The most bizarre thing about the Dixon era

[Sean Miller Fan]

Is that he (along with Howland at the beginning) was responsible for taking a nothing program that never accomplished anything other than random success here and there and turned them into UConn and Syracuse. Pitt was at the TOP of college basketball, literally as the #1 ranked team, attaining 2 #1 seeds and coming very close to a Final Four. Pitt was completely transformed into a basketball GIANT.

But, almost as quick as Dixon turned Pitt into a GIANT, he seems to have destroyed the program just as fast. Currently, talent-wise, results-wise, and interest-wise, we are at about the level of where it was when he got here. If Pitt bball was a stock, we were $20 a share in 98-99, up to $100 a share in 09-10, now back down to about $25 a share. Dixon was there for rise and the fall.

Maybe you can help me out but I cant think of another coach who elevated a program like Dixon had but then saw it crumble to pieces, still on his watch. And the surprising thing is Dixon's fall hasn't been due to scandal or anything like that. That would almost be easier to accept. Its been due primarily because of bad recruiting, bad evaluating, and bad luck.

Its just so rare to see a program have such a rapid rise and rapid fall under the same coach. If you just looked at Pitt's year by year records but didn't follow the team, it would be easy to think that the coach left after 09-10 and the program suffered......but the same guy who was responsible for the great heights this program reached is also responsible for the bottom falling out. Its just bizarre.

 

[iMissTheOldDays]

We can sit here and talk about what led to this all day but in my mind it all comes down to 1 thing and that is very poor recruiting

 

[bobfree]

To a lesser degree of succes and more sharply of a decline al skinner at Boston college.

 

[pittman71]

20111 they were a #1 seed in the tournament with a good recruiting class coming in. Birch disaster happens the next year and Pitt is never the same again, no higher than a 8 seed since 2011

 

[whirlybird optio]

Is that he (along with Howland at the beginning) was responsible for taking a nothing program that never accomplished anything other than random success here and there and turned them into UConn and Syracuse. Pitt was at the TOP of college basketball, literally as the #1 ranked team, attaining 2 #1 seeds and coming very close to a Final Four. Pitt was completely transformed into a basketball GIANT.

But, almost as quick as Dixon turned Pitt into a GIANT, he seems to have destroyed the program just as fast. Currently, talent-wise, results-wise, and interest-wise, we are at about the level of where it was when he got here. If Pitt bball was a stock, we were $20 a share in 98-99, up to $100 a share in 09-10, now back down to about $25 a share. Dixon was there for rise and the fall.

Maybe you can help me out but I cant think of another coach who elevated a program like Dixon had but then saw it crumble to pieces, still on his watch. And the surprising thing is Dixon's fall hasn't been due to scandal or anything like that. That would almost be easier to accept. Its been due primarily because of bad recruiting, bad evaluating, and bad luck.

Its just so rare to see a program have such a rapid rise and rapid fall under the same coach. If you just looked at Pitt's year by year records but didn't follow the team, it would be easy to think that the coach left after 09-10 and the program suffered......but the same guy who was responsible for the great heights this program reached is also responsible for the bottom falling out. Its just bizarre.

Lorenzo Romar has had a similar run. Maybe not the staying power and consistency of Pitt, but he was a #1 seed recently, and now he seems always on the verge of losing his job.

Washington was also a better program than pitt, much better, than when he took it over.

There are extremely few examples of teams doing what pitt did from the mid 90's, through 2011. The amount and degree of consistent success still boggles the mind.

 

[Cap pitt]

Is that he (along with Howland at the beginning) was responsible for taking a nothing program that never accomplished anything other than random success here and there and turned them into UConn and Syracuse. Pitt was at the TOP of college basketball, literally as the #1 ranked team, attaining 2 #1 seeds and coming very close to a Final Four. Pitt was completely transformed into a basketball GIANT.

