It would be the equivalent of OM firing Bianco for not getting them over the hump and into the CWS. As a State fan, I'd love for them to *!!% around and can his ***, just like I know they can't wait till we *!!% around and get rid of Stans. If we don't make the Dance next year and then fire Stans, I really think it will be the worst mistake Greg Byrne could ever make. Fortunately, I just don't think he's that dumb.
A new Stansbury thread at the request of Dawgstudent....
- Thread starter DawgatAuburn
- Start date
This year we did play the teams you mentioned but we also played a decent number of teams such as Houston, Charlotte, Western Ky, and played Cinncinatti on their court, and Wash State and Tex Tech on neutral floors. Now, I would have played an easier schedule than this if I was rebuilding, but Rick has done okay in the conference most years and if he only won 6 conference games every year, he wouldn't be here as long as he has been. You keep harping about having to go to the NIT this year and NCAA next year. You'll be bitching if he goes to any of these if he doesn't get to the final group and thus, we are going to have to listen to your expert advice from now on. Hell, I can assure you Stans wants to win and succeed a hell of a lot more than any of us and he has proved to most of us he can. I can assure you there are very few big boosters who are disenchanted with Rick and I don't know one cigar boy who wants him gone. If you are so upset, why not go sit down with him one and one and ask him why he does certain things? I guess to do that you'd have to go to campus more than once every three or four years but you might be amazed how much you might learn. I have seen you spout off about Brady(no longer in SEC), Pelphrey(obvious his team has underperformed)Gottfried(had losing record against Rick) and on and on. I guess you would have run off Allen McKeen too, but be careful what you wish for, it might bite you in the ***.
Hanmudog said:
********, it's nothing like Ole Miss going to a BCS bowl because we, as well as Ole Miss, have been in or beyond the Sweet 16. If we were a perennial one and done or if this was the 90s where we had something like 4 NCAA trips total, I'd agree with you. But it's not. We have been to the Sweet 16 AND the Final Four and it's not an unachievable goal at MSU. Not to mention the fact that every West team but MSU and Arkansas have been to the Sweet Sixteen this decade pretty much makes your argument look silly.
-MSU's all-time winning % in the SEC is .432
-Stans' all-time winning % in the SEC is .506 (.595 since '01-'02 when he got things turned around)
-We've had one (1) losing SEC record since '01-'02
-3 of the past 6 years, including this season, we have won the SECW.........our worst finish was 4th - we will probably finish 2nd or 3rd this year
-Coming into this season, we are the 2-time defending SECW Champions
I'd hardly say we've been in the bottom half of the SEC 4 of the past 5 years, so there goes that theory.
-Stans' all-time winning % in the SEC is .506 (.595 since '01-'02 when he got things turned around)
-We've had one (1) losing SEC record since '01-'02
-3 of the past 6 years, including this season, we have won the SECW.........our worst finish was 4th - we will probably finish 2nd or 3rd this year
-Coming into this season, we are the 2-time defending SECW Champions
I'd hardly say we've been in the bottom half of the SEC 4 of the past 5 years, so there goes that theory.
Florida HAD to find a new coach when Lon Kruger left for Illinois.
South Carolina HAD to find a new coach when Dave Odom retired.
And lastly, Buzz Peterson sucked at UT, so they HAD to go get them a new coach too.
Those were pretty good analogies though.
South Carolina HAD to find a new coach when Dave Odom retired.
And lastly, Buzz Peterson sucked at UT, so they HAD to go get them a new coach too.
Those were pretty good analogies though.
"This year we did play the teams you mentioned but we also played a decent number of teams such as Houston, Charlotte, Western Ky, and played Cinncinatti on their court, and Wash State and Tex Tech on neutral floors"...and lets not forget San Diego
Houston- 17-9 (8-5)...Won...RPI- 96
Charlotte- 10-17 (4-9)...Lost...RPI- 176
Western Ky- 19-8 (13-3)....Won...RPI- 59
Cincinnati- 17-10 (7-7)...Lost...RPI- 56
Washington State- 14-13 (6-9)...Lost...RPI-106
Texas Tech- 12-16 (2-11)...Lost...RPI- 130
San Diego 14-14 (5-7)...Lost...RPI- 194
Yep, some real toughies on this list Dawgbreeze...this national schedule we are playing will have us on national TV almost every night
Houston- 17-9 (8-5)...Won...RPI- 96
Charlotte- 10-17 (4-9)...Lost...RPI- 176
Western Ky- 19-8 (13-3)....Won...RPI- 59
Cincinnati- 17-10 (7-7)...Lost...RPI- 56
Washington State- 14-13 (6-9)...Lost...RPI-106
Texas Tech- 12-16 (2-11)...Lost...RPI- 130
San Diego 14-14 (5-7)...Lost...RPI- 194
Yep, some real toughies on this list Dawgbreeze...this national schedule we are playing will have us on national TV almost every night
"3 of the past 6 years, including this season, we have won the SECW....Coming into this season, we are the 2-time defending SECW Champions"
I'd have to say UPig really won the West in 2007...we were 9-9...they were 10-10...beat us 2/3...they went to the NCAA Tourney...Kinda hard to say we WON it when our *** stayed at home.
