Capt. Tuttle
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 28,464
- Like
- 42,517
I wonder how often, if at all, coaches change schools in conference.If they are going to overpay for Dixon, I wonder if they explored bringing Hop home behind the scenes.
I wonder how often, if at all, coaches change schools in conference.If they are going to overpay for Dixon, I wonder if they explored bringing Hop home behind the scenes.
Coup for Texas thereI'm predicting somehow UCLA ends up with Shaka, and Texas ends up with Cronin.
I wonder how often, if at all, coaches change schools in conference.
Omg, what?? Pitt was terrible in the 90s!! Howland didn’t get there til the early aughts. Also, Pitt NEVER carried the Big East. Your memory is bad. Pitt and UConn were consistently two of the best BE teams in the 00s but they never ever *carried* the conference. Syracuse won the title in 2003, UConn in 04, and Nova, Gtown, WVU, and Louisville all made Final Fours post 2000. Pitt never even made a FF though they won regular season titles.I could see that. I bet he'd do great there.
He always used to kill our zone, and he won even more games at Pitt than the really good Ben Howland teams. He never could get over the hump in the NCAA tournament, but as much as we want to forget those days, in the 1990s, Pitt and UConn carried the Big East and battled for the title every year. Howland and then Dixon built and maintained a very good program.
EDIT: I read the thread above and see how critical people are of this hire, saying UCLA fans are unrealistic I think you're forgetting how down the PAC-12 is right now. Hop's teams haven't been that great and he's been Coach of the Year back-to-back years, and just won that league by 3 games.
Arizona is in a world of hurt right now. Bobby Hurley isn't "all that" at Arizona State after all. USC is kind of a mess right now. Somebody who is established and experienced running a program might be just what they need. Stability, great defense, commitment to winning.
Omg, what?? Pitt was terrible in the 90s!! Howland didn’t get there til the early aughts. Also, Pitt NEVER carried the Big East. Your memory is bad. Pitt and UConn were consistently two of the best BE teams in the 00s but they never ever *carried* the conference. Syracuse won the title in 2003, UConn in 04, and Nova, Gtown, WVU, and Louisville all made Final Fours post 2000. Pitt never even made a FF though they won regular season titles.
IDK dixon has won with marginal talent...how many recruits are dying to go to Pitt (even when they were good) or TCU? How many "stars" or NBA players has Dixon ever had??I think that the term "home run" gets used too often. Dixon is a solid coach, but postseason performance is relevant, too. Given his track record, I'm not sure that he's a home run for an ostensible blue blood like UCLA, even as a program that has slipped a notch.
They were ostensibly talking to Calipari last week. Dixon is no Calipari.
IDK dixon has won with marginal talent...how many recruits are dying to go to Pitt (even when they were good) or TCU? How many "stars" or NBA players has Dixon ever had??
Dixon @ UCLA would give him a whole new tier of players to work with...might be all he ever needed to get over the hump in the first place...I'm pretty sure he would do better @ UCLA than he ever did at Pitt or TCU...
IDK dixon has won with marginal talent...how many recruits are dying to go to Pitt (even when they were good) or TCU? How many "stars" or NBA players has Dixon ever had??
Dixon @ UCLA would give him a whole new tier of players to work with...might be all he ever needed to get over the hump in the first place...I'm pretty sure he would do better @ UCLA than he ever did at Pitt or TCU...
Dixon had numerous highly rated players at Pitt, including a few McD's. He put several guys in the pros. I think you're overstating when you say "marginal talent."
He's been a great regular season coach, and a subpar postseason coach. Hence, why I don't consider him a "home run." No doubt, UCLA is higher profile than either Pitt or TCU. He's a proven coach, with a proven track record of success at numerous stops. UCLA is getting a proven commodity. I just don't think its a home run -- last week, they were talking to Calipari [for comparison]. THAT would have been a home run.
Would you feel the same way if they were after Mark Few?
Yes -- and I'm guessing so would UCLA fans. Terrific coach. Lackluster postseason success relative to ratings.
Dixon is no home run.
Luke Walton?
Luke Walton?
Same resume, pretty much. Great regular seasons, not so much in the post-season.
Which is why I said that yes, I view them through the same lens.
I have no idea how you derive that from me saying I view them through the exact same lens. Neither has had great postseason success. You're reading your own biases into it, and making a completely unsubstantiated interpretation about what you think I think.Except you think one is a great choice and the other is not.
So, you don't really see them through the same lens, although their achievements are about the same.
Even more embarrassing is that it now appears that Jamie Dixon is reversing course and is staying at TCU.ucla has been running this job search since january
what an embarrassment
yeah, that's what i was referencing. ucla was willing to give nearly $50m to calipari but balked at paying an $8m buyout to tcuEven more embarrassing is that it now appears that Jamie Dixon is reversing course and is staying at TCU.
LOL
Ugly ending for all involved.
UCLA looks cheap.
Dixon has to be pissed at his bosses.
Dixon loses the trust of his players, fans and administration.
TCU looks less attractive for future coaches.
Well done everyone.
Didn't Steve Lappas coach there?I'm not sure the "slickback dickback" look will fly in LA...