Does Jamie Dixon Top Ben Howland?
by CardiacHill on Aug 4, 2025 9:00 AM EDT
in Pitt Basketball
Email
Print
In the midst of all this football about to kick off, there was an interesting Athlon list that came out this week. The article takes a look at the top college basketball coaches.
In it, Pitt's Jamie Dixon surprisingly tops UCLA coach Ben Howland.
Now, first things first: Athlon ranks Michigan's John Beilein significantly ahead of Howland, so (and trust me, I like Athlon's work) you've got to take this list with a grain of salt. With that said - onto the analysis.
I'm a fan of Dixon, obviously. When he took over for Howland several years ago, there was no real indication if he could sustain Pitt's success. He's been able to do that and deserves a ton of credit. But when it comes to ranking the two, I have a hard time placing Dixon ahead of his mentor. For one, it was Howland (not Dixon) that got the ball rolling at Pitt. That's not to say Dixon couldn't have done that if given the opportunity ... he just didn't. Howland was able to take a program that had floundered for about a decade and turned it into a national power almost overnight.
Even beyond that, though, top coaches generally are ranked based on what they've accomplished in the postseason. And when it comes to that, there's no question Howland has done more.
Howland has had more talent at UCLA, but it's not as if Pitt has had middle-of-the-road teams. The Panthers have been ranked No. 1 on Dixon's watch, but have yet to reach a Final Four. Just as bad, in my mind, is that they've only reached one Elite Eight despite regularly being a top ten team. Howland, meanwhile, has not only reached three Final Fours (three in a row, actually) in the same amount of time at UCLA, but he's been to a National Championship game.
I'm not a Dixon-basher in the sense that many people are, blaming him for Pitt not going farther in the NCAAs. I think he'll get there eventually and plenty of big name coaches took a while to get to a Final Four. And the calls for his firing last year were beyond idiotic. But the fact is that Howland has done plenty of damage in the NCAAs and Dixon hasn't.
Athlon says future projections went into the analysis, and that's fine. But at 55, Howland could still easily coach at least another decade if he wanted and can add to his impressive totals. Until Jamie reaches at least a couple of Final Fours or wins a title, it's hard to rank him in front of Howland in my mind.
Be sure to join Cardiac Hill's Facebook page and follow us on Twitter @PittPantherBlog for our regular updates on Pitt football and basketball.
Panthers Fan Confidence Poll
Last tallied on 08/01.
5 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's all about expectations
And UCLA has a ton. Rightfully so, as they’re one of the few true college basketball brands on that side of the country. That they haven’t been able to dominate a pretty weak Pac 10/12 is fairly damning.
While I’ll always be appreciative to Howland for what he did for the program, if I had my pick, I’m taking Dixon.
by PittScript Bryan on Aug 4, 2025 11:49 AM EDT reply actions
So I looked up Jamie Dixon..
I also looked up Mr. Howland. I ONLY looked at their times at Pitt. I didn’t factor in Dixon’s assistant coaching stuff, or Howland at UCLA.
Here’s how it stacks up, championship wise
Dixon:
Big East Regular Season Championship (2004, 2011)
Gold medal - FIBA Under-19 World Championship (2009)
Big East Tournament Championship (2008)
Howland:
Big East Tournament Championship (2003)
Big East Regular Season Championship (2002, 2003)
Personal awards,
Dixon:
Big East Coach of the Year (2004)
Naismith College Coach of the Year (2009)
USA Basketball National Coach of the Year (2009)
CollegeInsider Big East Coach of the Year (2010)
Jim Phelan National Coach of the Year (2010)
Sporting News Coach of the Year (2011)
Howland:
Henry Iba Award (2002)
Naismith College Coach of the Year (2002)
Big East Coach of the Year (2002)
Realistically, they’re about even in championships, though I would argue post-Howland Big East was much tougher. And Dixon has had more time at Pitt for people to take notice of him. BUT, and this is me personally, I put that gold medal into the mix and that makes Dixon the better Coach in that regard. He took a group of kids that he had NEVER coached before and won a championship. That shows that he can work for, and with, anyone. Which is why he’s such a hot comodity and mentioned every time a coaching job opens up.
I also think it’s the fact that Dixon has had more time. Recruits know what to expect. He can sit, patiently with a kid and say “look, I’ve had 9 years at this school. I’ve seen it all…We can win a championship, if we have the right piece—you.” Howland couldn’t do that. He had a total of what? 4-5 years (HA! Howland was the coach when I was in HS, I just realized.)
Yes, Howland put Pitt on the map, and no one will ever take that from him, but Dixon has made sure that stamp has stayed there. Even last season, it wasn’t “oh surprise..the panther’s suck.” it was “OMG! Pitt’s not up there with Duke, UNC, Cuse, or UConn this season!”
It was under Dixon that Pitt was ranked No. 1 in the name about what? 4-5 times? We had two No. 1 seeds in the tourney (including one overall). We made it to the Elite Eight. THE ELITE EIGHT. Something I had NEVER seen in my lifetime. We’re so close under Dixon, Pitt can taste.
Going into the ACC, there’s a panther prowling tobacco road. Like it or not, we will be stacked up against Duke, UNC and Cuse. We WILL be expected to be in that upper tier and I’d rather have Dixon than Howland leading the way.
(on a side note, imo, Dixon deserved higher than 13 on that list. but of course he won’t break through that ceiling until he makes at the very least a Final Four apperance. sorry for rambling)
by lougagliardi on Aug 4, 2025 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Dixon's done a great job, but ...
How can you take away what Howland has done at UCLA when comparing the two? To do that would wipe out every major accomplishment he’s had since he’s been there for a decade now. That argument is kind of like evaluating Jim Calhoun’s coaching career, but not including his work at UConn.
Sure, if we’re just looking at who accomplished more at Pitt, it’s Dixon. Howland wasn’t even there half as long as Dixon has been there now - it’s not even a fair comparison.
The program was also already established by the time he started coaching. Pitt really was just getting off the ground when Howland left and suffice to say, had he stuck around here, it’s easy to envision him having the same type of success Dixon has had … if not more.
This isn’t about me liking Dixon, really. But I don’t see how the argument could be made that he’s a better coach when the postseason success isn’t even close to what Howland has accomplished at UCLA.
Manager of Cardiac Hill - SB Nation's Pitt Panthers blog
Follow @PittPantherBlog
by CardiacHill on Aug 4, 2025 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
As I had said, I stuck to both their time's at Pitt.
I didn’t include Dixon’s time as an assistant nor did I include Howland’s time at UCLA. I stuck to 100% Pitt, because that’s what matters.
by lougagliardi on Aug 4, 2025 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Pitt
Yeah, as I said, if you look at only Pitt, then Dixon would have the more accomplished resume - he’s been here for nine years while Howland was only for four. And in the first few years of Howland’s tenure, he was rebuilding.
But if we’re talking about who the better coach is, as the Athlon article was, you’ve got to take their entire resume under consideration.
Manager of Cardiac Hill - SB Nation's Pitt Panthers blog
Follow @PittPantherBlog
by CardiacHill on Aug 4, 2025 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Start posting about the Panthers
- Cardiac Hill on Facebook
- Follow @PittPantherBlog
- Follow Cardiac Hill on your Android Device!
- Subscribe to Cardiac Hill Stories
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
