What? Jamie is a better coach than at least 90% of the current ACC coaches, and he has a solid character. Unlike some of these jackasses that pose as coaches. He may have had Pitt in the NIT for a year or 2, but right back in the NCAAT in short order, as long as he didn't listen to boosters (one in particular that owns a trucking firm) and the administration. He never made excuses, and we all know what we have now....the King of excuse makers.
Would you be happy with Dixon’s TCU results from Pitt?
- Thread starter BballinsiderfromPitt
- Start date
What? Jamie is a better coach than at least 90% of the current ACC coaches, and he has a solid character. Unlike some of these jackasses that pose as coaches. He may have had Pitt in the NIT for a year or 2, but right back in the NCAAT in short order, as long as he didn't listen to boosters (one in particular that owns a trucking firm) and the administration. He never made excuses, and we all know what we have now....the King of excuse makers.
I wonder if Jamie would come back. I am pretty sure he and his new AD don't get along great and even though he's going to the NCAAT this year, he isn't super popular there.
Hindsight is 20/20. The league was a lot better 3 years ago than it was today. The NIT for a year or two following a 5 year decline would probably have gotten him fired. And although I don't think it's right, there comes a point where just making the tournament isn't good enough.
One huge black mark on Jamie that became impossible to overlook going forward was his record in the NCAA tourney. He was HC at Pitt for 13 years and he only made it past the 1st weekend 3 times. Even his teams that had single digit losses struggled to have any success in the tourney. Once the double digit loss seasons became routine, the casual fan lost interest & lost hope. I don't think even the die-hards thought Jamie was capable of making another deep run in the tourney. Once you arrive at that conclusion, and see the general apathy that had set in, the risk/reward of making a change becomes more justifiable. It rarely works out very well, but at that point, I guess boosters figure what the hell?
When Jamie was at Pitt, his record for his last 5 years was:
2011-12 22-17
2012-13 24-9 NCAAT
2013-14 26-10 NCAAT
2014-15 19-15 NIT
2015-16 21-12 NCAAT
So other than 2014-15 at 19-15, he had us with at least 21 wins each year. We were in the NCAAT 11 of his 13 years here. Capel's best pipe dream at Pitt would be to win half of his games let alone get more than 21 wins every year but one. If he gets to double digits wins this year it will be a miracle. This fallacy of Dixon's last 5 years being down years is total bulll$hit. I know that's the narrative of the Dixon bashers, but it's false.
In 2011-12, Pitt was 17-16 heading into the CBI. That team went 5-13 in Big East play.
2012-13 was a nice bounce back year, but Pitt was blown out in the first round of the NCAA by Wichita State.
2013-14, Pitt destroyed Colorado in the first round of the NCAAT, and were soundly beaten by Florida in the second round.
2014-15, 8-10 in ACC play with a bid to the NIT.
2016 ended with an ugly first round defeat to Wisconsin. (9-9 in ACC play)
I think Dixon's haters took it way too far by wanting him gone, but I wouldn't say it's total bullshit to say that Dixon's last 5 years were down relative to where Pitt basketball had been most of the previous decade. The trend was downward. The fan base had become apathetic.
If Dixon stayed it would have been very similar to the Syracuse trajectory. Was a top team in the big east and now an also ran in the ACC being mid pack with a shot at the tourny every few years. still better than where we are now but lower than the big east days.
I would’ve been fine with this. It then shows we are committed to hoops and a coach and we attract a better coach when he or we finally move on.
Gallagher shouldn't get a pass since he was very involved with Barnes. He was persuaded at the time and caved to certain boosters. Jamie got a raw deal. Those boosters got what they deserved but us loyal fans are suffering and its unfortunate.
Only Dixon never had anywhere near the success as SU. Since Pitt's last #1 seed flame out when they lost to Butler in the second round, Boeheim has taken Syracuse to 2 Final Fours, 1 Elite 8, and 2 Sweet 16s.
Boeheim's results are far superior to anything Jamie accomplished in his first 8 years at Pitt when the program was at its peak.
I was happy the way things where, the best times where the successful BET runs and championships, to me the BET was more important and fun than the NCAAs. I didn't really want Dixon to go.
The frustrating thing to me of watching those teams, was how they never did anything different, not even for a minute! Like they never pressed full court, NEVER, not even down 10, and they ALWAYS waited until the end of the shot clock EVERY TIME to put up a shot, passing on open looks, it did at times get a little boring.
🤔 so this guy supposedly forced out Dixon, but then was ok with Gallagher hiring Stallings???? 🤨
Make it make sense.
