Having thought about Pitt's success over the past 15 years the formula was to recruit
4 and 5 year players, develop them and win with experienced if not always the most talented players.
Recently we seem to have gone to bringing in transfers and J c's in increasing numbers.
While I think I understand the theory it just doesn't seem to work in Pitt's system. Pitt plays a very
"system" oriented game unlike many schools that play more playground oriented systems.
Trying to get kids to fit in the "Pitt" system in 1 or two years doesn't seem to work.
As I can recall the only two players that transferred in that really contributed was Ontario Lett and
Jermaine Dixon. I am sure I am forgetting someone but the results have not been favorable.
I do realize that transferring has become much more prevalent in recent years but that shouldn't be an excuse.
We used to get kids that wanted to learn and grow and would wait their turn. I think identifying those type kids
are just as important today as when Howland started.
I think Pitt's best chances of winning are with experienced kids that grow up in the system. It does not mean
you don't recruit the best kids available but Pitt is not going to attract too many one and dones unless there is
some really unusual circumstance like Adams or a local kid like Blair ( 2 and done).
Different approaches by different schools is what makes college basketball so interesting.
Pitt needs to stick to the system that brought us to prominence. Two year players are just not going to get it done.
4 and 5 year players, develop them and win with experienced if not always the most talented players.
Recently we seem to have gone to bringing in transfers and J c's in increasing numbers.
While I think I understand the theory it just doesn't seem to work in Pitt's system. Pitt plays a very
"system" oriented game unlike many schools that play more playground oriented systems.
Trying to get kids to fit in the "Pitt" system in 1 or two years doesn't seem to work.
As I can recall the only two players that transferred in that really contributed was Ontario Lett and
Jermaine Dixon. I am sure I am forgetting someone but the results have not been favorable.
I do realize that transferring has become much more prevalent in recent years but that shouldn't be an excuse.
We used to get kids that wanted to learn and grow and would wait their turn. I think identifying those type kids
are just as important today as when Howland started.
I think Pitt's best chances of winning are with experienced kids that grow up in the system. It does not mean
you don't recruit the best kids available but Pitt is not going to attract too many one and dones unless there is
some really unusual circumstance like Adams or a local kid like Blair ( 2 and done).
Different approaches by different schools is what makes college basketball so interesting.
Pitt needs to stick to the system that brought us to prominence. Two year players are just not going to get it done.
