Who said that?
Now, whether that's a good use of capital for the university is an entirely different discussion. And of course, compensation of coaches does NOT guarantee anything.
This will make some of your heads explode...
- Thread starter King Of All Message Boards
- Start date
Now, whether that's a good use of capital for the university is an entirely different discussion. And of course, compensation of coaches does NOT guarantee anything.
Specifics, please. Blaming the JIG crowd is a common tactic when someone has nothing substantive to say.
Taking extenuating circumstances (several deferred incentives vesting in a single year) also is a favorite tactic of the "fire everybody" crowd who likes to take a lone anomaly as a signal Pitt can do something consistently.
The base pay of $1.4MM is far more indicative of Pitt's true position on the subject than a year in which a lot of deferred compensation is paid out.
Can we just say Jamie is compensated fairly? And I see most people not bitching about what he makes, but the term (length) of the extension. In fact, it seems to be the "JIGers" who are trying to paint a narrative that isn't there with anyone who has criticized Jesus Dixon.
You guys are acting like Sean Hannity for chrissakes. My god, don't see this overwhelming teeth gnashing over what he was paid as you guys are trying to paint some posters. Stop trying to be so divisive. I know this, Jamie doesn't need your defense.
One group is.
Hint, it's the sect who is veigning outrage over meaningless things.
The jig crowd isn't lamenting his contract because, as noted , it's meaningless .
The only reason to have an issue with it is if you want him fired .
Are you in the fire the coach crowd?
If not ... Stop worrying about his contract.
None of know the specific language and conditions of the contract , so it's stupid noise to lament his contract .
My post was directed towards SMF's quip that this proves Pitt is willing to pay $3-4MM a year for a coach.
There's nothing to indicate they're willing to pay that on an annual basis.
I'll say, I frankly don't care about the contracts of coaches or administrators.
I'm not cutting the check, and if I'm opposed I'll vote with my wallet.
Stick with the results of the coach and the program.. And likewise, vote with your wallet if you Support or oppose.
That's it, that's the list.
I'm not cutting the check, and if I'm opposed I'll vote with my wallet.
Stick with the results of the coach and the program.. And likewise, vote with your wallet if you Support or oppose.
That's it, that's the list.
Sorry, not seeing the angst. I am seeing it is artificially a creation of a paranoid narrative by those who "don't care" about things they don't have any control over.
Do you care?
Well owt, if anyone would know about something that was "artificially a creation of a paranoid narrative" it would be you.
Wait a second, you are asking if we can just say Dixon is compensated fairly? Earlier in this thread I said that I thought that Dixon's compensation was reasonable and you admonished me to "focus", then started talking about Dixon's future and the length of his contract. The issue was his prior year's compensation. If you agreed that it was reasonable or fair, why didn't you just say so instead of bringing up this other stuff just to be argumentative? What's funny is the Sean Hannity of this board comparing other posters to Sean Hannity.
Well owt, if anyone would know about something that was "artificially a creation of a paranoid narrative" it would be you.
Great, so you are going to use this to discredit anything I write. Well done.
First off, this is a Pitt BB board, so Pitt BB things are discussed. Jamie's earnings came out this week, someone posted a thread. I guess that made it relevant.
What hasn't happened, though it has been suggested, is a band of posters dressed up in medieval robes, with pitchforks and torches demanding that Jamie be tarred and feathered. What has happened is some people just questioned the term length. Simple as that. Why does that bother you so much? Why do you care that people have questioned if the length of the contract is the best thing for the program?
If you aren't bothered by it, and obviously nothing concerning Pitt sports concerns you (since you only have like 40,000 posts on these forums) just leave it alone then. No biggie. There exists no angst and anger over this topic, despite some of you trying to pain a narrative that was set in motion by the OP and the original topic header, which slanted this whole topic.
Posts about midieval robes and pitchforks discredit you by themselves. talk about imaginary false narratives. Sheesh. You have so little self awareness to be comical. You rip people for something, only to do the same thing, but worse, thirty seconds later. The fact you don't see that makes you the butt of jokes. You single yourself out as a kook, but then cover it up by saying its your "schtick".