But, almost as quick as Dixon turned Pitt into a GIANT, he seems to have destroyed the program just as fast. Currently, talent-wise, results-wise, and interest-wise, we are at about the level of where it was when he got here. If Pitt bball was a stock, we were $20 a share in 98-99, up to $100 a share in 09-10, now back down to about $25 a share. Dixon was there for rise and the fall.

Maybe you can help me out but I cant think of another coach who elevated a program like Dixon had but then saw it crumble to pieces, still on his watch. And the surprising thing is Dixon's fall hasn't been due to scandal or anything like that. That would almost be easier to accept. Its been due primarily because of bad recruiting, bad evaluating, and bad luck.

Its just so rare to see a program have such a rapid rise and rapid fall under the same coach. If you just looked at Pitt's year by year records but didn't follow the team, it would be easy to think that the coach left after 09-10 and the program suffered......but the same guy who was responsible for the great heights this program reached is also responsible for the bottom falling out. Its just bizarre.

A number 1 seed giant that never won an NC only got as far as an elite 8 one time and never further, is it back to a nothing program?

 

[KiwiJeff]

Is that he (along with Howland at the beginning) was responsible for taking a nothing program that never accomplished anything other than random success here and there and turned them into UConn and Syracuse. Pitt was at the TOP of college basketball, literally as the #1 ranked team, attaining 2 #1 seeds and coming very close to a Final Four. Pitt was completely transformed into a basketball GIANT.

But, almost as quick as Dixon turned Pitt into a GIANT, he seems to have destroyed the program just as fast. Currently, talent-wise, results-wise, and interest-wise, we are at about the level of where it was when he got here. If Pitt bball was a stock, we were $20 a share in 98-99, up to $100 a share in 09-10, now back down to about $25 a share. Dixon was there for rise and the fall.

Maybe you can help me out but I cant think of another coach who elevated a program like Dixon had but then saw it crumble to pieces, still on his watch. And the surprising thing is Dixon's fall hasn't been due to scandal or anything like that. That would almost be easier to accept. Its been due primarily because of bad recruiting, bad evaluating, and bad luck.

Its just so rare to see a program have such a rapid rise and rapid fall under the same coach. If you just looked at Pitt's year by year records but didn't follow the team, it would be easy to think that the coach left after 09-10 and the program suffered......but the same guy who was responsible for the great heights this program reached is also responsible for the bottom falling out. Its just bizarre.

I wrote this in another thread, but since there are like 50 threads of a similar nature going, I will say again here. We were never a giant in the sense of being a blue blood. We had to be hitting on all cylinders to maintain. A school like Pitt (or any comparable school) has a razor thin margin for error, because we just don't have the wherewithal to turn around quickly, as we have been a team that has developed players, not recruited them to start right away. People will ask why we didn't up our recruiting to the elite level, but that is disingenuous, because it is a zero sum game. There are a similar number of top players each year. The traditional long time blue bloods will get theirs. We will be among the other schools fighting for the rest. We were invited to the table more often, got a few good guys, some did not pan out.

That being said, the last few years our recruiting has been bad, and a couple years before that had guys not pan out (see Bobfree's post on team ranking trend). While the star rankings are not the end all be all, they certainly are telling.

 

[KiwiJeff]

Lorenzo Romar has had a similar run. Maybe not the staying power and consistency of Pitt, but he was a #1 seed recently, and now he seems always on the verge of losing his job.

Washington was also a better program than pitt, much better, than when he took it over.

There are extremely few examples of teams doing what pitt did from the mid 90's, through 2011. The amount and degree of consistent success still boggles the mind.

Look at Memphis now.

 

[whirlybird optio]

Look at Memphis now.

We can definitely have Pastner now if we want him. One of the few coaches with a worse buyout clause than Jamie

 

[Cap pitt]

I wrote this in another thread, but since there are like 50 threads of a similar nature going, I will say again here. We were never a giant in the sense of being a blue blood. We had to be hitting on all cylinders to maintain. A school like Pitt (or any comparable school) has a razor thin margin for error, because we just don't have the wherewithal to turn around quickly, as we have been a team that has developed players, not recruited them to start right away. People will ask why we didn't up our recruiting to the elite level, but that is disingenuous, because it is a zero sum game. There are a similar number of top players each year. The traditional long time blue bloods will get theirs. We will be among the other schools fighting for the rest. We were invited to the table more often, got a few good guys, some did not pan out.

