I never minimized his past accomplishments. I always thought winning the grueling Big East regular season or the really brutal BE tournament, as he did multiple times, was more impressive than a contrived, often questionably officiated NCAA tournament (creating arbitrary matches in hopes of generating upsets, but also guaranteeing enough blue bloods in the finals). I really didn't care much when we'd go down.
But problem is, recent years, we've been increasingly going down in Jan and Feb too. Including home games. More games like that NCSt last year, which was nearly as ugly as the Louisville game last week. And reverting back to one and dones in the conference tourneys like the 90s. And increasing difficulty in getting even basic recruits.
Since you pointed out only 2 conference games, let's take a look at the others......
ND - 37.5 and 38.7
SYR- 35.1 and 31.6
UL - 44.8 and 37.5 - this is were we shot over 52 in 2nd half being down +20 and Artis went off in the second half to improve these numbers greatly.
Mia - 34.0 and 29.4
NCST - 42.0 and 40.7
UL - 25.5 and 13.6
Doesn't look volatile to me. Looks pretty consistent.....consistently below the line. Not that shooting percentages are the only reason we are losing. We didn't shoot well against ND, NCSt or Clem but had opportunities to pull those out. We don't do the little things well enough to compensate for poor shooting.
It had a little bit to do with the coach we were getting in Howland. If Willard would have still been the coach, that same group of players would probably not have attained success.
We're in the same situation now, in reverse. Under Dixon, at least this group of players would have had a chance to succeed. Under Stallings, no chance.
I'm not going to argue the point about the state of the program when Dixon left. I'll just say I don't agree with what you said, but it's not relevant anyhow.
I'm not questioning the facts. I'm questioning the relevance. That was almost 14 years ago. As someone mentioned, yes, in a literal sense, it is correct.
Also, in one sense there is one difference between Howland and Dixon. Howland left a program that just had it's two best consecutive years. But sustained success was hardly an expectation. Dixon left a program where not making the NCAA tournament was basically considered a true failure of a season.
fair enough. Sometimes it's hard to interpret your intent with the one line 'huh?'
Sorry about the "huh?" I was waiting in traffic and reading to pass time. Not much time to post more at a red light.
Sorry about the "huh?" I was waiting in traffic and reading to pass time. Not much time to post more at a red light.
Dammit DT, no texting and driving! Can't afford to have you laid up in a full body cast for an extended period of time. Need to have your dribbles to center me...especially with the next two games coming up on the schedule.
I think you have said that before and as I have said before - I think you are wrong.
Players on this years team are going to transfer no matter what.
Thinking that the 2017 recruits stay for a new coach is... If Carr wasn't already signed he be going somewhere else now.
Interesting old post by Harve
3/19/16 - Thoughts from the desert)Agreed. No way JRob should take 15 shots. But, it's a motion offense. Dixon hasn't called out sets since before Herrion left, except on set pieces after TimesOut. The players mostly determine who get the ball and who shoots by their movements and passing.
Ths bunch is just schizo.
With the recruiting cycle where it is, it's too late to add anything to the '16 class unless something unexpected happens and kids suddenly become available. A move would be more likely to make us lose the couple promising kids we've signed.
All things considered, it's probably too late to get in on new '17 recruits, too. The relationships have been forming for the last year or so and most of the high school and prep kids will be committing in July or August. Or certainly the Plan A kids. We did get in with Kithcart late but we'd been recruiting Manigault for quite a while.
Maybe we could hit the Jucos hard with a new staff or find the proverbial guy with a couple "kids in his pocket." Or fid a booster with an open wallet, assuming everyone involved here turns a blind eye. (Which I really doubt.)
But, the most likely way to have an impact recruiting year is probably to ride Smoke Williamson's work and relationships formed of the last year or two. (And, BTW, probably hope Barnes doesn't make an untimely move away from Nike, since Smoke is supposed to be a Nike guy.
If the '17 class isn't at least as good as the '16 class, we are looking at a major rebuild anyway, probably from the top down. We'll probably have a good idea by Labor Day and can start lining up changes early.