He left the replacement up to Barnes, who was hoping he could get his little shuffle. Barnes screwed Pitt by dropping the buyout. TCU wasn't going to pay it. The donor just waved a big check at Gallagher, who then got out of the way.
I meant to type Barnes, not Gallagher.
Dixon moving on wasn't the issue, nothing lasts forever. Hiring Stallings was the problem.
But if you push out the much better Dixon, you need to hire a replacement. Well, we've had a horrible 6 years because OUR Gallagher interfered.....after effing SP screwed around with Dixon's staff. You might recall the fabulous job Slice did for Pitt after SP forced him on Dixon?? Or have you just conveniently forgot that?
So we have a donor wanting a change, Pitt willing to lower the buyout, and TCU not willing to pay the full buyout amount. Does that tell you anything?
The people that said Pitt would flop if Jamie left were proven right. The people that said Pitt basketball was going nowhere in the future with Jamie at the helm, ...based on what he's done at TCU, I'd say those people were also right.
You have NO idea what Dixon might have done. He did pretty well with the team he inherited at TCU.....and now is doing well with a young squad, while we are possibly the WORST team in the P6.
And Barnes was happy to screw Pitt with the buyout because he put his little "deal" with Turner. Care to compare TCU vs Pitt's record since Dixon left?? We're faced with at least 4 more years of failure.....in a weaker league.
Last edited:
No, he lives in a hospital for the criminally insane. They had to get him out from under his bridge so he wouldn't hurt himself. It must be difficult for him to type with a straight jacket and handcuffs on. It's a waste of time trying to reason with a brainless idiot with no useful purpose to his miserable life.
Last edited:
I know what Dixon did his last 5 years at Pitt & I know the trajectory. That wasn't cutting it. Fans were losing interest and the empty seats at the Pete spoke volumes.
I know he is 38-57 in Big 12 play and has ONE NCAA tourney win in the last decade. He's a decent coach, but nothing special. There is absolutely nothing in his resume that suggest he is.
Best record in BE history, Pitt history since WWII. How have his successors done in the ACC....a weaker league? You're entitled to your opinion....but cherry-picking stats is open to rebuttal.
And he keeps referencing that false stat about the last 5 years. That's a fallacy and been proven factually wrong numerous times, yet he keeps up with the false narrative to slam Dixon.
That's all well and good, but the best years were well in the rear view mirror & they weren't coming back. That was obvious.
ONE NCAA Tourney win in a decade isn't exactly cherry picking a stat. That's over half the guy's career (the most recent half)
He has 18 years of head coaching experience and he's made it past the first weekend of the tourney 3 times. It is what it is.
Generally speaking I agree. It's certainly fair to suggest that it was better that Dixon moved on. But I think Barnes thought just about "anyone" could replicate Dixon's success, and he made a terrible selection. A selection EVERYONE (well except maybe one guy
) knew was a choice bad from the moment he was rumored. It was a selection where Barnes could save about a million per year. But this selection truly underestimated how difficult sustained hoops success is here. Even just the success we had in Dixon's last four years was difficult to attain, we now know.
It's not fair to suggest that it was better if Dixon moved on. The reality is, that suggestion is the height of idiocy and people that continue to beat that drum live in an alternative reality.Generally speaking I agree. It's certainly fair to suggest that it was better that Dixon moved on. But I think Barnes thought just about "anyone" could replicate Dixon's success, and he made a terrible selection. A selection EVERYONE (well except maybe one guy
If someone watches college basketball any decent amount (and I don't mean just turning on CBS in late March), even if they just watched Dixon's worst teams, and also has watched other teams and programs (not just named Kentucky and Duke) for any length of time, and also as a sliver of understanding about the landscape and cyclical nature of college basketball, and how rare good coaching is, and how rare sustained success on Pitt's level was, and they wanted Dixon gone, well, then they are just some type of magnificent moron that I can't wrap my head around. The fact someone still argues that point 6 losing seasons later takes it to a whole new level for which there certainly is no clinical explanation.
Last edited:
I never would have fired Jamie. can’t say I wasn’t glad he moved on. Stallings would not have been my choice.Generally speaking I agree. It's certainly fair to suggest that it was better that Dixon moved on. But I think Barnes thought just about "anyone" could replicate Dixon's success, and he made a terrible selection. A selection EVERYONE (well except maybe one guy
I believe a requirement of the coaching search was a sitting, successful, ACC level coach. No assistants. No mid majors. That being the case, the Stallings hire was not ridiculous. Wrong, but clearly not ridiculous.
My opinion and sticking to it.
Last edited:
Stallings was in the way down. He most certainly did an admirable job at Vandy for a while. Not a bad coach. I think it was DT that said wrong man wrong time here.