That being said, the last few years our recruiting has been bad, and a couple years before that had guys not pan out (see Bobfree's post on team ranking trend). While the star rankings are not the end all be all, they certainly are telling.

Amen, kiwi

 

[vinniep33]

Look at Memphis now.

Pastner had Cal. Jamie had Howland. Very similar.

 

[vinniep33]

I truly think some of these big time coaches get the big contract and then think they can coast. Like MLB. Get the big contract and suck for three or four years until the last year, then go balls out to get the next one.

It's human nature to rest on ones laurels. But, faith without works is dead. We need action and more action.

 

[whirlybird optio]

Pastner had Cal. Jamie had Howland. Very similar.

Except, of course, that its not similar at all. Calipari was at Memphis for almost a decade, went to the championship game. Howland went to two Sweet 16's. Jamie built on that success...more wins, better winning percentage, went further in the NCAA's, all time winning % leader in Big East. Josh Pastner has never been to the Sweet 16, never had Memphis as a #1 seed. No one would call Josh Pastner the best coach in memphis history.

I don't see it similar at all.

 

[Delpanther]

I wrote this in another thread, but since there are like 50 threads of a similar nature going, I will say again here. We were never a giant in the sense of being a blue blood. We had to be hitting on all cylinders to maintain. A school like Pitt (or any comparable school) has a razor thin margin for error, because we just don't have the wherewithal to turn around quickly, as we have been a team that has developed players, not recruited them to start right away. People will ask why we didn't up our recruiting to the elite level, but that is disingenuous, because it is a zero sum game. There are a similar number of top players each year. The traditional long time blue bloods will get theirs. We will be among the other schools fighting for the rest. We were invited to the table more often, got a few good guys, some did not pan out.

That being said, the last few years our recruiting has been bad, and a couple years before that had guys not pan out (see Bobfree's post on team ranking trend). While the star rankings are not the end all be all, they certainly are telling.

My reaction to your post is as follows. Given the fact that our success was built on our establishing a recruiting "niche" with under the radar type guys, one might actually expect that in terms of those kinds of players that we would have the inside track in light of our success on the court as compared to the teams were recruiting against. The fact of the matter, however, is that we just didn't "miss" in terms of recruiting elite players we whiffed on just about everyone including players recruited by the likes of Providence, Seton Hall, Penn State and Rutgers. How do you explain that? My explanation is simply that this staff can't recruit. In my mind, Pitt's decline isn't really about "margin for error" in the sense of recruiting slightly fewer good players but has been akin to falling off the face of the earth in terms of recruiting.

 

[KiwiJeff]

My reaction to your post is as follows. Given the fact that our success was built on our establishing a recruiting "niche" with under the radar type guys, one might actually expect that in terms of those kinds of players that we would have the inside track in light of our success on the court as compared to the teams were recruiting against. The fact of the matter, however, is that we just didn't "miss" in terms of recruiting elite players we whiffed on just about everyone including players recruited by the likes of Providence, Seton Hall, Penn State and Rutgers. How do you explain that? My explanation is simply that this staff can't recruit. In my mind, Pitt's decline isn't really about "margin for error" in the sense of recruiting slightly fewer good players but has been akin to falling off the face of the earth in terms of recruiting.

I think we are saying the same thing, if you have a small margin of error, and miss gloriously, you get what we are now.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

My reaction to your post is as follows. Given the fact that our success was built on our establishing a recruiting "niche" with under the radar type guys, one might actually expect that in terms of those kinds of players that we would have the inside track in light of our success on the court as compared to the teams were recruiting against. The fact of the matter, however, is that we just didn't "miss" in terms of recruiting elite players we whiffed on just about everyone including players recruited by the likes of Providence, Seton Hall, Penn State and Rutgers. How do you explain that? My explanation is simply that this staff can't recruit. In my mind, Pitt's decline isn't really about "margin for error" in the sense of recruiting slightly fewer good players but has been akin to falling off the face of the earth in terms of recruiting.