I don't know what happens with Young and Artis, but at worst, they're gone by this time next year anyway. I've said before it would not surprise me if at least one of them is gone this Summer. It might be addition by subtraction.
Hey, maybe Kithcart and Manigault come in and hit the ground running and we win 25 games next year. Maybe Milligan and Clark look like UConn guards. It would sure be dumb to fire a former COY because his best players this year were knuckleheads. Dixon has ALWAYS had an offense highly ranked nationally. He didn't go away from 15 years of history because he forgot how to coach offense overnight.
If it fails, we're starting from the ground up. It will be a long way back, if that's necessary
Maybe this will help people understand how recruiting actually works
That is where we were BEFORE Stallings was hired. Please take that into consideration when judging Stallings current recruiting.
Last edited:
I agree with your opinion. Jamie was no longer able to recruit at Pitt. Five freshmen in three years, three of which are looking like busts.
Last edited:
As I said, that might be what I'll do. There's lots of times I've switched product brands when the quality has gone down enough to offset the convenience of using that product. I'm surprised that would be something you'd think is somehow wrong.
Without a hugh $$$ commitment your right firing him after this season would be crippling to Pitts recruiting efforts , but if next years class is without impact players I'd vote for biting the bullit and starting anew . Of course it's not my money !
Right or wrong, huge numbers will be doing this exact thing. No Pitt grad is going to back the enemy any time soon, but fans (former fans I should say) not affiliated with Pitt (who are not alumni, etc), who had bought tix and attended because they liked elite winning basketball, will not only stop, but may indeed start to follow WVU and PSU, one of which has far eclipsed us already while the other has been getting far better recruits (though fortunately doesn't seem to know what to do with em, yet). But even Pitt alum, and inevitably, even the students will abandon the single-digit-win cess pool we seem careening toward. Pittsburgh simply provides more engrossing options for entertainment. Hell, even staying in your apartment having a beer or few sounds better than attending 55 point beat downs. It sure seems like a lot more of those are likely (this week?) than are Virginia- type wins.
They say elections have consequences; allowing a great program to plummet to hell in dramatic fashion has big consequences too. The naive that think the majority, or even a sizeable minority, of our fans follow our teams to root for Dear Old Pittsburgh whether we win or lose (by 55, or to the last place team, at home) are the ones who should leave and definitely won't be missed...their attitudes are what enables crappy administrations to stay crappy.
Last edited:
Stalling got the best of the deal with a "short timer" Barnes doing PITT's business. Barnes got played by Stallings agent big time!
In most quality Fortune 500 companies when a key executive gets close to retirement all his or her actions are "double" reviewed to be sure the decisions in the best long term interest of the organization!
Some executives are even taken out of their jobs and given largely ceremonial posts to avoid the " short timer" bad decision syndrome!
PITT admin should learn how to run a business like real quick atleast before the sign the next basketball HC!
Watch "da" shortimers!
Despite all your votes against this Stallings will be here another 3 years. At that time a decison one way or another will be made on Stallings!
Last edited:
It's a shame Pitt doesn't have a business or law school to figure these things out !
Thats where all the common sense, IQ, legal, and business horsepower resides but I dont think they get to participate with the "hired help" Gallagher on down decisions!
Lets be honest, whether is under Posvar, O'Connor, Nordy or Gallagher, Pitt has shown extreme incompetence when it comes to athletics during each period. And well before that group also.
So to be honest, I don't trust anything this U does in regards to sports. I am beginning to think the good decisions where mere accidents.
I pointed out those 2 games because the opponents were very different in terms of their defensive abilities. VA defense is 12th nationally in field goal percentage, Clemson is 176. Yet Pitt performed so much better against VA. VA gives up an average of 54 pts per game, and Pitt scored 88. This team is capable of that kind of performance, yet produced what we saw against Clemson. Even in the Clemson game, Pitt shot around 50% first half, and under 20% second half.
OK, fair enough. I understand that they are capable but don't expect it on a night in, night out basis. How often have we seen performances like UVA game? One game doesn't make a trend. They have showed they are much more likely to shot poorly in conference games.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Recruiting Update Transfer center plans to visit next week- Latest: pghsonj1325
-
-
