Sunday, March 17, 2013

Panthers get an 8 seed

I was thinking they would get a 7 seed but I'm not surprised that they got an 8 seed because of their usual out of conference schedule which was once again embarrassing.

The Panthers will play in Salk Lake City and will play the 9 seed, the Wichita Shockers.  I think the chances of Pitt winning that one are 50/50, but even if they win, they aren't getting past the second round since they will have to play No.1 seed Gonzaga.

97 comments:

  1. Horrible number8

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow.. an 8 seed...
    Gonzaga as 2nd game...
    Clearly no Sweet 16 this year although many think Zags are over-rated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am not at all confident Pitt win the first game.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Playing in Salt Lake City...
    Last time Pitt played in Salt Lake... they were top team... forget which seed... but 4 seed I believe. This was before they started putting teams nearby for 1st weekend.
    Pitt lost 1st game...
    The plane had to divert due to snow... they spent a night in an airport doing a dryrun to game... got in a few hours before gametime... and Lost.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Two things:

    1) Pitt's continued pathetic OOC bites them again. Maybe it's time for Jamie Dixon to stop scheduling like a wuss.

    2) I think Pitt's failures in the NCAA tournament also bit them. The committee isn't going to give them preferred seeds anymore because they've been fooled so many times.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let's put all the past success/failure behind us ... let's show everyone what we can do .. forget about the #8 .. play well, win each game and continue on. No excuses! Hail to Pitt!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am shocked we got an 8, but i will say this could be interesting. Wich State is not a hgh power offense and I think we match up well against them. They do not have any great shooters and i think we can win. I think Gonzaga is a good team, but not a great team and I Think if Adams can come up big on the D side of the ball we have a pretty good shot at this. I just hope we do not run into Wisc. if we do pull the upset.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Joe D Pitt was an 8th seed and lost to Pacific, a 9th seed

    Just read that by Thursday, Pitt will have only played 3 games in 23 days which is worrisome since they looked pretty rusty in 1st half vs Cuse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually I believe Pitt was the 9,Pacific the 8

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  9. @SBEN

    - Can't argue with number 2, definitely think it played a part.

    - As for number 2, I think this played a part as well but I wouldn't call it pathetic as Pitt played preseason top 5 UM real tough at a neutral court, was supposed to get a game for Big East/SEC challenge (some people thought it was Kentucky), and was supposed to get either UVA or K State for the second NIT Game.

    - Thought Pitt deserved a 6 seed, would have understood a 7 seed, think they got jobbed with the 8 seed though.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I guess tournament committee is tired of Paul Evans and his schedule. So am I.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What has happened in the past is supposedly irrelevant.
    They were a 1 seed the last time they played in the tournament.

    I would agree that the OOC schedule probably did not help.

    BTW, I think that travel saga Joe was talking about was in Boise, not Salt Lake.

    Not convinced Gonzaga is an automatic loss.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Everyone is already talking about Gonzaga as if it is a foregone conclusion that this Pitt team will win their first round game. I don't get it. There have been many games where they have just not shown up ready to play (like the last one against Syracuse) and I am not going to be surprised to see them do it again. I hope they win but going into the BET I was telling my friends that I expected them to lose their next two games and unfortunately I think that will be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Looking at the OCC schedule, that was one lousy schedule.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The non-conference schedule is an utter joke.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ESPN 30 n 30 documentaries... they do a great job.
    Story on NCState of 1983 was well done.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just win! That is all ask! I dont care how it's done. Just do it. No more excuses. Win! H2P!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pitt lost to Pacific in Boise, not SLC.

    As far as I can recall, we've never played in SLC, at least not since the program's resurgence began under Howland. Football yes, not hoops.

