Along the lines of 'The sky is blue', 'Pitt Stadium is no more', and 'It's dark outside at night', CBS Sports released an article about the biggest overachievers in the NCAAs. In it, they touched on the biggest underachievers and it should come as no surprise that Pitt was in that list:
We told you whom the biggest coaching underachievers were. Who are the worst performing teams with at least 10 tourney trips? The bottom five are: Pittsburgh (-.565 PASE), Georgia (-.516), Clemson (-.478), Stanford (-.430) and New Mexico (-.425).
CBS Sports created a formula to determine the rankings, but let's be honest - if you've been watching Pitt over the past decade or so, you don't need no stinkin' formula to tell you that.
Look, it's one of the great disappointments in Pitt's athletics history. The Panthers' basketball team has had high seeds time and again only to rarely achieve what was expected of them. This has often led to the cries of wanting to fire head coach Jamie Dixon in hopes of hiring someone that will lead Pitt to a title. The only problem with that theory is that postseason success isn't the sole criteria when used in determining when it's time to change coaches. Dixon has had one of the best regular season records in the nation since he's been named as head coach and as former Virginia Tech coach Seth Greenberg mentioned in our recent Q&A, has been a terrific ambassador for the program.
The other thing that should be noted is that hiring a coach with more postseason success would not only be extremely difficult, but would hardly guarantee that said coach would be able to do more at Pitt.
The postseason losses are difficult to swallow - I get all that. But Pitt has still be on some kind of a roll as a program since Dixon was hired.