anybody still wondering about Gillespie's coaching ability...
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
everyone is still wondering about Billahclyde's coaching ability. Losing to Gardner-Webb is one thing. Losing to VMI is an entirely different story. Follow that up with a loss to Louisville and a too-close win vs. Vandy, and you've got a fanbase that's not so excited about their coach. That's basketball in Kentucky though.
I agree that Meeks and Kentucky look much better this year compared to last. But as far as coaching, they remind me of a Dale Brown LSU team. Offensively, they are not balanced. I do like the the way they are playing defense and keeping their turnovers down.
losing to VMI (who lost to Jax State & Jame$ Green by 28 points)? UT is down (from last year), but I will agree it's pretty impressive to go to Thompson-Boling & beat the shat out of them (maybe Ricky has hope). But Meeks does have 40 & the Vols seem to be making a least a minor comeback. Also, Gillespie is the same guy that lost by about 40 to the 'Dores last year (don't think any of the illustrious Mize St. coaches of the past have ever done that).
Since you live in Lexington, what is the feel about Meeks? I think he takes to many shots. I think Patterson is the best player on that team and isn't getting near enough shots as he should be. I'm not real impressed with Kentucky this year. They're talented, but it seems like Meeks shoots too much. I think if they were a better balanced team and got Patterson more touches they would be much better.
He averaged 8.7ppg as a freshman, and then literally hobbled around the court for most of his sophmore year where he played a whopping 11 games because he was so injured thru the season. Forgive him if he wasnt able to score too well last season.Coach34 said:
He was named the SEC Freshman of the weeek 3 times...he clearly has always had the potential, even before Gillespie.
do you expect a bowl in football once every 10 years? Your Croom article shouldn't have been written because he was right on track.
of going to a bowl on a pretty regular basis for a decade back in the 90s (and that it's much easier to get to a bowl game now than it was back then since a 5-6 Div. I-A record pretty much guarantees you a bowl slot now, while a 7-4 record back in the 90s got us left out), I'd say that expecting to go to a bowl game at least half the time is pretty reasonable.
The Sweet 16 is a lot harder to do. For one, there are plenty of big-time basketball schools that don't even play I-A football. For another, only 16 teams make the Sweet 16 whereas close to 60 make it to a bowl game.
The Sweet 16 is a lot harder to do. For one, there are plenty of big-time basketball schools that don't even play I-A football. For another, only 16 teams make the Sweet 16 whereas close to 60 make it to a bowl game.
of my lifetime, we have been to the sweet 16 100% of the time.
Law of averages says in the course of MSU football history, expect a bowl game about once every 10 years.
Law of averages says in the course of MSU football history, expect a bowl game about once every 10 years.
As for bowl games, history tells us that we can expect much more than 1 every 10 years. Hell, we even did that back when there were only a dozen bowls in existance (1963, 1974, 1981). In the past 20 years, we've been to 6 bowls and have had a couple of seasons that we would have made a bowl game under the current scheduling and bowl rules. So, even as bad as we've sucked lately, we still should expect a bowl game at least 1/3 of the time at an absolute minimum.
....I think he raises a good point. Even if the two year window is a little bit of a push, if you give a ten year window (like you used for football) that includes those two sweet 16's, then that would be once every five years.
except for TJ Honore and Dontae Jones who were on only 1 of those teams each. That's a lot different than having several groups of players go to 5 bowls in a 10 year period (and would have gone to 6 or 7 if they'd had the benefit of today's schedule and bowl rules).
Let's see 1992 and 1991, 1998 and 1999, and 1999 and 2000.
I see your point but it works with football too.
I see your point but it works with football too.
I would like to see us/expect to see us in more sweet 16's. If we don't hold Stans to that kind of standard he will never make it.</p>
I agree. State fans should not look at 94-96 and expect that. The history of the program tells us that. However, Stans is recruiting at a higher level than his predecessors. He has brought in enough talent to reach the Sweet 16 a couple of times. So, while I don't expect State basketball to reach the Sweet 16 from here to eternity, I do expect to reach the Sweet 16 when you have the talent we have had in the past. We underachieve in 03-04 and last year. We could have played better last year and gotten a better seed.</p>
with many different groups of players. In basketball we've only had one group of players to ever make a Sweet 16. Not to mention how lucicrous it is to equate being one of about 64 teams (hell it may even be more now) to make it to a football bowl game with being one of 16 teams to make the Sweet 16.