    Otherwise, I'dda driven there from Denver to watch the games.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the East Coast, we see little difference in Boise and SLC ... although there really is (about 350 mi)

      Delete
  18. It's not a good day for the Dixon lovers. A big dose of reality hits them in the face. They're bitching about the 8 seed but in Pitt's very last outing the team performed the same way it has throughout the season. Out of it for a half, on fire the other half. 50/50 in a sixteen team bracket equals 8. Bingo. I wonder what Dixon is going to tell his team this week to prepare. I'm rooting for Pitt but the collapse of Dixon's team as a 1 seed the second time was a bitter lesson. Let's see if Dixon can coach some wins now. We already he know he has many, many excuses for a loss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yahoo's Pat Forde spanked Pitt...
      Seems Dixon history at the tournament is why they got a low seed this year. Check out the quotes below from the article.

      Pittsburgh (26). Underperforming in the tournament is a proud Panthers tradition.

      Jamie Dixon (34), Pittsburgh. He's had a pair of No. 1 seeds, plus several other teams seeded highly in the tourney. But the Panthers have a long, painful history of falling short of the final weekend.

      Delete
  19. #8 Seed...
    Goes to show... rpi ranking has more weight than bpi, etc.
    Pitt had RPI of 44.
    The bpi and sagarins factor in point spread.... so when Pitt was beating up the non-conf schedule with large point wins... rpi said so what.
    Dixon is aware of non-conf schedule on seeding/ranking of lessons learned in previous seasons... but this year he wasn't sure of the team due to last year and was trying to get 20 wins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no, I think the issue was they swung and missed on guessing which mid majors would finish near the top of their conference and thus have decent RPI's. They've done a better job in previous years.


      To show you the flaw in rpi, consider: whom would you rather see Pitt play, Northwestern, Detroit, or Mount St Marys? Most here would say Northwestern, but NW's rpi (168) is worse than the two "cupcakes" (64 and 121, respectively).

      And again, previous year's results have NO BEARING on current seeding. None.
      Last time Pitt was in the tourney, they were a 1 seed. You telling me the NCAA bumped them down to an 8 seed because they lost to the eventual runner-up?

      Delete
    2. It's not the previous results. It's the past 10 years of previous results. Pitt has been one of, if not the most underachieving teams in the tournament over the last decade and that definitely makes a difference in seeding.

      Delete
    3. I would argue, Doke, that Pitt has been one of the most OVER-achieving teams in the regular season, leading to higher seeds that their talent has necessarily warranted. IMHO, Dixon usally has gotten the most out of his talent.

      Delete
    4. So again, how did Pitt get a 1 seed last time in? The previous eight years obviously didn't impact them then.

      You mean the committee is finally sticking it to them after losing to the runner-up that year?
      That makes no sense.

      Delete
    5. Well, you're the only one that thinks that because it's already been stated many times, from many people, since yesterday. As for the No.1 seed, like I said, it's a cumulative effect, and that includes the last time that Pitt was a No.1 seed and failed. Pitt has reached critical mass when it comes to people believing in them.

      Delete
    6. Whom? Internet posters who know little, or television talking head too lazy to do research?

      It's easy for someone on TV to claim past performances, because it doesn't take much effort. But the NCAA committee has said repeatedly it's not a factor. I'll take their word over some ESPN analyst.

      The more likely culprit was OOC schedule and the resultant rpi from it.

      Delete
    7. So basically anybody who doesn't agree with you is wrong, including some of the most respected basketball writers in the country.

      Delete
    8. In this case, yes.

      Do I think they looked up Pitt's schedule at noticed the 7 sub-200 rpi teams? no

      Do I think they relied upon popular perception of Pitt's past tournaments, because it was the quick and easy thing to do? yep

      Has the NCAA Selection Committee ever said they look at past performances? no
      Have they denied that they do? yep

      Does it make sense that the last second loss to NCAA Tournament runner up Butler two years ago would be the one that forced the scale to tip? no

      Does Pitt's RPI of 43 fall in line with most other teams seeded in that range? yes
      If anything, Pitt was given a break. Their RPI is far lower than the other 8 seeds. And the teams around them got worse seeds.

      I have my evidence. When a selection committee member says they punished Pitt for past years, then I'll admit to being wrong.

      Delete
    9. I sort of agree with crackbaldo in that Pitt seems to overachieve in the regular season as opposed to underachieves in NCAAs.

      As far as seeding, I'm sure the OOC was a big factor but the selection committee has the have the past failures in their mind. They apply different criteria for different teams and situations ... heard a Feinstein editorial today on radio as to just how political the process is.

      Delete
    10. No, I'm pretty sure that losing to lower seeds from mid-major conferences make you an underachiever.

      Delete
    11. Pitt's tournament record is not good. But when you consider the way they played most of the time...losing in the last second to Villanova and Butler (Final Four teams)...it's hard to believe that that merits punishment.Also, when the selection committee says they emphasize RPI, we can believe them, but when they say that prior years' performance is not a factor, we cannot believe them?

      Delete
  20. I think they got what they deserved. That being said, I expect little but wouldn't be surprised if they make it to sweet 16. Also, finally me and Joe D agree on something, the 30 for 30 on NC State was wonderful. They also did one on the 86 Villanova team that was food as well. Come to think, I haven't seen a bad 30 for 30.

    ReplyDelete

  21. Time for Dixon to step up and steal a couple of wins with this team and its 7-foot center, according to many here a future NBA starter.

    After all, isn't pulling an upset every now and then what good coaching is all about?

    PittofDreams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dixon needs to get to Sweet 16 if he wants to quiet his critics.
      That said, article today quoting Patterson and tinkering of lineup. Patterson said he knows Dixon as well as his wife... said... starters/play time dependent upon how player is on defense.
      and you wonder why Dixon can't recruit offensive minded players.

      Delete
    2. I guess that explains the defections as well. Wonder how well this philosophy will work in the ACC.

      Delete
  22. It's surprising how combative the Dixon lovers are when it comes to any criticism of him. Going on other Pitt blogs and pointing out any negatives on Dixon (system, recruiting, tournament) and most people take it as a personal attack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Easy. Because most if it is uninformed and dimwitted.

      It's a broken record. The NCAA tournament. Yeah, we get it. Failing to realize that getting there as often as he has is a remarkable feat, something that only 7 or so schools can claim. Even more remarkable is that Pitt is not a blueblood school like Kansas, Duke, Kentucky.


      At least time it right. Do it after Pitt loses in the NCAA tournament. Not after Pitt loses in the Big East tournament after earning a double bye.

      Delete
  23. Jamie blew it with pre-season scheduling - agreed. The Big East also actively screwed them by leaving them out of the SEC challenge. But, what is so stupid about this is that the committee seems to value a win over a random decent team like, oh say, St. Joe's in non-con as better than hammering Georgetown on their homecourt, or whipping Cuse who was Top 10 at the time. Beating Nova 2x didn't count for anything for Pitt, and it certainly didn't hurt Nova who came out as well as Pitt w/o accomplishing much of anything and having some very bad losses as well. So, Jamie deserves some blame here, but c'mon. The committee intentionally took care of mid-majors. The guy who ran it is Xavier's AD. Is there any doubt he helped his future BE partners - Nova/Butler/GTown & Creighton certainly came out ok. A bunch of questionable mid-majors, such as LaSalle, slid in over big conference schools with better credentials. Let's not put all of the blame on Pitt and Jamie, although they deserve some. They deserved a better seed, based on what they accomplished this year and based on bids several lesser performing schools received.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All the 6 and 7 seeds have higher RPI than Pitt... Pitt has 43.
      #6 - Memphis - 12
      #7 - Creighton - 25
      #6 - Arizona - 15
      #7 - Notre Dame - 35
      #6 - UCLA - 26
      #7 - San Diego St - 30
      #6 - Butler - 22
      #7 - Illinois - 39
      So, the reason for Pitt 8 seed was primarily due to RPI which is directly attributed to weak Non-conf schedule and not winning enough games against better teams.... and a bad loss to Rutgers.
      Also add it Dixon past performance at NCAA of underachieving.... did not give committee enough to give Pitt a higher seed.

