Pitt's Dixon proves unproven coaches can cut it

More than a week had passed since Ben Howland bolted to UCLA and Pittsburgh was still looking for a head coach, still looking everywhere except on its own campus. An assistant named Jamie Dixon owned a glowing endorsement from his old boss; the players also seemed to like him. But chancellor Mark Nordenberg remained hesitant because he was unsure whether turning the program over to a young and inexperienced aid was the right move at that particular time.

So when Dixon sat with Nordenberg he knew he had to sell himself.

Inexperienced? Jamie Dixon is 132-40 in five years as Pitt coach. (Getty Images)

"Everybody thought I was too young because I was only 37 and I'd be the youngest coach in the conference," Dixon said by phone Thursday. "But I pointed out to the chancellor that the school had once named a 37-year-old the dean of the law school."

Why was this relevant, you ask? Because that one-time 37-year-old dean of the law school had become the 55-year-old chancellor hiring the basketball coach. "The chancellor likes telling that story," Dixon said with a laugh. And it's a story worth retelling now because Nordenberg's brilliant decision to take a chance on an unproven assistant was highlighted again Thursday when the school announced an extension of Dixon's contract through the 2015-16 season.

"Five years ago we gave a young, but extraordinarily capable and committed, head coach the opportunity to lead our men's basketball program," Nordenberg said. "Under Jamie Dixon's leadership, that program has secured a position as one of the country's finest -- widely respected for its success in competition, its high quality student-athletes and its strong guiding values."

"Jamie Dixon not only is one of college basketball's best coaches, he is one of our university's best representatives. (And this) announcement is a clear reflection of our shared desire to have him continue in those roles for many years."

Meantime, it should be a lesson to administrators everywhere.

Too often the coaching carousel gets to turning and all we hear are athletic directors talking about the need to find somebody with prior head coaching experience, and I've never understood it. Seems like a guy who has been a head coach and failed is usually deemed more qualified than somebody still waiting for his first opportunity even though history suggests experience isn't a true indicator of whether a coach will be successful because the reality is that the good ones are usually good right from the start.

For proof, look at Tony Bennett at Washington State.

And Brad Stevens at Butler.

And Sean Miller at Xavier.

And Mark Few at Gonzaga.