In 03 and 04 we definitely had the talent to do better in the tournament but we shot the ball like **** in 03 and drew as hot of a team as there was in the country in the 2nd round in 04 (combination of bad luck and bad play those 2 years). Last year we should have gotten ourselves a better seed so we wouldn't have had to play Memphis in the 2nd round.
just as soon as we have a couple of first round NBA draft choices on the roster, I'll start buying into that. We may have one this year, we'll see how it pans out.
Bottom line, teams that make the sweet 16 on a regular basis have NBA talent on their roster on a regular basis. I'll not go through the trouble of proving that aGAIN. In Stansbury's tenure as head coach, he's had two guys play in the league, one for about a total of 30 minutes.
Bottom line, teams that make the sweet 16 on a regular basis have NBA talent on their roster on a regular basis. I'll not go through the trouble of proving that aGAIN. In Stansbury's tenure as head coach, he's had two guys play in the league, one for about a total of 30 minutes.
....that the accepted cliche' about Stansbury is not true, i.e. great recruiter/average to bad "floor coach/?" I beleive his recruiting has dropped off sharply in the past few years, but that before that, Stansbury has always had good college talent, or at least enough to do better in the postseason than he has done. A team that was 14-2 in conference play and a 2 seed overall has enough college talent to get to the Sweet 16. And you could give the guy a pass on that year if the Butler thing hadn't happened. After that, it starts to look like a pattern.
And I have no desire to get into the college talent vs. NBA talent argument that has been hashed out on here many times. I realize that teams with NBA players do better, but I also realize that there is a difference between a great college player and an NBA player. See Wilson, Darryl.
And I have no desire to get into the college talent vs. NBA talent argument that has been hashed out on here many times. I realize that teams with NBA players do better, but I also realize that there is a difference between a great college player and an NBA player. See Wilson, Darryl.
that job was a hell of a lot harder than this one. He has 2 players on this team and is still probably going to the tournament. Hell, he went to the tourney last year with 3 players.
Look at what he did at UTEP. Its amazing anyone would dispute this guy's coaching ability.
Look at what he did at UTEP. Its amazing anyone would dispute this guy's coaching ability.
is the year I look at as the worst underachivement. Still a great year, but it didn't work out.
Stansbury's recruiting is good but not great. The only truly elite players he's ever signed all went pro before coming here. I think he does a good job coaching players up. By and large, the guys who have stayed in his program have improved during the time here. Bowers, Frazier, Rhodes, Zimmerman, all of those guys improved yearly under Stansbury. I think he maximized their potential. I also think that he meets reasonable expectations for MSU basketball in that we are consistently in postseason play, we compete for the conference championship, and we win 20 games on average a year. Anyone who has expectations that are much higher than that is deluding themselves.</p>
Stansbury's recruiting is good but not great. The only truly elite players he's ever signed all went pro before coming here. I think he does a good job coaching players up. By and large, the guys who have stayed in his program have improved during the time here. Bowers, Frazier, Rhodes, Zimmerman, all of those guys improved yearly under Stansbury. I think he maximized their potential. I also think that he meets reasonable expectations for MSU basketball in that we are consistently in postseason play, we compete for the conference championship, and we win 20 games on average a year. Anyone who has expectations that are much higher than that is deluding themselves.</p>
...but I wonder if his problems managing big ego players over recent years has hurt the program more than his contributions have helped it. For some reason, I keep thinking that Stansbury is like Cutcliffe in that he has done what a reasonable person would expect he would do at his job, and if you fire him, his successor likely won't be nearly as successful. That said, the transfer problems are absolutely crippling, and at the end of the day, we've missed the tournament three out of four years (assuming that we don't make it this year) basically because of his inability to manage egos and keep people from leaving. While his past accomplishments should carry some weight, I know that a consistent NIT team is not what State fans want and that should ultimately be looked at as a failure, so the next two years are critical. It's still an extreme longshot to go dancing this year, and like most people say, we really have to go next year or we should think about doing something (and I think we will probably make it next year).