      Delete
    2. Who said RPI is the only stat used? The committee says they look at a host of things. Whatever happeneed to strength of conference? What happened to how strongly you finish? Pitt went from 1-3 to 12-6 (or 12-7, if you want) in the Big East. Pitt was ranked 20th after their loss to Cuse. No Big East team that finished in the top 4 of the conference has gotten such a low seed. Looking at one flawed factor and putting it all on that is short-sighted, and you know it. I know you do because your posts often have much deeper analysis. Creighton beat 0 top 25 teams (yes, 0!) and played in a weaker conference. Butler lost 3x to St. Louis, which is a great team. But, 3 losses to one team and still you get a 6. Butler got whipped by some mediocre A10 teams down the stretch. and faded badly down the stretch. UCLA didn't do much this year. IL was 8-10 in the B1G. They had some quality wins, but also some awful losses. Where are the awful losses for Pitt. SDSU's resume stinks. I can't believe you would defend all those teams on RPI alone. There is more to college hoops analysis than RPI. Pitt got jobbed. I know their OOC schedule did not help matters, but it doesn't change the fact that they deserved better. It is ok to be critical of Pitt, but it is also ok to stand up and say they and Oregon were treated the worst of any teams in March Madness.

      Delete
  24. Just win! I would love to see a game vs Zaga! If you win it will silence all the critics out there. Just win! H2P!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just read that USC has offered Dixon 2.5 million for 10 years. Not sure how true this is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it happens... my short list would be..
      - Shaka Smart
      - Brad Stevens
      - Steve Alford
      - Tommy Amaker

      Delete
    2. Really?? My short list would have exactly one name on it: Sean Miller.

      In fact, I wouldn't even make a Plan B list until Miller turned me down multiple times.

      Delete
    3. I was asked about this earlier today from another media guy and I said Miller, Howland if he gets fired, and Smart, then Alford a distant fourth. Obviously would love Stevens but he turns down everybody. It would be a coveted job but Pitt would have to pay. And just for the record I think there's a less than 10% chance that Dixon will leave. If USC actually makes a strong play than I think the chances go up to at least 30%.

      Delete
    4. I would have agreed with Howland as Plan B (presuming UCLA fires him) until I read that article last year (by SI? I forget whom) that really called him out on some terrible treatment of players & assistant coaches. Unsure how much (if any) was true, but it was very disconcerting.

      Made Mike Rice's recent shenanigans at Rutgers seem tame by comparison.

      Delete
    5. Tommy Amaker? You must be joking. He has been to about 4 schools. It seems that his wife becoming a school administrator is usually part of the deal. He seems to end up at snobby Ivy League or similar schools, and his track record is not all that great most years. Plus, he'll dictate to the Zoo how they can act. Bottom line is he's not a good enough coach for Pitt and he thinks he's too good for them.

      Delete
  26. About 40 years ago I remember my Sunday school teacher saying "in life, you usually get what you deserve." Or maybe, it was "you reap what you sow..." Either way, you get the point. I sat through those pathetic non conference games at the Pete, and at times, felt like I was being ripped off when I fel like the new castle high school team could have beaten some of those Oppenents. i also have had my heart broken for the past ten years as we continue to underachieve (doke is right) in the tournament (make that the past 25 years since I can remember exactly where I was when Charles smith and his pals as a #2 lost to Vanderbilt )

    Joe d is right that to quiet all the critics this is the year that Pitt needs to get to the sweet sixteen, and what a coming out party it would be to finally beat a higher seed who happens to be the number one team in the country.

    Get that win and everything from the previous 25 years is forgiven...

    Don't even get to that game and its, well, it's another long summer of watchin' the buccos...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This needs to be the year (singular, year?) they get to the Sweet 16? They've been to an Elite 8 recently, and actually were one great final shot by Nova of getting to the Final Four. They also made several Sweet 16's in the Howland/Dixon eras. We all know they've fallen short of expectations a few times. It is fine to say that. But, to act like they never win a tourney game is just not accurate. Expecting them to beat a #1 seed in their 2nd game in order to shut up their critics is asking a lot. So, the message is you better beat the #1 ranked team or you are losers? I don't think Pitt has ever performed well enough in basketball that they are a failure for not going over that hurdle. If they lose to WS, then it will be a big disappointment. And, if they beat WS then can beat Zaga afterward, it will have been a great accomplishment. If they go 1-1 this week, it will be as expected based on the seeding they received.

