Figure this argument will just heat up further over the next week.

Forget on the national level, the Big East is tough enough. The debate seems to be between Jamie Dixon and Jim Boeheim, with some darkhorse momentum for Buzz Williams. All three have their teams significantly overachieving from expectations. All three saw talent departing for the NBA, NBDL or Europe.

Syracuse was picked to finish 6th and will finish with the Big East regular season title outright and untied unless they blow their final 2 and Nova recovers.

Pitt was picked for 9th and could finish tied for 3d or take it outright (it’s possible Pitt could end up in 2d, but that would take a Villanova collapse and Pitt sweeping).

For those who want to make it a simple math problem based on projections to finish and Pitt finishing 6 spots higher trumps finishing 5 spots higher by Syracuse. Don’t. Then you have to acknowledge that Marquette if they finish 5th beat their 12th place projection by 7.

Is it talent? I know we are used to presuming that Syracuse has the talent. If you look in their rotation, though, they don’t have a true blue-chipper. No 5-star players.

Player  — Rivals.com — Scout.com

Syracuse

Jackson —-4 ————— 4

Jardine —- 4 ————— 4

Onuaku —-3 ————— 3

Joseph —- 3 ————— 4

Triche —– 3 ————– 3

Rautins —- NR ———– 1

Johnson — 2 ————– 2

Pitt

Brown ——- 4 ———– 4

Wanamaker — 4 ———- 4

McGhee —— 3 ———- 3

Gibbs ——— 3 ———- 3

Robinson —- 3 ———- 3

Woodall —— 3 ———- 3

Dixon ——— NR ——- 2

Taylor ——– 5 ———- 5

Obviously Rautins has developed and may have been overlooked in Canada. Wesley Johnson was another clear miss from being missed in Texas and transferring out of Iowa State. But it is still 3- and 4-star guys that make up their team. Just like Pitt. Heck if you just look at the “stars” without context, it looks like Pitt has the better overall squad.

Syracuse plays 2 seniors, 2 juniors 2 sophomores and 1 freshman.

Pitt plays 1 senior, 3 juniors, 2 sophomores and 2 freshman.

Pitt had to play early without senior Jermaine Dixon and even had him out for a game later in the Big East season. Plus, Pitt played the non-con without junior Gilbert Brown. Naturally Pitt had more struggles. Pitt had a spell of losing 4 of 5.

Syracuse hasn’t had significant injuries, but they have been excellent all season. Only 2 losses. They have big wins out of conference — to further buttress the argument of how good they have been from the start (LeMoyne may still be funny, but it was exhibition and doesn’t count).

Sean at Nunes has no answer to the issue, because he doesn’t know how to define the question.

Does Coach Dixon get the nod because he took a team that was going to be a bubble team and have them in contention for a #4 or #3 seed? Is it Boeheim with a squad expected to make the tournament, but maybe in the 6-8 seed range and instead has them locked for a #1 seed?

A tie almost seems like the right call, but I have to say the more I look at this, the more I won’t get too worked up if Boeheim or Dixon gets it.

It seems to me that either one has a legitimate claim to the honor. I really can’t that bent out of shape if Coach Dixon doesn’t get it this time.

If you feel strongly one way or another make the case. Just spare me the issue of whether Boeheim has underachieved with more talent in the past. That has nothing to do with a Coach of the Year award.  It is a single season snapshot. Not rewards or penalties for the past.