ShareThis Page

Gorman: Knight deserved better from Pitt

Kevin Gorman
| Friday, April 1, 2016, 8:51 p.m.
Pitt great Brandin Knight was an assistant for eight seasons under Jamie Dixon. Knight passed on taking a position on new coach Kevin Stallings' staff.
Pitt great Brandin Knight was an assistant for eight seasons under Jamie Dixon. Knight passed on taking a position on new coach Kevin Stallings' staff.

Given the way its new athletic director treated him in the wake of Jamie Dixon's departure for TCU, Brandin Knight could have left Pitt bitter.

Instead, he left Pitt better.

Knight took the high road Thursday night in announcing on Twitter his decision to turn down the low-ball offer to stay on the staff as an assistant to new Panthers coach Kevin Stallings.

“Pitt will always hold a special place in my heart but after careful consideration I have decided to continue my career elsewhere. I can't thank the administration, fans, alums, the Oakland Zoo and the people of Pittsburgh enough for making my time here amazing.

“Coach Stallings and his staff will do a great job continuing the winning tradition of Pitt basketball. While it is difficult to say goodbye to a place that has been my home for the last 17 years, I am extremely excited about the opportunities that lie ahead!!! H2P.”

Now might be a good time to remind those at Pitt that its winning tradition was but a memory upon Knight's arrival as a freshman in 1999.

In Knight's four seasons as a player, Pitt won 89 games, its first Big East Tournament title, two regular-season conference titles and reached the NCAA Sweet 16 in back-to-back years.

In a decade on Dixon's staff, first as video coordinator and rising to top assistant, Knight helped the Panthers to their greatest success. Twice, they earned No. 1 NCAA seeds. They were within a Scottie Reynolds shot of their first Final Four in 2009.

Yet, Pitt allowed its best coach in school history to walk and then treated Knight like he was part of the problem.

And that's the problem.

When Pitt athletic director Scott Barnes announced that he would conduct a national search for a “successful, sitting Division I” head coach, it essentially ruled out Knight, who should have been treated as a serious candidate to succeed Dixon.

Not only was Knight an All-America point guard for the Panthers whose No. 20 jersey hangs from the rafters at Petersen Events Center, but he also was endorsed publicly by Dixon and Pitt players past and present.

But Barnes applied the Steve Pederson playbook for conducting a coaching search: Alienate the alums. Leave out the legends. Trample on tradition.

We all know how well that worked out for Pederson at Pitt and, previously, at Nebraska.

Problem is, Pitt also has a poor record of hiring minority head-coaching candidates for its revenue sports. The only black football coach it has hired, Mike Haywood, was fired 17 days later.

Given that Pitt is an inner-city school, having a black coach who is synonymous with Pitt's golden era as the face of the program wouldn't be a bad idea.

But it wasn't Barnes' idea, which made it irrelevant.

This isn't to suggest Pitt had to promote the 34-year-old Knight — though it did promote Dixon to replace Ben Howland — but its treatment of one of its all-time greats was shameful.

Some Pitt fans went so far as to say they would have preferred Knight if they had known they instead were getting Stallings.

Knight deserved better than receiving a courtesy interview, which is all it was.

Knight deserved better than a courtesy job offer to remain as an assistant, a move akin to a demotion after Stallings brought top assistant Tom Richardson with him from Vanderbilt.

When Pitt fans wonder why the school gets treated as a steppingstone job by outsiders, remember the lack of loyalty it showed to one of its legends.

Kevin Gorman is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at or via Twitter @KGorman_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.