      Delete
  27. Howland is under fire at UCLA and he took a couple teams to the final four and NC game. Dixon gets a pass for not coming close to a elite eight except once. Pitt in my estimation will be a one or two and done. Now next year is the year that Dixon produces or go get someone who can actually take a good team to a final four. Do it while Pitt still has a good name in coaching circles. college coaching has never been about stability. It is about hiring a coach who can get you there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not defending Jamie's tourney disappointments, but I must have missed Ben Howland's Elite 8's and Final 4's while at Pitt. Do you think maybe it is a little easier drawing talent to UCLA? Do you also think it is a little easier to keep some of the huge volume of talent that lives within 20 miles of Pauley Pavilion there as well? Jamie continued to build upon what he and Ben started at Pitt, and he has actually done better at Pitt than Howland, overall. That doesn't mean he is the best coach in the country - only that he is accomplishing more than any previous coach at Pitt - and it isn't exactly a hotbed for hoops, nor did he have a great tradition. He owes much of his success to the momentum begun by Ben, but he has raised the bar. We all agree he needs to do better in March, but at least be fair about what has happened.

      Delete
    2. You're making a mistake by discounting Howland's accomplishments. He's the reason why Pitt is who they are right now. As for missing Howland's Final 4's or Elite 8's, Pitt was only a power for two years before he left. Dixon had ten years. Howland is the best thing to ever happen to Pitt, period, end of story.

      Delete
    3. Best thing that ever happened to Pitt, and then left immediately when he got a shot at something better. You are actually advocating they try to bring him back? He already ditched them once. I don't blame him for taking a plum job in his hometown, but it shows that Pitt is not #1 for him. Why would that change now? Jamie was here for Howland's entire run, so he deserves some small credit for it. Then, he took the job over as his first HC job, and has performed better overall than Howland at Pitt. I didn't rip Howland. Only pointed out the truth of what Dixon has maintained and built upon. He could not have done it w/o Howland's start, but he has done it on his own for a bunch of years now and he has passed up opportunities to leave often. People act like Jamie is some average coach. I get frustrated also that he doesn't get Top 20 talent, and by the grinding style of play he clings to. But not recognizing what he has done for Pitt shows some people don't understand the mediocre history of Pitt basketball. Howland was great, but what makes anyone think he would be any more loyal to Pitt the next time around? Coming back for a 2nd crack at the same school a decade+ later sounds like a mistake to me. They could shoot for someone like Smart.

      Delete
    4. I'm not advocating anything but he left for his dream school which is considered one of the top 5 or 6 jobs in the country. Anybody who didn't take that job under those circumstance is a complete idiot.

      As for Dixon, he is an excellent coach. Anybody who doesn't see that knows nothing about basketball. All I said was that Howland put Pitt on the map, pure and simple, and he also is an excellent coach.

      And if the job opened up, I would be shocked if Smart would take the job. He's probably going to get an ever better job.

      Delete
    5. Smart would wait for a better job than Pitt??
      I consider Pitt a Top 20 job for a college coach. The facilities, fans... now in ACC.
      Smart grew up in Wisky... went to a D3 in Ohio.

      Delete
    6. Pitt is probably considered around 20, but Smart may end up top 10, especially if he leads VCU to another great postseason. And if he does end up at Pitt, it probably wouldn't be long before he eventually ended up in top 10.

      Delete
    7. I guess it is all speculation because I'd say Jamie leaving is maybe a 30% chance. But, Smart would be the first guy I would go after. If that is aiming too high, so be it. Miller needs to be approached for certain. He has a great gig, but you'll never know if the opportunity to be the man at his alma mater is enough of a pull until you ask.

