MSUCostanza said:or for that matter, the SEC overall, was irrelevant - and in fact, not even a valid claim of success - in determining how good a coach someone is. Or does that standard only apply to Stansbury?
whats our recordvs them?karlchilders said:is getting brain damaged by them, ...GO Figure!</p>
fieldman said:Alabama has pretty much been on par with most of Stansbury's years here. Terrible OOC losses. Good in conference record. Wonder if they can achieve the end all be all Sweet 16
dawgstudent said:when there are expectations. Bama has had a good season but they are going to have to make some noise now in the SEC Tournament to get to the NCAA's.
The argument isn't who has underachieved or overachieved. The argument is that Coach is saying what a great job Grant has done when in reality, it's a Rick Stansbury season at its finest.
And in Stansbury's first season - we were on the bubble for the NCAA's.They had some losses early in the season due to some injuries, <span style="font-weight: bold;">suspensions</span>, and their PG being a true freshman
dawgstudent said:no doubt if you compare this year - they aren't the same. But Bama is what State has been the past few years - head scratching OOC losses, good conference results, need to make noise in SEC Tourney. And I would like to congratulate Coach Grant with winning COY even if he doesn't go to the tournament.
I'll let you have the last comment.
1. No one is saying the Sweet 16 is the "end all be all." I think people are saying that after 13 years, maybe, just maybe Stansbury should have made it just one time. <div>fieldman said:Alabama has pretty much been on par with most of Stansbury's years here. Terrible OOC losses. Good in conference record. Wonder if they can achieve the end all be all Sweet 16