I don't really..I like to watch them squirm when attempting to explain why.
Why evade the question: Do you want Dixon removed from his job? THAT is the only reason to care about the length or value of his contract.
And, guess what..you aren't paying for it either way.
Neither am I.
Even in his prime years, Dixon has made comments that he feared the fans/university would turn on him and force him out. E.g., Howland/UCLA or Wannstedt.
It does not surprise me that Dixon was willing to pass up other offers with a long contract offer from Pitt. As has been mentioned with the "base value" of the contract, it would not surprise me if he was receiving less than market value here in return for guaranteed years and a high buyout if dismissed. If I were already a millionaire, I'd probably do the same.
I don't really see any connection with what he's being paid and what his performance is. Would you be satisfied with an NIT berth if he were only making $1M? Would he be under fire for not winning a title if he were making $10M? As Souf has been posting, either you want him here or not. What difference does the pay make?
It does not surprise me that Dixon was willing to pass up other offers with a long contract offer from Pitt. As has been mentioned with the "base value" of the contract, it would not surprise me if he was receiving less than market value here in return for guaranteed years and a high buyout if dismissed. If I were already a millionaire, I'd probably do the same.
I don't really see any connection with what he's being paid and what his performance is. Would you be satisfied with an NIT berth if he were only making $1M? Would he be under fire for not winning a title if he were making $10M? As Souf has been posting, either you want him here or not. What difference does the pay make?
I have, of course, done no such thing. I would have thought that you would have recognized that was a joke, what with the little smiley thing and all. But if you would have recognized the joke you wouldn't have been able to play the victim again and, well, we can't have that now can we?
Jeff F You. You have a problem with me......maybe we need to hash it put personally.
A thread about Dixon's pay creates in your mind visions of men in robes with pitchforks. That should alarm you, but it doesn't. You have either started some kind of drug that makes you paranoid, or stopped taking one that treats paranoia. Either way, you are in a downward spiral. In the meantime, keep thinking you are some kind of martyr superhero for the downtrodden of this board.
You criticize people for doing something, then do the same thing thirty seconds later. I just called you on it. Not sure why that would make you mad. I have no problem with you personally. I just have a problem with your silly logic and delusions.
Maybe I look at it a little differently then many ..... but here are my thoughts ......
- If I were the Chancellor or AD at Pitt, I would have had to take a hard look at whether to give Jamie a 10 year contract or not two years ago ..... at that time I would have wanted Jamie as my coach but 10 years is a long commitment for a coach and I certainly would have been on the phone regarding the availability of Brad Stevens, Shaka Smart, and others .... and in the end if signing Jamie to a 10 year contract was the best thing for Pitt then I would have done it.
- We will only know if Jamie's 10 year contract signing was a good thing by the future results of the Pitt basketball program.
- Do I still want Jamie Dixon as Pitt's basketball coach right now ? .... the answer is YES, but if we have 2 or 3 more years in a row of no NCAA Tournament, I might change my thinking on the matter ..... that is where the length of his contract and compensation are germane ..... as it will determine if and when a buyout is feasible ...... in the meantime, let's root for Coach Dixon to be successful.
- I'm actually very encouraged by the facts regarding Jamie's salary .... yes he made 3.2 million but much of that was incentives and DELAYED COMPENSATION and his base salary was much less at 1.4 million..... why am I encouraged by that ..... because, if Jamie gets us back on track to NCAA Tournaments and to Sweet 16's or Elite 8's or maybe farther, his base salary over the next 8 years left on this contract will actually be a bargain, IMO .... and if he falters and doesn't get us going in the next 2-3 years, we likely will be able to buy him out at his current base salary..... a win-win situation for Pitt.
- Therefore, I'm going to support Dixon 100% for now as I feel him being successful is the best scenario for Pitt .... if he isn't successful over the next 2-3 years, then a buyout looks feasible based on his current base salary and we'll just have to get a new coach ..... either way the next 2-3 years will be telling ..... let's hope for success !