      Delete
  28. You guys are forgetting the asst. coach at Kentucky who is just waiting for the right job and he would come back to his old school. Plus he would fit in price range what the athletic director would want to pay. He has never been a head coach but is a great recruiter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He wasn't a great recruiter at Pitt. He's a great recruiter at Kentucky because its Kentucky and because of Calipari. I don't think Pitt would hire an assistant.

      Delete
    2. If they replaced Dixon with Antigua... I will be up in arms... that is a step backwards as he is an unknown.
      Pitt is a Top 20 coaching job.
      Its a promotion from a mid-major... not a 1st HC job for an unproven assistant. Antigua can go to Atlantic 10 but not one of the 6 major conferences for a HC job.

      Delete
    3. Zero chance. He's needs to pay his dues a lower conference.

      Delete
    4. Pitt's coaching hires are a real mystery. Recall we didn't think House would be DC. I can see them offering Antigua and save money.

      Delete
    5. That's two very different things. They aren't going to enter the ACC with an unknown basketball coach. And last time they tried to get Skip Prosser when Wake Forest was a power, and they almost got him.

      Delete
    6. If memory serves, the one & only reason that Prosser didn't come is that he wanted to know who his boss would be (which I think is smart, having worked for some terrible bosses myself...) and he knew Jeff Long was only an interim AD.

      In hindsight, with his untimely death, maybe it's a good thing we didn't secure him.

      Delete
    7. Too risky of a move to hire Antigua. Going to a new conference, while taking over your first program and completely changing the way the team is structured and plays. No way Pitt takes that chance. If he does well at a lower level job, he might get his shot at Pitt later if he wants it.

      Sendek is being talked up again, for what that's worth.

      Delete
  29. I am not for Dixon leaving, but the days of life long coaching at one college program just isn't reality. I think Dixon will have the horses to be a major force next year. Then it becomes a question of what exactly is the ceiling for Pitt as a program with Dixon. If the ADM is fine with NCAA mostly 2 and outs, then that's fine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With the amount of money Pitt invested in Basketball... 2 and out is unacceptable.
      As for next year, Pitt is the same (starters) team as this year except for Woodall.... so I don't expect a better result next year...
      Lack of depth at 4 and 5 next year.
      No real SG on the roster...
      I'd rather see JJ at the 3 instead of Patterson.

      Delete
    2. Of course Pitt will be better next year, as long as Adams stays out of the NBA Draft!

      Big men develop late anyway (let alone being 17 and living abroad for the first time). So Adams being a sophmore instead of a freshman will be a HUGE difference.

      However, if Adams goes? We'll have, what, two guys barely taller than 6'-8 (and one a true freshman to boot)? Sheesh, that'll be ugly.

      Delete
  30. On a football note...
    Saw that Dravon Henry narrowed down to 4 schools... Pitt, PSU, WVU, OSU. Not surprising.
    Quip pipeline to Pitt.... bet on that.

    ReplyDelete

  31. "Pitt has never beaten a higher seed in this golden age of Pitt basketball." - Post Gazette

    Write it down. If Pitt loses to Wichita State... it will NOT be your ordinary loss. The impact is going to be felt.

    PittofDreams


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pitt will not lose to Wichita State. Dixon has never lost to a lower seeded team in the first round.

      Delete
    2. How many higher seeds do Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan St, Louisville, Cuse, UCONN, UNC, etc. beat every year?

      Delete

    3. I would expect that Pitt with a bigger more athletic team will get by Wichita State. However, , a little reality check from today's Trib Review.

      "Under Dixon, the Panthers have never beaten a higher-seeded team. They've been upset three times by opponents seeded seven or more spots lower."

      PittofDreams

      Delete
  32. Good one anonymous. Unfortunately we all know too well the difficulty Pitt has had in the tournament, but have they really? My personal theory is that Pitt does not have a "higher" level to go to during the tournament. In order to be successful each year under JD, Pitt needs to play at their highest level every game in order to win during the regular season. As such, when madness occurs, they cannot shift into another gear and perform. That is what great teams and great players do.

