Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Rocco wrote:UCLA gets blown out and fires their coach. Pitt gets blown out and gives their coach a lavish extension. One school wants to win, one school just wants to try really hard.
pfim wrote:Jamie Dixon isn't going to USC.
Idoit40fans wrote:Hasn't UCLA been to more final fours in the past decade than Pitt has, ..
Idoit40fans wrote:Hasn't UCLA been to more final fours in the past decade than Pitt has, ..
Idoit40fans wrote:Hasn't UCLA been to more final fours in the past decade than Pitt has, ..
pfim wrote:Idoit40fans wrote:Hasn't UCLA been to more final fours in the past decade than Pitt has, ..
Yes?
newarenanow wrote:Idoit40fans wrote:Hasn't UCLA been to more final fours in the past decade than Pitt has, ..
They've been to more final fours in the past 7 decades than Pitt has.
Idoit40fans wrote:newarenanow wrote:Idoit40fans wrote:Hasn't UCLA been to more final fours in the past decade than Pitt has, ..
They've been to more final fours in the past 7 decades than Pitt has.
Well if they have been to more final fours in the past decade than pitt has ever, it would necessarily follow that they would have been in more final fours in the past 7 decades than pitt has.
Idoit40fans wrote:pfim wrote:Idoit40fans wrote:Hasn't UCLA been to more final fours in the past decade than Pitt has, ..
Yes?
So what is this with the snide "good luck with that"? Apparently they change things when they aren't doing what they want. Weren't getting to the championship games, so they brought in a new coach. He stopped getting the job done, so they're going with someone new. Seems obvious for a program that wants to win...or so one would think.
canaan wrote:UCLA is gonna go hard after Shaka Smart.
Idoit40fans wrote:5 seasons of early exits is impatient? Had he not had an elite program the prior 3 seasons, i'd buy that, but when you go from great for 3 years to mediocre for 5 years, hard to call that impatient. Results-oriented maybe. The firing of Howland is far closer to sanity than extending Dixon for another decade.
Idoit40fans wrote:5 seasons of early exits is impatient? Had he not had an elite program the prior 3 seasons, i'd buy that, but when you go from great for 3 years to mediocre for 5 years, hard to call that impatient. Results-oriented maybe. The firing of Howland is far closer to sanity than extending Dixon for another decade.
KennyTheKangaroo wrote:and therein lies the pitt paradox.
if pitt hangs onto a good coach that underacheives, pitt fans "accept mediocrity"
if pant gets rid of a good coach that underacheives, pitt fans "think they are ohio state or ucla or someone that can actually win"
King Sid the Great 87 wrote:To the crowd who thinks Dixon can't be let go because they couldn't possibly find somebody else to keep the program standing in place for a decade: Who was Jamie Dixon other than a no-name assistant of under Ben Howland before Howland left?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests