ShareThis Page
Dixon needs to define roles, use Benjamin |

Dixon needs to define roles, use Benjamin

Joe Starkey
| Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:00 a.m

Now that Pitt’s season has reached the single-elimination phase, do you suppose coach Jamie Dixon will decide on a regular rotation?

Or will he become the first college basketball coach to change players on the fly?

Yo, Jamie, it’s mid-March. Time to decide who can play and who can’t.

Why did we see Keith Benjamin singe Syracuse for 10 points and five rebounds in 21 minutes, only to be packed away in mothballs after a bad game a week later?

Why did we see John DeGroat burn Boston College for 10 points and seven rebounds in 16 minutes, only to be buried after a shaky encore at Notre Dame?

Dixon might as well install a revolving door at the bench. From this angle, it’s clear that his schizophrenic substitution patterns are partly responsible for Pitt staggering into the NCAA Tournament with four losses in six games.

A handful of players are confused about their roles. All they know is that Dixon has a short leash — and that can breed the sort of apprehension seen on certain faces against Villanova.

Dixon changes players the way Justin Timberlake changes girlfriends. You never know who’s next or why the last one disappeared.

Try to follow the bouncing ball: Mark McCarroll goes from Single-Digit Minute Man to (largely ineffective) starter. Levon Kendall goes from Mr. DNP to starter to little-used reserve. Antonio Graves inherits Yuri Demetris’ role as The Guy Who Plays Too Much. Aaron Gray’s minutes shrink soon after a career game at Villanova. Ronald Ramon goes 11 consecutive games without making half his shots but regularly logs as much time as Chris Taft, who sits out the final 4:21 against West Virginia despite one of his liveliest efforts.

OK, breathe.

The Benjamin case is especially perplexing. Touted as one of the top 150 recruits in the country, the 6-2 guard has battled injuries, but it sure looked as if the Syracuse game was his coming-out party.

Two games later, Benjamin struggled through 27 minutes at West Virginia and subsequently was demoted. He didn’t play double figures in minutes the rest of the regular season. In fact, he’d played one minute, total, in the previous four games when he was thrust into the Villanova game with about two minutes left in the first half. No wonder he was tentative, although he also flashed an ability to get in the lane and score. Only Carl Krauser had more points than Benjamin’s six in the second half.

With a possible second-round matchup looming against ultra-athletic top seed Washington, Dixon would be wise to work the rust off of Benjamin and/or DeGroat.

Graves deserves credit for hitting some big shots this season, but he should not be playing more minutes per game than Taft, unless he’s having a particularly stellar night.

The smallish Ramon has a promising future but is primarily a shooter. If he’s not connecting, he’s not much help. Pitt played a near-perfect game at BC despite Ramon playing only 14 minutes.

You pretty much know what you’re getting with Chevon Troutman and Krauser, and Taft usually puts up respectable numbers. It’s the other guys who’ll go a long way to determining Pitt’s fate, and they don’t appear to be brimming with confidence at the moment.

Maybe it’s because they are afraid that one false move will earn them a long-term lease in Dixon’s doghouse.

Categories: News
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.