If it's so easy why aren't more teams doing it 13 out of 15 years?
I don't disagree that Dixon's March record leaves a lot to be desired. Even going back to the good big east teams. But some of the comments being made on here are a bit over the top.
To those firing Dixon....
- Thread starter drunkinoakland
- Start date
If it's so easy why aren't more teams doing it 13 out of 15 years?
I don't disagree that Dixon's March record leaves a lot to be desired. Even going back to the good big east teams. But some of the comments being made on here are a bit over the top.
Is it? What is your opinion based on? How often does the average Power 5 program make the NCAA Tournament?
Awful Drunk?
Getting to the NCAA Tournament 3 or 5 years is awful?
Not close to our past level? Yes.
Barely above average? Sure.
Awful?
A no name to who? There are a lot of good coaches out there to people that understand the game. Was Dixon a big name to everybody when he was hired. The bball world does not revolve around JD.
I don't think so, but I was trying to acknowledge that there are more acceptable definitions than "awful."
You'd also have to define what "barely" is.
What is reality of the college basketball world and what is the reality of Pitt's place in it?
It's hard to bring up the Wall Street Journal to this crowd - but they did an article Wednesday and it featured a photo of a Pitt player (Newkirk for some reason) with his head under his jersey in shame. The reason? Pitt has the worst performance since 2003 in the tournament as a favorite than anyone sans Georgetown. Of course they have nearly twice as many opportunities as Georgetown which puts Pitt clearly out front in totals - not just percentages which is what the WSJ article used.
Ya I got you. I don't want to do the work either lol.
As far as the acc we would be behind...
Unc
Duke
Uva
Cuse
Nc State
Louisville
Notre Dame
Miami
And if you go back 6 we would be behind Florida state.
Everyone keys in on getting into the NCAA tournament.
Not many performance based PITT fans.
Its like a kid just getting in the college of his choice and flunking out due to lack of results!
In the past 6 years we have been a bubble or close to a bubble team and have gone one and out twice and two and out four times.
That's below average performance even in The Book of Losers!
right, what Dixon was saying was, he recruited him but didn't coach him right, so Luther wasn't ready
You cant use average P5 programs because PITT is supposed to be a Top P5 program.
It's simple math just go look at the top 5-8 teams or so in each P5 conferences and most teams are in the tourney year in and year out. And a lot go deep in the tourney when they get in and of course they might miss a year here and there!
Now if we want to start to measure the P5 bottom feeders I agree they don't get in a lot.
But the good programs put their team in the tourney a lot.
PITT is supposed to be a good program so we should be measured with the good programs not the average programs.
I knew this would surface all the stat nerds are trying to screw the stats around to convince themselves and others that the PITT basketball program is on track.
Its in a death spiral and you just have to look at the obvious.
- since 2010 two one and outs and the rest two and outs
-recurring recruiting misses on the players we get
-recruits not wanting to come to PITT lately
-disinterested players who don't seem to be engaged in the game
- losses are common at the Pete
- declining attendance at the Pete
- season ticket holders not showing up except for big games at the Pete
- losing to teams we should beat
- getting pounded by the top teams
- the Duke win was nice and so were the Cuse wins
Last edited:
Pretty simple actually, we aren't a great program, but we aren't a lousy program either.
A few shots drop last night, and we're playing Sunday. A one and done tournament where luck and a hot hand mean as much as anything is no way to judge a program.
Getting into the tournament IS a benchmark, and Pitt as a program has been pretty successful, and more successful than a lot at achieving that.
Performance in said tournament has been less than stellar, and the debate can rage over why that's the case. Dixon does seem to tighten up a bit on this stage, and that may spill over to his team. He's a pretty intense guy after all, as anyone who watches him over the course of the year knows.
This group, at least to me, has been a big disappointment. No one has stepped up, or gotten to the next level as we've seen others do in the past. No one has "overachieved" or made themselves into the go to guy who wants to have the ball at crunch time. Lamar, Sam, Fella, Knight, are some guys from the not too recent past who have taken that step.
