To those firing Dixon....
- Thread starter drunkinoakland
- Start date
Maybe his response demonstrates that making a change with Dixon is a slippery slope. Sure, Pitt could take the risk. As demonstrated, the chances a new coach would do better are not greater than the results Dixon has had over the last 5 years. Barnes appears to be a savvy guy and he was the head of the Selection Committee fairly recently. Regardless of all the angst here, he's not making a change right now.
I say this all the time - if there was a magic formula for picking a successful coach, everyone would do it. But there isn't. Just ask UCLA - a program that has the money and cache that Pitt can't even sniff. Think they're just a little regretful dumping Howland? Pitt isn't Rutger's. We are a very respectable program. I just don't see Barnes making a change.
Actually that is incorrect statistically.
That is incorrect. 45 other schools had one or more wins....[follow up] which was actually incorrect, should have been 54.
Edit: hold on...I need to check that excel count.
Last edited:
That's why I offered the median. It doesn't appear to be a normal distribution so the median is likely more reflective.
I'm going to repost this because the >= inclusion is difficult to interpret.
Yep, I tend to agree. The average is jacked up by several schools with a ton of wins. Pitt would firmly be in the tier just below that even the last 5 years.
Reposted for the some number fixes and clarifications on the win distributions. Apologies for the issues in the earlier post. I'm also adding historical information.
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 than 3, 16 schools including Pitt had 3 appearances, 22 had more than 3.
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. 54 other schools among the 86 total P5+BA have had one or more win: 32 have had less than one, 14 schools including Pitt had one win, 40 had more than one win.
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.
Historical (through 2014-15)
Pitt has the 42nd best all-time winning % among the 86 P5+BA programs.
PItt has the 33rd most AP Poll appearances among the 86 P5+BA programs.
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 than 3, 16 schools including Pitt had 3 appearances, 22 had more than 3.
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. 54 other schools among the 86 total P5+BA have had one or more win: 32 have had less than one, 14 schools including Pitt had one win, 40 had more than one win.
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.
Historical (through 2014-15)
Pitt has the 42nd best all-time winning % among the 86 P5+BA programs.
PItt has the 33rd most AP Poll appearances among the 86 P5+BA programs.
Last edited:
He went over the last 5 years? When evaluating Dixon are we only able to look at the last game?
Gotten us into the Tourney? Ask an NCSU, UCLA, Florida, Oklahoma St, etc., fan how they're feeling.
His performance in the last 6 years has been average at best!
As far as the NCAA tourney goes PITT is like the kid who just barely gets in the college of his choice and flukes out in year 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look at all the stats you like this is the reality of PITT basketball:
- 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 we used to be almost unbeatable at the Pete
- season ticket holders not renewing season tickets
- 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
You can thru out all the stats/HISTORY you want but the reality of the situation is a lot of PITT basketball fans aren't real happy.
This was a great program,its now in decline, and the HC seems to be doing the same thing over and over again.
Lets see some progress!
Last edited:
Even if Pitt would have won yesterday the sad truth is that the basketball being played by Pitt just isn't very good the last few years. Had Adams and Birch stayed had JJMoore ,Epps ,JJohnson etc been players there's plenty of excuses but the truth is that the level of ball being played has slipped as has the quality of players .Transfers ,recruiting failures whatever your excuse is Pitt needs to find a way to recruit better players. ( duh ) for the style of ball that made Pitt a school no one wanted to play. Chasing elite players is ok if your landing one every couple of years ,but their not. Go find a 6'6" center whose a beast ( Blair type ) that's getting overlooked by the big boys , an undersized guard that quicker than hell , a kid who needs a pick but can shoots the lights out ,everyone knows who the top guys are great scouts find great players that are being overlooked and aren't the assistants really scouts. Pitt needs to reevaluate how they evaluate players to recruit and they need to identify kids they can get who fit their style not kids they wish they could land.
Great post!
Get some of what you suggested done and that would go a long way to re-filling the seats at the Pete!
This would be progress instead of doing "whatever" we're doing which isn't working!
There are about 3 more pages in ths thread, so I have no idea what has been said since this particular post was made by phatwood. Perhaps the points I will make have already been posted and discussed. But, I will make them anyway.
It is NOT utterly wrong to think Pitt cannot attract a great coach.
* Pitt is not a particularly attractive position.
Doke has us just above the halfway point in the ACC, slightly above ND, WF and GT. That rating is based upon high rankings for expenditures, 10 year program history, facilities and a tie for the worst ranking in recruiting area. If Dixon's big contract is discarded, expenditures fall from high to the bottom half. And, as the critics on this forum are fond of pointing out, our brand is sinking fast from where it was 5 years ago.
*We have a long history of being turned down by established basketball coaches, long before SP. Rollie Massimino used us to get a raise from Nova. We ended up taking a gamble on an almost unknown guy from the Big Sky conference who had been turned down by CS-Irvine and UCSB, not exactly basketball powerhouses. The OTHER top candidate was the immortal Bobby Gonsales. When Ben took the UCLA offer and ran with it, Skip Prosser also used us to get a raise. We couldn't get any interest from an established coach and took another gamble on an assistant, Jamie Dixon. Given the returning roster and our place in the BE packing order in 2003 vs the same in the ACC today, we were arguably a more attractive job THEN.
*Based on recent history, and Dixon's national reputation, it is quite likely the position would be even less attractive to great coaches than we think.
Coaches have their own unofficial fraternity. When a well-regarded guy is forced out, there is no rush of attractive candidates to fill the job. . The offending school often has to lower their sights and overpay to replace him. We've seen this with UCLA and Howland and Minnesota with Tubby Smith.