"I'd hardly say we've been in the bottom half of the SEC 4 of the past 5 years, so there goes that theory"
That was including next year if we dont make the NCAA Tourney...right now we are looking at 3 of the last 4. The NCAA committee doesnt leave the best teams of the conference at home- so, should we not get a bid in a couple of weeks, we are in the bottom half of the conference 3 of the last 4.
2002-2005 is over. Based on 2006-2009, our program is not getting it done.
I'd have to say UPig really won the West in 2007...we were 9-9...they were 10-10...beat us 2/3...they went to the NCAA Tourney...Kinda hard to say we WON it when our *** stayed at home.
"I'd hardly say we've been in the bottom half of the SEC 4 of the past 5 years, so there goes that theory"
That was including next year if we dont make the NCAA Tourney...right now we are looking at 3 of the last 4. The NCAA committee doesnt leave the best teams of the conference at home- so, should we not get a bid in a couple of weeks, we are in the bottom half of the conference 3 of the last 4.
2002-2005 is over. Based on 2006-2009, our program is not getting it done.
this is where he goes silent. He has no answer every time someone asks that question. I have asked him more than once.
....consistent losing. Stans has mostly been a consistent wiunner. Like with all coaches, he's going through some lean times right now, but his lean times are still winning seasons. That's a hell of a lot more than can be said about our football program, or even the baseball program recently. To steal a phrase from George Bush Sr., it just wouldn't be prudent to fire Stansbury, not unless Billy Donovan is willing to take a major paycut.
Apparently you're the only person who thinks Arkansas won the West in '07. Ole Miss and MSU (both 8-8, not 9-9) have banners that say otherwise. Arkansas (7-9, not 10-10) does not. The SEC says Ole Miss and MSU tied, while Arkansas finished 3rd. Ole Miss and State both had legit arguments to be taken in the tournament. Arkansas did not deserve to be there, and they showed it by getting bounced in the first round. Oh yeah, they promptly canned their coach after that. That's a new low even for you, coach. Nice attempt at twisting facts though.
to make your point. Ark had a nice run and beat us in the tourney. State, however, was the top seed out of the west based on the 16 game regular season. We won the division and that's not in dispute anywhere but your head.
It's silly when you do this kind of thing.
It's silly when you do this kind of thing.
jackstefano said:
I will bet that you are a complete dumbass. I'm not kidding. I am taking bets if you want in. And name your bet on finishing 3rd next year you %@#+%@% dolt
is to be one of the best teams so that you may be selected to the NCAA Tourney. In 2007, we were not one of the best teams in the conference, and did not get selected. Obviously those extra games mattered to the NCAA, who decides who the best teams are from each conference.
You keep harping on Stans scheduling patsies, but its not like he's sitting down making the schedule wondering, "how many terrible teams can we play so I can pad my W-L record?" This article by Veazey from a few weeks ago actually points out that at the beginning of the season, most of those teams that are so terrible were actually supposed to be solid opponents for us and help our RPI. Look at this quote out of the article:
True, its not a world-beater schedule, but with such a young team playing teams with RPI's of 18, 69, 72, 93, and 40 would be a good test for a young squad especially early in the season. No one expected those teams to be so awful this year that it would tank their RPI the way it has. On paper, we had a good schedule this year considering the team we were bring back and the question marks this team faced. Unless you want to start blaming Stans for all those other teams being terrible and not living up to their expectations this year, he doesn't deserve blame for the schedule.
is very unrealistic.
You're wanting a coach that will
A. Make the Sweet 16 every year (That would be nice)
and
B. Plays a national schedule every year, and I'm assuming beats said teams on national schedule.
The problem with that is two fold. First of all, we would have to hire a hall of fame caliber coach to make the Sweet 16 every year, or even three out of five or whatever your expectations are. Now, we might get lucky and hire some young coach who turns out to be the next Roy Williams, but I doubt it. The other option would be to try to hire someone like a Roy Williams away from North Carolina. That ain't happening either, and if it did, I would make darn sure I repented of my sins before the Earth before the world ends. The last option is to hire some has been, and that's not going to work, and probably will leave us in worse shape than when we started.