We've got some clunkers in this group. JR is a great kid, who simply isn't a scorer. Artis is an enigma. He's had great games, albeit early in the season mostly, but he makes as many boneheaded plays as great ones, and his shooting is EXTREMELY streaky. Young seems to disappear for periods during games, and at times tries to do too much, like losing the ball off the dribble trying to back guys down last night.
Jeter is a role player with limited shooting range, but who's awful defensively.
No real center in this group has hurt this group. We have some role players who are learning, or are limited talent wise. No real sharpshooter on the entire roster.
The Grad Transfers were a disaster. Good intention, but very very little actual help.
Recruiting misses over the past few years have really hurt the program. If I'm in charge, and if Jamie really cares, he needs to shake up the assistant coaches because they aren't getting the kids that can help, and aren't coaching them up when with the ones they get.
Some changes need to be made, more adjustments than overthrow. The fans need to see something happen that is real and points to a brighter future, or at least some effort in that direction. Otherwise, the Pete will be even emptier next year.
Like I said, in my view, we aren't lousy and we aren't great. You can't ignore history at PItt and not see what we were before the basketball revolution. We had ONE NCAA appearance in 1974. Dr. Chipman got the ball rolling, Evans had some success, albeit with some questionable recruiting practices, then the program almost got wiped out by Willard. Howland got us back on track, and Jamie has built on that. We are in a pretty good position in hoops with our recent history and the Pete, but we should be doing a bit better from time to time once we get our ticket punched to the Dance. Luck and a hot hand should even happen to us once in a while.
I'll still buy tickets and donate. I don't feel entitled to championships, just want to see good basketball with a chance to win on any given night.
This year's boneheaded bunch was hard to watch, and even harder to like most times. Hopefully better days ahead!
A few shots drop last night, and we're playing Sunday. A one and done tournament where luck and a hot hand mean as much as anything is no way to judge a program.
Getting into the tournament IS a benchmark, and Pitt as a program has been pretty successful, and more successful than a lot at achieving that.
Performance in said tournament has been less than stellar, and the debate can rage over why that's the case. Dixon does seem to tighten up a bit on this stage, and that may spill over to his team. He's a pretty intense guy after all, as anyone who watches him over the course of the year knows.
This group, at least to me, has been a big disappointment. No one has stepped up, or gotten to the next level as we've seen others do in the past. No one has "overachieved" or made themselves into the go to guy who wants to have the ball at crunch time. Lamar, Sam, Fella, Knight, are some guys from the not too recent past who have taken that step.
We've got some clunkers in this group. JR is a great kid, who simply isn't a scorer. Artis is an enigma. He's had great games, albeit early in the season mostly, but he makes as many boneheaded plays as great ones, and his shooting is EXTREMELY streaky. Young seems to disappear for periods during games, and at times tries to do too much, like losing the ball off the dribble trying to back guys down last night.
Jeter is a role player with limited shooting range, but who's awful defensively.
No real center in this group has hurt this group. We have some role players who are learning, or are limited talent wise. No real sharpshooter on the entire roster.
The Grad Transfers were a disaster. Good intention, but very very little actual help.
Recruiting misses over the past few years have really hurt the program. If I'm in charge, and if Jamie really cares, he needs to shake up the assistant coaches because they aren't getting the kids that can help, and aren't coaching them up when with the ones they get.
Some changes need to be made, more adjustments than overthrow. The fans need to see something happen that is real and points to a brighter future, or at least some effort in that direction. Otherwise, the Pete will be even emptier next year.
Like I said, in my view, we aren't lousy and we aren't great. You can't ignore history at PItt and not see what we were before the basketball revolution. We had ONE NCAA appearance in 1974. Dr. Chipman got the ball rolling, Evans had some success, albeit with some questionable recruiting practices, then the program almost got wiped out by Willard. Howland got us back on track, and Jamie has built on that. We are in a pretty good position in hoops with our recent history and the Pete, but we should be doing a bit better from time to time once we get our ticket punched to the Dance. Luck and a hot hand should even happen to us once in a while.
I'll still buy tickets and donate. I don't feel entitled to championships, just want to see good basketball with a chance to win on any given night.
This year's boneheaded bunch was hard to watch, and even harder to like most times. Hopefully better days ahead!