* There are MAJOR financial issues which stand in the way.
The maket for great coaches starts at or above Dixon's current pay. And that is moving into ATTRACTIVE jobs. And, also without the residual drag 7 more years of the current contract would create. We are still bleeding red ink as an Athletic Department, subsidizing minor sports at about $8MM, and with the basketball ticket sales and revenues plummeting. MAYBE if a Stanford paid the buyout, a competitive offer could be made, but not if Pitt is paying millions for the next 7 years.
* It is very doubtful we have the institutional commitment to spend for a great coach, even if a) one is available who would take the job and b) funds were available.
When we moved to hire a new football coach, replacing a very bland and unproven coach who truly did deliver mediocre results, essentially .500 W/L records, not 20 win seasons, we did NOT seek a great coach, or even pay market value for a Dan Mullin, who had moderate success in a top league.
We took a gamble and hired a well regarded assistant from a decent program, at about half of market value of an established Top 20 coach. Narduzzi may turn out to be a fine coach, but is far from a great coach at this time.
It's not impossible that Pitt could take a gamble and catch lightning in a bottle again with a successful mid-major coach. But, it's not particularly likely. Duquesne has been trying this for 30 years. Or more. It's far from a sure thing. The odds are Dixon is and will remain better than whoever we bring in.
Hey, it is very possible that both Pitt and Dixon might benefit from a change of scenery. It worked for Virginia and Miami. But, not nearly so well for Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, NC State and Boston College.
I'm guessing our upside on a move is more likely a Roy Chipman thsn a Howland or Dixon. And it could be much worse.
Last edited:
Dude. The only person calling people names and attacking opinions is you. Its like clock work. Every week you do the exact same thing. Whoever you don't agree with. Its weird man
If there is anybody thats becoming unhinged its you. Take a sleeping pill or something.
I'm tired of hearing the recruiting location. Philly, the best basketball city in america ain't far. Pittsburgh is on the rise they claim. Cleveland and DC are so close.
And I'm tired of people like you ignoring the fact that in philly, dc, and NYC that we have to go up against Syracuse, uconn, Villanova, Maryland, Virginia, duke, unc, and that is only the major programs. It doesn't include the secondary schools that still get good players like seton hall, st joes, temple, and so forth.
Pittsburgh might as well be Chicago or Detroit to someone from Philly. To people in NYC and Philly, the perception is that Pittsburgh is in the midwest, and now, Pitt doesn't regularly play in or anyone from what is considered the east coast to those living in DMV to NYC corridor.
We lost one of our major recruiting angles and pipelines when we left the Big East, and we have not adjusted well.
Maryland leaving the ACC may have hurt Pitt more than anyone else in the conference.
Im sure Paco will speak for himself. But I read this board pretty regularly. And often times I ask myself why. In any event I could count on one hand (and probably not fill it up) the number of people who don't think there are some serious problems.
It seems that any time someone wants to see Dixon stick around that somehow translates to everything is ok. And that's not the case.
Based on the standard that Howland and then Dixon have set at Pitt the past 15 years, there are problems because Pitt has dropped back to the middle of the pack of the college basketball world and that doesn't satisfy anyone that is part of, or associated with, the current program, fans included. Everyone has gotten a taste of a better life, and there is nothing wrong with wanting that back or expressing concern of the trend of the program.
Whether the problems are defined as serious or not depends on your definition of serious on a couple different levels. There were serious problems in Pitt's program in 1985, 1993 and 1999. Based on where the program was last year and this year, going out in the 1st round of the NCAAs, even in the ugly fashion that we did, is neither surprising nor should be considered a serious problem unless things persist or worsen. However, no soothsayers on this board can guarantee either, myself included.
The current problems can be resolved without blowing everything up, which isn't going to happen in the near term anyway. Blowing things up can itself lead to a real mess as anyone that has ever followed or studied Pitt football can attest. If a downward trend for the program continues over the next few seasons, then things will change.
That said, recruiting absolutely needs to be upgraded, and that likely means some staff turnover. We need to get our identity back, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the UVA-like identity because all it did was churn out wins. It's disconcerting that the qualities that defined Pitt...its mental toughness... its ownership of most improved player awards... have seemingly evaporated. We don't have to load up with McDonald's All-Americans, not that a few wouldn't hurt, but we to get back to stocking up with kids that play with chips on their shoulder and know how to work and just win.
When you put yourself in a position to compete for conference championships in Big East or ACC, you are going to give yourself a good chance to compete for national championships regardless of high school pedigree. None of that regular season success guarantees squat in a one-and-done format, but all you can do is put yourself in that position as often as possible and hope things align. The absolute best case scenario for Pitt would be for Dixon gets us back to seriously competing for conference titles on a regular basis and thus maintain the stability and linkage of the program. Barnes will be monitoring the situation, and if a transition ever is needed, we've got an AD in place that is very keyed into the basketball community and possesses the requisit experience to handle this as well as it could be.
No one on this board, myself included, knows more about what is going on in college basketball or more about what is going on with Pitt's program right now than Scott Barnes. One hopes that means that he'll be successful in overseeing the program no matter what changes are in store for it in the future. And frankly, as fans, hoping is essentially all you can do.
Last edited:
I hope Del hold himself to these same type of standards in his life and job but for some odd reason I doubt it. He is I want so it should happen with not thought to the reality of the situation.
I don't know how anyone who isn't a Purdue fan complains about their head coach. Any complaint anyone makes about Dixon, Matt Painter is about 10x worse. That guy wastes so much talent with his awful coaching. He seriously tried running an offense without a PG the other day, and it was a colossal failure.