    Pitt has not had that player yet. We cannot rely on one guy, yet. This is why the tournament is special. There are always one or two guys that make a big splash in the tournament and carry their respective teams to greatness. Pitt has not had that guy. Steve Adams and James Robinson can be those guys and that is why there is interest in these games. We are all waiting for some guy to elevate Pitt. Maybe this year, maybe not. That is why they play the games and that is why as fans, we watch. Unfortunately, we have had to watch a lot of car wrecks when it would have been easier to look away, we just can't. And that is why we are all fans. Good luck Pitt!

    ReplyDelete
  33. On the other hand, I heard a Pat Forde excerpt on the Dan Patrick show today saying he thinks Pitt will knock off Gonzaga. Which we certainly can (not saying we will, ask me after I see how we play Thursday -- if we survive).

    If Pitt plays Saturday like we did against Georgetown or in 'Cuse I, Gonzaga will go down. But if Pitt plays Thursday like we did vs. ND I (at home) or 'Cuse II, we'll be bounced out and on vacation come Saturday, instead watching Wichita State try their luck.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Oh my God...
    RMU beat Kentucky...
    RMU played tough and aggressive.
    Frankly, I thought Calipari beating down his team saying they lacked toughness... etc etc was poor for a coach to do. He been like that the past month.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked up Toole's bio...
      He is from Red Bank, NJ... went to CBA.
      He played Elon/UPenn... then coached at Hoop Group.
      Hoop Group puts on AAU basketball tournaments all over the East Coast (east of mississippi).. they also have their own AAU teams as well as conducting camps and clinics in Neptune, NJ.

      Anyway... the point... he can recruit... he has ties to every AAU coach/program!! Look at RMU's roster... 10 players from DC to CT corridor.
      Wonder where Toole will go after this season?

      Delete
  35. I hope pitt was paying attention to the Robert Morris game tonight. They shot 14/14 from the free throw line.

    That, my friends, is how u beat a higher seeded team. That guy for bob Morris knocking the two down with under a minute to play in a tie game was huge. A moment he will never forget.

    Be honest now, would u trust any Pitt player to do the same??? I didn't think so...

    ReplyDelete
  36. I do like levance fields to hit that shot Rich! LOL. Pitt plays aggressive and with heart all game Thursday and its a 59-55 game.Both teams are ugly offensively. I like steve adams in the second round match if we get that far.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I love when posters ignore cases that prove their stupid hyperbole wrong.

    There have been plenty of times, Rich, when players like Robinson have iced games at the FT line.

    And let's just ignore the 14 turnovers Kentucky had last night. Or the complete lack of interest in the game. Yup. RMU ONLY won because of FTs.

    I'm convinced Pittsburgh has the lowest basketball IQ fans in the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Please watch the name calling behind some anonymous post name.

    To show how important free throws are lets take a quick look at the pitt / syracuse game from last week

    Final Score 62/59

    Pitt free throws
    11 / 19 59%

    If they just shoot 80% from the free throw line they would have been

    15 / 19 80%

    that would have given them the 4 points they needed for a vitory.

    I am the biggest james RObinson fan around, and yes he has made some clutch free throws at the end of a game. But there is a big difference between hitting the shots at the end of a regular season game and hitting them at the end of a one and done tournament...Just ask Talib Zanna.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right about Pitt's need to shoot better at the line, particulary their "bigs." But, you do realize it is not as simple as saying "if they just shoot 80% from the free throw line", right? No team in the country shoots 80% from the line consistently, and it is even more difficult in late-game pressure situations.

      I would have been more concerned about Southerland shooting 7/7 from 3 pt range. Where was the permiter defense?

      Delete
  39. Chris,

    I completely agree with your last tweet about Dixon. This has a different feel than the other times schools have tries for him. I think it's close to 50/50 that he leaves. If he leaves, do you really think Howland would be the slam dunk choice that many people are saying? And would Pedersen really hire Howland without even interviewing Miller or anyone else. Personally, I would like to see some coaches like Josh Pastner get a look. A coach that can recruit well and play a more offensive system heading into the ACC.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I have read that the health of Dixon's father has deteriorated somewhat and that he really can't come to the east coast to see games or visit like he used to do. He lives in LA and if this is true would provide the impetus for Dixon moving to USC. If Howland is let go, another reason for him to not leave Pitt is taken away.