- If I were the Chancellor or AD at Pitt, I would have had to take a hard look at whether to give Jamie a 10 year contract or not two years ago ..... at that time I would have wanted Jamie as my coach but 10 years is a long commitment for a coach and I certainly would have been on the phone regarding the availability of Brad Stevens, Shaka Smart, and others .... and in the end if signing Jamie to a 10 year contract was the best thing for Pitt then I would have done it.
- We will only know if Jamie's 10 year contract signing was a good thing by the future results of the Pitt basketball program.
- Do I still want Jamie Dixon as Pitt's basketball coach right now ? .... the answer is YES, but if we have 2 or 3 more years in a row of no NCAA Tournament, I might change my thinking on the matter ..... that is where the length of his contract and compensation are germane ..... as it will determine if and when a buyout is feasible ...... in the meantime, let's root for Coach Dixon to be successful.
- I'm actually very encouraged by the facts regarding Jamie's salary .... yes he made 3.2 million but much of that was incentives and DELAYED COMPENSATION and his base salary was much less at 1.4 million..... why am I encouraged by that ..... because, if Jamie gets us back on track to NCAA Tournaments and to Sweet 16's or Elite 8's or maybe farther, his base salary over the next 8 years left on this contract will actually be a bargain, IMO .... and if he falters and doesn't get us going in the next 2-3 years, we likely will be able to buy him out at his current base salary..... a win-win situation for Pitt.
- Therefore, I'm going to support Dixon 100% for now as I feel him being successful is the best scenario for Pitt .... if he isn't successful over the next 2-3 years, then a buyout looks feasible based on his current base salary and we'll just have to get a new coach ..... either way the next 2-3 years will be telling ..... let's hope for success !
I've been told that before matching the USC offer, Pitt DID quickly and quietly reach out to several top young coaches and NONE would even discuss the job. That was a big factor in extending Dixon.
With Pederson gone, maybe the response today would be different, but then again, Pitt is not as attractive a job today as it was coming off a #1 seed.
While we ARE in the ACC, the lack of anything resembling a local recruiting base is always cited in the opening paragraph of any national media discussion about the program.
Harve, we have not had a good local recruiting base for decades and certainly not in the Howland/Dixon era and yet we have had some really good teams ........ Pitt has to recruit at least regionally (New York, Philly, DC, etc.etc.) .... Dixon was able to do that previously but not so well more recently ....... he has to improve recruiting ! ....... there are many examples of successful basketball programs that don't have a local recruiting base and the opposite is true, many schools with good local recruiting bases who are not successful ..... we used to get good players recruiting regionally, time will tell whether the present group of coaches including Jamie can do that ..... let's hope they can.
I'm not saying it is impossible to win without a local recruiting base but it is a factor in making the job less attractive and many fans just ignore it. But, reportedly, that is big part of the reason Ben Howland thought success here was not sustainable.
Much of our past success was built on recruiting kids who were in the #75-150 range. Many of our current problems come from targeting and mostly missing kids in the top 50 range.Either we whiffed on them or the ones we did get did not contribute as expected and/or left early. We have a fanbase who want 5 stars but what we need is to recruit the kind of guys we did earlier in this era and have the patience to let them develop.
We're never going to recruit like Kentucky or Duke, but we never recruited like Cuse or UConn either. But, we beat them.
Ben Howland left for a blue blood program and his dream job at UCLA .... not sure he would have left Pitt at the time for many other jobs.
Jamie showed for about 10 more years after Ben that success was possible at Pitt for more then just a few years.
However, recruiting has fallen off for whatever reason and that has to improve or Jamie's job over time is in jeopardy ..... you are absolutely correct that not having a great local recruiting base is a definite disadvantage but in the past we have been able to do well recruiting at least regionally in a fashion that made us a power in the best college basketball league (Big East)....... from 2005-2009 we signed a total of 7 four + five stars and 12 three stars ...... from 2010-2014 we signed only 4 four + five stars and 14 three stars...... we have to do better at signing at least some four and five stars (top 100) and sign better three stars (top 101-150 types) then we have recently ...... success in the ACC and NCAAT depends on having talent ....... recruiting has fallen off over the last 5 years compared to the 5 years prior to that .... we have not only whiffed and misjudged on four and five star recruits but also on some of the better three stars ..... the head coach is the same, what is the difference ??????