Now, the problem with playing a national schedule is there are very, very, very few teams that play national schedules. You're talking about Duke, Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA, Kansas, and UConn. And the people that do play a national schedule are not going to schedule a home and home with MSU. Ever. The only way we'll ever play a national schedule is if we hire said hall of fame coach and he takes us to the elite level for about 10-15 years. And that's not going to happen either- refer to paragraph one. If we did just ***** ourselves out to those national teams, we would go into SEC play with a losing record in all likelihood, and a team that's beat down. Then we end up with a losing record.
You're wanting a coach that will
A. Make the Sweet 16 every year (That would be nice)
and
B. Plays a national schedule every year, and I'm assuming beats said teams on national schedule.
The problem with that is two fold. First of all, we would have to hire a hall of fame caliber coach to make the Sweet 16 every year, or even three out of five or whatever your expectations are. Now, we might get lucky and hire some young coach who turns out to be the next Roy Williams, but I doubt it. The other option would be to try to hire someone like a Roy Williams away from North Carolina. That ain't happening either, and if it did, I would make darn sure I repented of my sins before the Earth before the world ends. The last option is to hire some has been, and that's not going to work, and probably will leave us in worse shape than when we started.
Now, the problem with playing a national schedule is there are very, very, very few teams that play national schedules. You're talking about Duke, Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA, Kansas, and UConn. And the people that do play a national schedule are not going to schedule a home and home with MSU. Ever. The only way we'll ever play a national schedule is if we hire said hall of fame coach and he takes us to the elite level for about 10-15 years. And that's not going to happen either- refer to paragraph one. If we did just ***** ourselves out to those national teams, we would go into SEC play with a losing record in all likelihood, and a team that's beat down. Then we end up with a losing record.
I'd like us to upgrade the schedule a little, thats for sure. So what if Duke won't come to Starkville? UCLA? Let's go to UConn. We would be on national TV and get lots of exposure. One of those games a year isnt asking too much
Nobody said Sweet 16 every year. How about once? Stansbury is 0-10 and headed for 0-11. Everybody wants to say Gottfried and Brady can't coach, well damn, that means if an idiot can make a Sweet 16- why can't Stansbury?
Nobody said Sweet 16 every year. How about once? Stansbury is 0-10 and headed for 0-11. Everybody wants to say Gottfried and Brady can't coach, well damn, that means if an idiot can make a Sweet 16- why can't Stansbury?
If Byrne and Stricklin are too stupid too look at that list of teams and not see any quality, then i have to question their ability to make the schedule. My gosh, all you have to do is do a little research. Our schedule looks like we pulled out the 2004 Street and Smith's and figured if those teams were good at that time then they must be good now.
For very little money I would be happy to provide a service to them that evaluates teams when they are considering non-conference opponents.
For very little money I would be happy to provide a service to them that evaluates teams when they are considering non-conference opponents.
Like I said, we better all pray every day for the rapid development of one Romero Osby. We NEED him to improve to the point where we use four guards in THREE spots.
of what a national schedule is. We did play a game like you're talking about this year- remember Cincinnati? While I'm sure you would agree that the Bearcat program is down, they are still a recognizable name in the college basketball world, and if I recall correctly, that game was on ESPN(2?). And I'm sure that as you will happily recall, we got beat down.
To me a national schedule is what I was talking about. Playing the big name people- at the very least three big name teams.
And as much as you harp on going to the Sweet 16, I would have figured that you would have wanted to make it more than once. Do you just give the guy a pass after he makes that one Sweet 16 appearance?
To me a national schedule is what I was talking about. Playing the big name people- at the very least three big name teams.
And as much as you harp on going to the Sweet 16, I would have figured that you would have wanted to make it more than once. Do you just give the guy a pass after he makes that one Sweet 16 appearance?
Its not like they looked back 20 years and made the schedule. I gave you those teams RPI's from last year, and all those teams were expected to be about on the same level this year as they were last year. Its not Stans, Byrne, or Striklin's fault that those teams didn't live up to expectations. Those teams had decent RPI's last year and were expected to be about the same. ON PAPER, we had a good schedule considering the team we returned from last year; all the teams just happened to crap out in the same season. There's nothing you can do about it.
Wazzu was picked sixth in the PAC 10.