Awful relative to the rest of the country? No. Awful compared to the standards he had earlier set for the program? Without a doubt.
I honestly believe Jamie is the best coach for this program. And I honestly believe our future looks a lot like this season. It frankly, isn't very fun to watch or invest time in.
Pitt is supposed to be a top 5 program based on what? Where does Pitt's basketball pedigree stand amongst the power conference programs or against all programs. Opinion vs fact, do you know?
I am doing the work. But it will take a bit longer. I doing it because I want to know for my own edification what is "normal" or "average". I'll have your answer. And I won't be constantly moving the goalposts to support a point of view.
Want to make a guess before I have an answer?
Want to make a guess on what the average number of appearances are for power conference programs in the NCAA Tournament in the last 5 years and the last 10 years?
That's the only goal post I stated.
See if someone says something but I didn't it doesn't mean I feel that way.
YOU can choose to evaluate him in any way YOU want and I will do the same.
I choose to throw out his non conference because traditionally it's a joke.
Last 5 years conference record 42-42.....average.
One tournament win last 5 years. Think you'll find that to be average to slightly above average we shall see.
I'm not evaluating anyone. I'm looking at raw data and averages of programs. I've not posted any interpretation of those numbers (or any of the numbers yet) and until late last night, I had no idea what any of the numbers were, and neither did anyone else.
People are jumping to conclusions on both sides because they are inherently biased.
Basic principal of statistics is you can change the endpoints to include and type of analysis after looking at the data, which you and everyone else here have done, repeatedly.
And I'll tell you now what my inclusion criteria is: current P5 conference members...appearances and wins over the past 5 (games through yesterday, 2012-2016) and 10 years (2007-2016). I'm also looking at Big East and American because of conference realignment. I am counting vacated appearances and wins because of the general consensus I feel is that the NCAA isn't consistent in its enforcement and it seems most don't care about them anyway. I intend to analyze with simple means, sd, and raw counts. Nothing fancy. I am not throwing out anomalies. All data is included.
Last edited:
Regarding the last five years. Am I happy with them, NO! I never said I was. You made a ridiculous statement that a new coach could not do worse. I don't know how old you are and how long you've been following Pitt basketball or basketball in general, but you clearly are out of touch with reality. Many, many coaches at P5 schools do worse coaching jobs than Dixon does pretty much every year.
It's very easy to make a list of coaches who aren't as good as Dixon and would likely do worse. Could some coaches do better? YES, definitely. But stating that there is no way we could do worse is, as I said previously, ridiculous. And almost all of the sure fire coaches are not possibilities for Pitt anyway.
Regarding the record, this has been addressed many times, but while his record is padded with the easy non con games, so is every other coach's. This is just reality. Again, I don't know how old you are, but maybe you don't remember that he has the all time winning percentage in the Big East. That's not a padded stat. Yes, any coach could get Pitt through the non con successfully, but only a select few could have possibly achieved his level of success in the BE.
The interesting thing is that many people have referenced his past record and said that he didn't forget how to coach. Honestly, after last night, I'm wondering if he actually has forgotten how to coach. He made some of the worst personnel decisions I've ever seen a coach make. I'm hoping it was just an aberration, but I've never been closer to jumping on the Fire Dixon bandwagon.
Great advice. What the program needs is less people watching, caring, and donating. Thanks for being such a great fan and level headed guy.
Sorry for the terrible interface in this tool.... it was mostly to answer this kind of question for myself. I only have through 2014 tournament (not last year's or this year's).
This tool looks at percentage of NCAA tournament bids over time periods...
You guys are one of only 19 schools to get eight bids in the 10 most recent years in the database, 2005-2014. One of only 10 to get 9 in that period.
no one is going to ignore that.
Dixon was superb early in his career. But that tool doesn't take into account the past two seasons, o tournament wins. And frankly I could give a shit what happens in 2005. thats literally 11 years ago.
Our pedigree is crap-does that characterization now satisfy you and Nordy both and justify the mediocrity you desire forever more? Go sift through some dusty press clippings, your forte.