In a nutshell, I think Jamie is Paul Chryst. Good guy, good coach (well, didnt think Chryst was a good coach but....), but not a promoter, not a salesman, not a hype dude. He's just a coach and his staff falls into that mold as well. What differentiates Pitt from Nova, Syr, Gtown, and Syr? Or how about SHU, RU, Prov, and Temple? These kids have a lot of options and they just arent drawn to this program. You can blame a lot of things for that but first and foremost, you have to look at the coach. Do players like him? Do parents like him? Do they like his style? Are they comfortable with him?

Just like Chryst, almost all of Jamie's recruits picked Pitt because we were the best program that offered. That is very telling. On this team alone, we were the best school to offer:

Wilson
Jones
Johnson
Artis
Luther
Nix

Robinson and Young had better offers.

Milligan, Jeter, and the grad transfers came through different channels but none of those guys were highly recruited.

 

[Piranha]

Another similarity between PC and JD is they were afraid to go head-head for the best players. They just settled for what they thought they could land. So much of recruiting is building relationships and relentless pursuit of these players.

 

[KiwiJeff]

In a nutshell, I think Jamie is Paul Chryst. Good guy, good coach (well, didnt think Chryst was a good coach but....), but not a promoter, not a salesman, not a hype dude. He's just a coach and his staff falls into that mold as well. What differentiates Pitt from Nova, Syr, Gtown, and Syr? Or how about SHU, RU, Prov, and Temple? These kids have a lot of options and they just arent drawn to this program. You can blame a lot of things for that but first and foremost, you have to look at the coach. Do players like him? Do parents like him? Do they like his style? Are they comfortable with him?

Just like Chryst, almost all of Jamie's recruits picked Pitt because we were the best program that offered. That is very telling. On this team alone, we were the best school to offer:

Wilson
Jones
Johnson
Artis
Luther
Nix

Robinson and Young had better offers.

Milligan, Jeter, and the grad transfers came through different channels but none of those guys were highly recruited.

He wasn't here as long as Jamie, and did not have his success, but I can't totally find myself hating this analogy.

 

[KiwiJeff]

Another similarity between PC and JD is they were afraid to go head-head for the best players. They just settled for what they thought they could land. So much of recruiting is building relationships and relentless pursuit of these players.

That's not true. Jamie doesn't WIN the battles for top players often, but he goes after them. Cheikh diallo for instance.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Another similarity between PC and JD is they were afraid to go head-head for the best players. They just settled for what they thought they could land. So much of recruiting is building relationships and relentless pursuit of these players.

That's not true.

Dixon just gets early nos faster and moved on to not waste time on a losing battle.

 

[Piranha]

That's not true.

Dixon just gets early nos faster and moved on to not waste time on a losing battle.

Loser mentality- expecting to lose will lead you to a loss.

 

[drunkinoakland]

Jamie is Pete Bell, but there is no Happy to get us back to the bigtime and then on probation.

 

[KiwiJeff]

Loser mentality- expecting to lose will lead you to a loss.

Really, how many 5 star players were Butler and VCU chasing in their hay day? If there are 25 5 stars, and you know that 15 will go to blue bloods, 5 will stay local and you have to fight everyone else for the other 5, why waste time chasing those 5 at the expense of evaluating, visiting, and developing relationships that may end up fruitful?

I am sure you ended up dating only super models right? Or did you have a loser mentality?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Loser mentality- expecting to lose will lead you to a loss.

Maverick, birch, heron, the Detroit pg, chieck Diallo etc etc
Like I said, it's factually wrong to say Dixon doesn't go head tohead for recruits.
You're wrong, move on.