Texas Tech was picked 10th in the Big 12.
Charlotte was picked 5th in the powerful A-10.
No matter what San Diego and South did, they were unlikely to be RPI boosts. Counting on teams from minor conferences to boost your RPI is beyond stupid. It is Croom level stupid.
Yes, these polls were done in the fall, but the teams didn't change that much from the previous spring/summer when the schedule was being made.
Texas Tech was picked 10th in the Big 12.
Charlotte was picked 5th in the powerful A-10.
No matter what San Diego and South did, they were unlikely to be RPI boosts. Counting on teams from minor conferences to boost your RPI is beyond stupid. It is Croom level stupid.
Yes, these polls were done in the fall, but the teams didn't change that much from the previous spring/summer when the schedule was being made.
If we don't have Osby starting next year, then it will be more of the same....
Live and Die by the 3 pointer.........
Live and Die by the 3 pointer.........
...all-time winningest coach doesn't mean that they are exempt from being held accountable. We have done that with Polk and Sherrill to disastrous results. And no Stansbury's decline is not nearly as swift as Sherrill's, but it appears to be a decline nonetheless. Polk's wasn't fast either, but it was a decline and we let him hang around too long. Have we not learned our lesson?
This will be my last post on the subject but...
Wazzu - even if they're picked 6th in their conference they are generally a good team and the pac-10 is a good conference - shouldn't be a big RPI hit in most years
Texas Tech - same as Wazzu
Charlotte - I'll give you they are questionable, but they are usually a decent team and the A-10 isn't a bad conference
San Diego - returned 5 starters from a tournament team that beat UCONN last year. I don't see how that's a bad game for us especially with a young team
Wazzu - even if they're picked 6th in their conference they are generally a good team and the pac-10 is a good conference - shouldn't be a big RPI hit in most years
Texas Tech - same as Wazzu
Charlotte - I'll give you they are questionable, but they are usually a decent team and the A-10 isn't a bad conference
San Diego - returned 5 starters from a tournament team that beat UCONN last year. I don't see how that's a bad game for us especially with a young team
This crap pops up every day because of a few people. I kind of wish he'd tell MSU to go to hell and then you'd see we would be screwed. The University and the good fans don't deserve that but you s.o.b.'s do.
Stansbury has excelled at his job, when you figure out how far back we were under Templeton and the lack of leadership plus no telling how much corruption took place, then debate me. I also didn't post something every day bashing him like our Rick bashers do. I think if you think I was in the minority regarding Templeton, you are mistaken and I don't see any Institutions beating down the door to hire him. Enough said!
Had Jackie Sherrill gone 7-5 his last 3 seasons, we should have fired his *** anyways. Right?
I mean, he took us to the SEC Championship and then followed that up with a 10-win season., and although we won 8 games and the Snow Bowl was fun, that's still not the level we were getting accustomed. 7-5 three consecutive years to follow that is clearly not on the same level as either of those 2 seasons. His performance would have been 'declining', therefore it would have been time for an 'upgrade'. That is what you were saying, isn't it?
I mean, he took us to the SEC Championship and then followed that up with a 10-win season., and although we won 8 games and the Snow Bowl was fun, that's still not the level we were getting accustomed. 7-5 three consecutive years to follow that is clearly not on the same level as either of those 2 seasons. His performance would have been 'declining', therefore it would have been time for an 'upgrade'. That is what you were saying, isn't it?
I have no more issues with him, he is gone. My only concern was that he never would be gone, and if you think that is being sick, then I have some med's for you, because you are deluisional to think he didn't kill MSU for decades. Maybe you should send some of those meds to Coach, Extreme, and few more who will absolutely be suicidal if we win the SEC tourney and go to the NCAA tourney again.
....in my mind and in most people's minds, not making the NCAA tournament is not a good season. For MSU football, 7-5 is definitely a good season. NIT in basketball = .500 with no bowl or sub .500 in football. It most certainly does not equal 7-5. And yes, if Jackie had done 5-6, 5-7, 5-7, the same result should've occurred.
All time winningest coach should not give you a pass to fail. Again, Jackie and Polk. Two prime examples. We kept them around too long and it cost us in both programs.
All time winningest coach should not give you a pass to fail. Again, Jackie and Polk. Two prime examples. We kept them around too long and it cost us in both programs.
4 out of 5 years, with a Peach Bowl mixed in the one year we didn't go 6-6, you know good and damn well he's not going anywhere. Just like Stans won't be going anywhere if we fail to make the Tourney next season.