Because of poor recruiting, Jamie is scrambling to fill the roster with graduate transfers for next season and looks to me to be doing a pretty good job .... this should fill some voids for next year, allow redshirting of a couple players which should even out the classes, but it is vital that we get a good 2016 recruiting class to get back on track ...... Corey Manigault looks to be a good start.
Let's also remember we hired howland from northern Arizona , he wasn't a proven commodity and promoted his assistant.
We got lucky more than anything .
We got lucky more than anything .
True. Nike wanted to give us Bobby Gonzales, the Manhatten coach. Sonny came up with Ben abd as you say, we were VERY lucky.
Then, when Howland left, Skip Prosser, a Pittsburgh native, used our offer to extort a raise. We ended up with Jamie, who had at best been a candidate for a mid-major , directional school. There seemed very little interest from anyone else.
It's probably a better job now than it was then, but in another sense, we're arguably in a worse position today in the ACC than we were in the Big East. There were schools in the BE with better traditions, but we had among the best resources. The ACC has schools which are both more tradition than us and better resources. And, almost every article out of NYC bemoans the talent drought there these days.
We've got fans with very unrealistic expectations and apparently very short memories. . Our basketball tradition since Doc Carlson is fleeting at best.
And I gaven't even mentioned our low donations level.
- We may have gotten lucky with Ben and Jamie but both showed that we can win in basketball at Pitt.
- My expectations for basketball are that we be competitive in the ACC and ACCT and strive to finish in the upper third of the conference many years, that we qualify for the NCAAT most years and make runs to the Sweet 16 some years (maybe even farther on rare occasion)..... I think those are reasonable goals/expectations for us.
- WHAT IS A SHORT SUMMARY OF YOUR EXPECTATIONS FOR PITT BASKETBALL?
- Regarding resources, I'm not sure that we can use that as an excuse not to be successful in ACC basketball ..... out of the 15 teams in the ACC, Pitt is the 5th highest in basketball revenues and also the 5th highest in basketball profits ...... we are in the upper third in basketball revenues and profits in the ACC..... see link......http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2015/03/19/acc-mens-basketball-revenue-2014.html
Well, by the history of Pitt basketball, even "only " making 2 NCAA tourneys and one NIT in the last 4 years is certainly winning more than about 90% of our seasons.
I like your expectations,. There is nothing in that list with which I disagree, but I would probably call those realistic goals, rather than expectations. I've watched both the football and basketball programs self-destruct too many times to actually expect any constant success. My expectatipns from Pitt athletics are modest. Given our history, sometimes I'm not sure we should "expect" that Pitt will even stay in the P5 schools. It's clear that the "corporate culture" of Pitt does not include athletic success as a serious example of the goals a large portion of those who make up the Uniersity really strive to meet.
I've experienced the fan euphoria of new administrations, new coaches and optimistic new beginnings , almost always followed by a rapid return to the reality of the "Same Old Pitt". I still have hope that Dixon can break that cycle. I hope that this season was just a hiccup, not the beginning of a slide that could easily end far below this season's results, which the negative portion of our fanbase are already labeling mediocrity.
I watched Duquesne sink from a status in the '60's and early '70's not too dissimilar to where we have been in this era to being an also-ran in a basically mid-major conference, and struggling to even approach mediocrity. The slope downhill is a lot easier than the climb to the Top 25.
I don't argue that Pitt basketball has generated a decent revenue since we moved to the Pete. The question becomes whether that will continue. Crowds and interest have dropped. The critics blame that on the OOC schedule. I think Pitt-Girl's diagnosis of ennui is closer. This is a town which mostly only respects success. It has no basketball tradition and only a small group of hard-core basketball fans. Anybody who reads these hoops boards should understand the level of basketball knowledge among our fans is not high.