His last team had 2 1st round picks (Baldwin and Jones) and Kornet who had a few stints in the NBA. Got in at large and they lost in the first 4 (I prefer play in). He may have already been checked out until the Pitt job fell into his lap.
His last team had 2 1st round picks (Baldwin and Jones) and Kornet who had a few stints in the NBA. Got in at large and they lost in the first 4 (I prefer play in). He may have already been checked out until the Pitt job fell into his lap.
Everyone knew that Stallings was a horrible replacement from the get go. My heart skipped a beat when I saw his name on ESPN ticker. I was like WTF.
And what are you talking about with Slice. He came to Pitt with Howland. Are you saying that Dixon didn't want him on his staff?
Generally speaking I agree. It's certainly fair to suggest that it was better that Dixon moved on. But I think Barnes thought just about "anyone" could replicate Dixon's success, and he made a terrible selection. A selection EVERYONE (well except maybe one guy
The whole situation has been horribly mismanaged. This is what usually happens when boosters meddle too much.
1) Moving on from Dixon when they did was absolutely a mistake. I don't know if they knew what the realistic list of candidates would be or not, but they should have give Dixon a chance to work Pitt out of the malaise the program was in. And Dixon had earned that much from Pitt. Pitt should have supported Dixon and kept him as long as he was hanging around .500 in the conference and getting to the tourney. Stick with the guy until the pendulum swings a little more decisively one way or the other. If he goes on a tourney run, or busts through that middle of the pack ACC status he was stuck in, you extend him. If he fails to make the tourney, then make a change.
2) When you make the change, you need to bring in someone other than a veteran coach about to be nudged out also struggling just to make the tourney. That is utterly senseless & the backlash is understandable.
3) If you do go through an ill-advised (or ill-timed) coaching change, you don't make a another one after only 2 years. You give your coach a chance to succeed. Unless there is a scandal, inappropriate behavior, or you can replace them with a far more accomplished resume, it's best to ride it out.
4) When you make a coaching change after 2 years, don't replace that person with another retread.
Allow me to rephrase, because that statement doesn't quite sum up how I feel.
In no way do I think we should have WANTED to Dixon to move on. It is ridiculous to think a coach who went to 11 of 13 NCAA tournaments should be asked to move on. I fought that point against a larger contingent of the board the night Pitt lost to Wisconsin in the tournament.
Is it possible to suggest that Dixon's ability to be successful had fallen off? Well sure. Or maybe he would have picked things up and put them back where he once was with us previously. We can never know. But I've come to realize some things. 13 years is a long time for a coach, and yes, for some teams and coaches, a parting of the ways can help. Or in our case, it can also lead to disaster.
Another thing I've come realize is what a really good friend of Dixon told me one year after Jamie left. I remarked something along the lines of Dixon having moved into a good situation at TCU. His reply I will never forget: "Oh ... Jamie didn't want to leave Pittsburgh." So I've come to take that to mean that he just didn't want to work under Barnes and the new Chancellor.
If you were OK with Dixon leaving because you thought he was losing his mojo as a head coach, I can't understand why you would support a replacement who clearly had lost his mojo even more.
Generally speaking I agree. It's certainly fair to suggest that it was better that Dixon moved on. But I think Barnes thought just about "anyone" could replicate Dixon's success, and he made a terrible selection. A selection EVERYONE (well except maybe one guy
Yes, I think it's fair to suggest that it's better that Dixon moved on, especially for Dixon. He got himself in a much better situation as it turns out. But from a Pitt perspective, it's all speculation if it was better that he moved on. Who knows where we'd be right now if Dixon was still here. Certainly better than where we are, but no one knows just how much better.
And how would Dixon get along with Lyke? I tend to think he'd get along with her a lot better than with Barnes.
Absolutely the wrong man at the wrong time and place.
I think place was the most determinant.
Here's where you lost me ... "... work Pitt out of the malaise the program was in."
What we are in NOW is a "malaise."
Making the NCAA tournament 3 out of 4 years is NOT a malaise.
Jamie didn't want to leave Pittsburgh. That is a fact. If he was working for Lyke and some other Chancellor other than Gallagher, he might still be here.
I’m assuming this “you” is general in nature. Because I remember that night the news broke that Stallings was the guy. Quite well. And I was one who was melting down (relatively speaking).
What Pitt is now is a pathetic bottom feeder.
On what planet is a 45-45 conference record, barely making the tourney 3 of his last 5 years (sent packing after an horrible tourney showing) not a malaise.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
OT: Poker player loses $100,000 in less than 1 minute!
- Latest: Zeldas Open Roof