Are we sure Stans was "forced out"?

[ckDOG]

Or did he see departure of Sidney, Moultrie, Deville, and Hood as eminent and decided he didn't want to stick around to patch things up? Combine that with we were likely never better than 50/50 with Pollard, Thomas isn't looking good to qualify, and Josh Gray having huge character issues, and I could definitely see Stans wanting to hang it up without being solicited.

 

[BulldogBlitz]

...that renardo was staying.

 

[drt7891]

I think Strick would have let him. However, it's like a few years ago when all the older professors were offered incentives to retire right then and there as opposed to waiting to retire without the incentives. Strick got an incentives package together and gave him a choice... either he stay, risk being fired next year if he couldn't turn the ship around (which he wouldn't have been able to, that's a given), or take the money and run... and we'll give you a secure job in the Athletic Dept. I don't believe there was any "forcing out" in this deal, Stans chose to step down. However, I bet the reasons you mentioned were all the more reason for him to chose to step down.

 

[ckDOG]

My question is really posed for the folks taking the position of "you wanted Stans gone, this is what you get/deserve". Regardless of what actually happened between him ant Stricklin, I don't think Stansbury would be coaching the team next season. The mess he created looked to inevitably become even messier next season - I think he was worn out on trying to right the ship.

 

[K9 Avenger]

Yes.

 

[99grad]

i think he knew it was going to hit the fan, so there was no reason to put up a fight when the offer was on the table to step down. the added benefit was that he (to some) comes out looking like less of a cause for the train wreck, since all of the departures have happened (publically) since he stepped down. nevermind that they were all but set in stone probably by the middle of conference play, they will be perceived as being due to stans being gone.

to take it a step further, i think this explains some of the difficulty we had in the hiring process. in the clarion ledger article, stricklin said that they've known for a while that the roster would be in this situation; i'm sure the coaches that were interviewed were made aware of this as well. i bethaving to tell them, "by the way, you'll be lucky if you have 6 returning players on scholarship, one player taller than 6'8", and no point guards," went over really well.

 

[ckDOG]

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually liking the Rick Ray hire considering the situation we are in. He's at least saying the right things, has a decent resume, and is a likable guy to this point. It also seems as though he's going to work the hell out of whoever is on the roster - a breath of fresh air at this point.

However, we SHOULD have been able to do much better, but no coach with a decent name is going to step into this mess. A little bit of research into our roster basically eliminates all the fast track guys we would have liked to have (Groce, Prohm, Marshall, etc.). We had to go with a decent resume guy with no name. I'm sure the pro Kenny Payne guys will assert that he would have been a great hire and the nation's top talent would have flocked to Starkville, but those folks are idiots. Kenny Payne would have been able to recruit no better than Rick Stansbury and has no coaching reputation outside of being a bag man and being buds with WWW. I don't want MSU to have been the sucker program that bit into getting World Wide Wes's buddy a raise he doesn't deserve.

 

[patdog]

Groce would have never turned Illinois down for MSU, even if Stans hadn't left us with a dumpster fire.

Prohm would have jumped at the job if we'd offered him.

Marshall is one we could have gotten if Stans had left us in good shape. Of course, if Stans had left us in good shape, he'd still be our coach.