I can't really express myself how I'd like to so I'm just gonna stay a bit - to stay with that - understated at times.
Great advise ! I doubt that you'll to provide to much more encouragement for lots of fans!
Hope they take your advise and we can watch your "sorry as- " sitting alone in the stands at the Pete!
Here are the numbers.
10 year sample tournament appearances
The average number of NCAA Tournament appearances among all current Power 5 conference members over the last 10 seasons (2007-2016), inclusive of vacated results, is 4.62. The standard deviation is 2.86. The median is 5.
If you include the current Big East and American conferences ("P5+BA"), that number becomes 4.42. The standard deviation is 2.98. The median is 4.5.
Pitt has had 8 appearances. 14 other schools among the 86 total P5+BA had 8 or more appearance in that stretch. 71 have had less.
I did not have time to assemble number of wins over the 10 year stretch
5 year sample tournament appearances
The average number of NCAA Tournament appearances among all current Power 5 conference members over the last 5 seasons is 2.17. The standard deviation is 1.70. The median was 2.
For the P5+BA, the average is 2.12. The standard deviation was 1.66. The median was 2.
Pitt has had 3 appearances. 37 other schools among the 86 total P5-BA had 3 or more appearances. 48 have had less.
5 year sample tournament wins
The average number of NCAA Tournament wins over the last 5 seasons (2012-2016 through 1st round) among all current Power 5 conference members is 3.05. The standard deviation is 4.03. The median is 1.
For the P5+BA, the average is 2.73. The standard deviation is 3.67. The median was 1.
Pitt has had 1 win. 45 other schools among the 86 total P5+BA have had one or more win. 40 have had less.
Factoid: during this 5 year period through yesterday's results, 13 programs have 57% of all tournament wins collected by the P5+BA. Those programs are (in no particular order) UNC, Louisville, Duke, Syracuse, Kansas, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, Arizona, Kentucky, Florida, and UConn.
10 year sample tournament appearances
The average number of NCAA Tournament appearances among all current Power 5 conference members over the last 10 seasons (2007-2016), inclusive of vacated results, is 4.62. The standard deviation is 2.86. The median is 5.
If you include the current Big East and American conferences ("P5+BA"), that number becomes 4.42. The standard deviation is 2.98. The median is 4.5.
Pitt has had 8 appearances. 14 other schools among the 86 total P5+BA had 8 or more appearance in that stretch. 71 have had less.
I did not have time to assemble number of wins over the 10 year stretch
5 year sample tournament appearances
The average number of NCAA Tournament appearances among all current Power 5 conference members over the last 5 seasons is 2.17. The standard deviation is 1.70. The median was 2.
For the P5+BA, the average is 2.12. The standard deviation was 1.66. The median was 2.
Pitt has had 3 appearances. 37 other schools among the 86 total P5-BA had 3 or more appearances. 48 have had less.
5 year sample tournament wins
The average number of NCAA Tournament wins over the last 5 seasons (2012-2016 through 1st round) among all current Power 5 conference members is 3.05. The standard deviation is 4.03. The median is 1.
For the P5+BA, the average is 2.73. The standard deviation is 3.67. The median was 1.
Pitt has had 1 win. 45 other schools among the 86 total P5+BA have had one or more win. 40 have had less.
Factoid: during this 5 year period through yesterday's results, 13 programs have 57% of all tournament wins collected by the P5+BA. Those programs are (in no particular order) UNC, Louisville, Duke, Syracuse, Kansas, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, Arizona, Kentucky, Florida, and UConn.
Seriously? We hire a new coach and he gets to the tourney "only once in a while" and this board would explode just like now.
In the last 5 years he was above average in one criteria and below in the other right?
Why do you do this?
45 schools had more win 41 had less that's below average.
You aren't worth it I officially putting you on ignore.
Congrats the list has grown to 2
You have an awfully strange definition of mediocrity. I'll hand it to you, though, you are consistent across all sports. If your team doesn't win the NCAA in football and basketball, the World Series in MLB, the Super Bowl in the NFL or the Stanley Cup in the NHL, the team is mediocre or sucks.
Pretty miserable way to watch sports if you ask me, but to each his own I guess.
