Pitt is completely dependent on two excellent coaches and New York City. There is very little Big East caliber talent produced by Pittsburgh or Western PA. Pitt has no more competitive advantage in Philadelphia than any other Big East or ACC team. Howland and Dixon have been able to recruit very well in New York, but with Pitt out of the Big East, there is no guarantee that will continue. With Pitt out of the Big East, it becomes no different than the 80 other major or top mid-major programs that recruit in New York City. I expect recruiting to take a hit.
Howland and Dixon have made Pitt one of the top programs in the Big East despite Pitt having no natural competitive advantages, but Pitt still doesn't have a Final Four, and Pitt's record of putting talent in the NBA is spotty. I would not be surprised to see Dixon jump in the next year as he looks at Pitt's prospects in the ACC and the drying up of his recruiting pipeline.
It's possible this is true. It's also possible its 100% false. It's the same argument that can be made about any number of schools.
Although I somewhat understand the logic that recruiting New York will not be as easy post-Big East, there's also little to suggest it cannot be done. Pittsburgh under Dixon rarely played in New York anyways. When a recruit went there, they knew that the majority of games would not be in the state of New York. That won't radically change. The uncertain variable is how the ACC and Big East change, both on the court and perception wise.
I guess the bigger question is where the recruits Pittsburgh was getting would go? Do they suddenly choose Seton Hall or St. John's or Villanova? Outside of conference affiliation, there's little difference between these schools before and after the switch?