 

[Piranha]

Maverick, birch, heron, the Detroit pg, chieck Diallo etc etc
Like I said, it's factually wrong to say Dixon doesn't go head tohead for recruits.
You're wrong, move on.

The only reason we were on those kids was because of the assistants, not him. Birch -Skerry, Heron and Diallo-Slice, Detroit PG-Smoke. As a HC, the big fish JD landed were Adams and Blair. He went hard after both. That is his problem - he does not do it enough.

 

[KiwiJeff]

The only reason we were on those kids was because of the assistants, not him. Birch -Skerry, Heron and Diallo-Slice, Detroit PG-Smoke. As a HC, the big fish JD landed were Adams and Blair. He went hard after both. That is his problem - he does not do it enough.

Hahahahahahahaha.....and there go the goal posts folks. This post is so silly it is barely worth replying to. So you think the assistants at other schools just sit home and make no contacts? Oh brother. Calipari once had a kid commit as Fedex hired the kids mom, another time recruited a worse brother to get a better brother. Guys have added coaches before to get a player. Who the heck cares HOW you get them? They all count.

You want to give Dixon 100% credit for the failures, and 10% of the successes, which is especially strange in that you were defending him so staunchly earlier this season. Fickle Freddie.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

The only reason we were on those kids was because of the assistants, not him. Birch -Skerry, Heron and Diallo-Slice, Detroit PG-Smoke. As a HC, the big fish JD landed were Adams and Blair. He went hard after both. That is his problem - he does not do it enough.

So other than the top kids we've gone head to head against other top coaches...
He won't.
Got it.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

To a lesser degree of succes and more sharply of a decline al skinner at Boston college.

Paul Hewitt at Ga Tech.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Paul Hewitt at Ga Tech.

Maybe more of a jt3 situation currently.

 

[Piranha]

Hahahahahahahaha.....and there go the goal posts folks. This post is so silly it is barely worth replying to. So you think the assistants at other schools just sit home and make no contacts? Oh brother. Calipari once had a kid commit as Fedex hired the kids mom, another time recruited a worse brother to get a better brother. Guys have added coaches before to get a player. Who the heck cares HOW you get them? They all count.

You want to give Dixon 100% credit for the failures, and 10% of the successes, which is especially strange in that you were defending him so staunchly earlier this season. Fickle Freddie.

You are right. JD is the Mariano Rivera of HC. Barton and Knight are the set up men. Everything is hunky dorey. The Red Sea parts when they walk into a recruits home. My bad, let me put on my blue and gold glasses back on and get another drink from the punch bowl.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

You are right. JD is the Mariano Rivera of HC. Barton and Knight are the set up men. Everything is hunky dorey. The Red Sea parts when they walk into a recruits home. My bad, let me put on my blue and gold glasses back on and get another drink from the punch bowl.

So you've changed the topic from competing head to head for recruits... Your actual claim...
To not winning those recruiting battles,?

It's a smarter tactic, since the original was loud wrong.

 

[whirlybird optio]

Paul Hewitt at Ga Tech.

No one would compare Ga Tech under Bobby cremins and pitt during the Willard/late Evans years. Also, while Hewitt had a huge year in 2004 with a trip to the finals, he didn't have nearly the consistent success Pitt did.

What Ben and Jamie did would be akin to Penn st being the best team in the big 10 for a decade, or BC in the ACC.

 

[KiwiJeff]

You are right. JD is the Mariano Rivera of HC. Barton and Knight are the set up men. Everything is hunky dorey. The Red Sea parts when they walk into a recruits home. My bad, let me put on my blue and gold glasses back on and get another drink from the punch bowl.

Nobody said that, so stop that foolishness. But let's use your way of thinking. If Dixon doesnt get credit for any of the good players Pitt got, then he should get no discredit for the crap players. It was slice's fault he got Haughton, not Dixon's. Want me to go through the whole list and show you every crap player these assistants are bringing to him? Serious, the level of hyperbole in your post is very childish. At your age, you should be better than that. At least you admitted you were wrong, in a silly sort of way.