Arguably the number one accomplishment of Pitt's Athletic Department was creating and maintaining the fiction of high demand and a mythical 10000-strong "waiting list" for basketball tickets. That fiction and the linked mandatory seat fees drove the increase in booster donations from a paltry $3MM to somewhere around $7MM today, still low by P5 standards but much greater than when Howland was hired.
Unfortunately, the fiction has been exposed and demand has dropped. The Pete is half-full for most of the non-elite opponent games. Enthusiasm for Coach Narduzzi and for firing SP may keep donations and revenue about the same or even higher, but basketball's financial contributions will almost certainly be lower. If football donations and profits increase so that football carries the financial load, as it does at most schools, even somewhat diminished basketball donations and revenue should be adequate. But, if football falters, as it seemingly always does here, and basketball has to resume being the major financial engine, there could be problems.
Harve ..... I agree with most of what you say but guess that I just have a little more optimistic outlook ...... and you know that I'm from the same era as you (my undergraduate degree came in 1971) so I've seen the same things happen at Pitt as you ..... Howland/Dixon have shown that basketball can be a winner at Pitt and for more then just a couple years, the big thing, of course, is to sustain it over time ....... we look to be at a cross-roads with sustaining our success in basketball.
I think it is a good sign that we are 5th in ACC basketball in revenues and profits ...... maybe a more significant fact is that we are 4th in ACC basketball in expenses meaning that only 3 schools spend more money on basketball then us ..... we have the resources compared to many of the other ACC schools for basketball and we are using them...... attendance/game in NCAA Division I has dropped every year since 2007 so we are far from the only ones experiencing a decrease in profits and yet we are doing well from the profit standpoint in comparison to our competition..... of course, in a professional sports town, Pitt has to win to draw more fans so Jamie and staff are going to have to recruit the players we need to win..... Jamie has shown he can coach, he just needs to get the right combination of players and I really hope he does !
The area of greatest potential for increased revenue in the athletic department is football ....... most successful football programs make 3x what their basketball programs make (of course, there are exceptions) .... our football program profits are about the same as our basketball profits ..... a successful football program will help all the other sports .... so we need to hope that Narduzzi is a success at Pitt as added football revenue should offset any decrease in basketball profits and actually if basketball wins, it's profits may go up.
I've seen every Chancellor, Athletic Director, football coach, and basketball coach at Pitt since the 1950's, and the total combination of people that we now have in those positions at present has me more optimistic then at any time in the past ...... of course, there is much to be done and proven but I'm really looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
No coach worth a $hit would work for SP-that's the story in a nutshell. It would be terribly wrong to make any inference about the quality of a Pitt coaching position based on the degree of interest shown in response to queries by SP, particularly FB coaches.
Harve--not to state the obvious but the past couple of years we have been whiffing on most of the 75-150-ranked kids we've gone after as well. Mike Young and Newkirk were in that category--the only one we've landed since then is Damon Wilson, a guy ranked between 79-100 depending on the service. Hell, we've had problems even filling all of our open scholarships with 4 year players in these classes. I'm not sure exactly why that is, and we all speculate, but it is definitely impacting the success of the program.
My opinion is that the face of basketball recruiting has changed significantly over the past decade and Dixon hasn't kept up with the changes. Rather than sitting down in a recruits living room and convincing them that Johnny will get a great education and you will mentor him and keep him out of trouble, coaches must deal with self serving AAU coaches and advisers who are more interested in their gain than what is best for Johnny. 10 - 15 years ago I would not have dreamed that a kid would only consider schools who wore a particular shoe brand.
I am not sure if Jamie can adapt to the current recruiting environment. I'm not sure Jamie WANTS to adapt to the current recruiting environment. Time will tell.
IMHO, we targeted higher ranked guys and only switched to the 75-125 guys after it was obvious we nissed on the higher ranked recruits. Mosly, we were months too late on the guys we might reasonaby have gotten.
Similar threads