    I have a feeling this time is different. To me, Jamie seems a little tired and worn out. I think this year has frustrated him greatly. I don't want to see him go, but I won't hold it against him if he does, especially for family.

    I think Pitt should be able to get someone pretty good to replace him so I don't think the program will collapse or anything. If a better recruiter comes in, maybe it is even possible for the program to take the next step.

    I was thinking the other day that over ten years of Dixon, Pitt has only put three guys into the NBA, and one of those three lived one minute from campus. It shows how great of a coach Dixon is that he can win with a lack of talent, but it also shows that his recruiting has still not reached that "elite" level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pitt is a Top 20 coaching destination now...
      due to facilities, fans, etc...
      It's time the program steps up to the elite level.
      Pitt should be able to attract numerous coaches for the position so if Dixon left... no big deal.
      Frankly, I think USC and PAC10 is a step backwards for Dixon. Also, USC is a football driven school. I would think Mark Fews of Gonzaga would be on top of the list for USC.

      Delete
    2. and for the homers that mention Antigua or Knight for the PITT HC position...
      your kidding me!!!
      neither has any HC experience
      but give them HC position at a Top 20 program just because they graduated from Pitt... smh people even would think of those 2 names. They would need to be HC at some mid-major to even be considered.

      Delete
    3. Agree that Pitt should attract an accomplished head coach if Jamie leaves.

      Delete
    4. USC is not a more attractive job than Pitt, and everyone knows that. However, if you are from LA and if there is truth to the fact that Jamie wants to be close to family, he might be willing to take a lesser job for personal reasons. If he does, how could anyone fault him for that? He has given Pitt everything anyone could have asked over the last decade and a half. Howland and Jamie put Pitt hoops on the map, and even with some of the tourney shortcomings during Jamie's HC tenure, the program is much better off than when he inherited it simply because being Top 4 in the Big East became a yearly expectation rather than a hoped for season. So, if Jamie moves on, they will attract great candidates. Smart and Pastner are two that should jump right to the top of the list, assuming Miller is not swayed by the chance to come home. There is more money in the budget with the move to the ACC, and Pedersen needs to be prepared to pony up financially. I would like to see them move to a more up pace, offensive brand of basketball if Jamie leaves. But, I would be the first to say "thank you, Jamie, for all you have done for Pitt hoops and for putting it in a postion, more than any other single factor, to attract the attention of coaches who would only consider a Top 15-20 program for their next job."

      Delete

  41. Pitt is an inch to two inches taller across the floor to Wichita. Otherwise the two teams match up fairly well.

    That being the case, Pitt SHOULD pull out the win.

    Any other outcome and coaching is likely to be the difference.

    PittofDreams

    ReplyDelete

  42. Joe, you are right on this one. Should Dixon leave, it's time for Pitt to NOT SETTLE in terms of the coach they bring in. This includes Howland and any Pitt alum not named Sean.

    Given the University's decision to jeopardize the future of its football progam by wrecking Pitt Stadium in the name of basketball, I would think the alumni deserve nothng less.

    And the Homers call us "pessimists."

    PittofDreams

    ReplyDelete
  43. Doke,
    Off topic, but whats with Bookser and Grimm? Bookser's offer list at this point is considerably more impressive than Grimms. Does that speak to a difference in talent? I was under the impression that they were both highly talented and coveted linemen...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anybody who mentions Knight is foolish. I want him fired as an assistant seeing as he and the rest of the assistants seem to have no idea how to coach or recruit. Brandon Knight is not a good coach.

    ReplyDelete
  45. It is about twenty minutes before tip off and I want someone to reassure me that we have nothing to worry about in this game despite the fact that Pitt lost three home games this year, and elite teams don't lose home games...
    Please tell me that everything is going to be all right...

    ReplyDelete