Just thinking about our deeply divided fanbase which has in my view unprecedentedly quit on the program and thinking that much of this conflict might have been avoided if we had simply waited a year to make a change at the top. RS would have either righted the ship or, if the popular notion that the program had been run completely aground was indeed true, 2013 would have been a disaster season on Stans watch. Then 95% of Stans supporters would have been happy to show him the door, fans would have unified behind the new hire and given him plenty of time and fan support to rebuild the program.
Did we move on RS a year early?......
- Thread starter thekimmer
- Start date
I think that most of the anti-Stan crowd would argue that we waited a year too late. That said, how in the world do you fire a coach at MSU that was two years removed from an NCAA tournament appearance and was a robbery against Kentucky away from making it again the following year? Ain't gonna happen
My feeling is this... we can all argue whether the timing was right or not til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the fanbase's current apathy isn't just about wins and losses. It's the number of losses combined with the fact that our "talent" does not seem to be improving in very many facets, recruiting continues to be atrocious, and we're still having having issues with transfers and dismissals just like when Stansbury was around(even if it is less talented players). In other words, what exactly has Ray gotten right in his two years here at this point? The lack of an answer to that question is why people have no interest in the program these days.
My feeling is this... we can all argue whether the timing was right or not til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the fanbase's current apathy isn't just about wins and losses. It's the number of losses combined with the fact that our "talent" does not seem to be improving in very many facets, recruiting continues to be atrocious, and we're still having having issues with transfers and dismissals just like when Stansbury was around(even if it is less talented players). In other words, what exactly has Ray gotten right in his two years here at this point? The lack of an answer to that question is why people have no interest in the program these days.
I think you're probably right, but we were ranked in the top 15 that season before it collapsed. Hard to argue we should have fired Stans earlier when we are sitting at 19-5.
^^^THIS^^^^ ...and....
^^^THAT^^^
I have no respect for an NCAA coach who can't develop talent. Stans stayed as long as he did because he could recruit and occasionally get the X's and O's right (except in the NCAA tourney).
No argument there, but then again, I don't believe that Stansbury's dismissal had much to do with rankings, wins/losses, or the postseason. I think it was more about the public perception and quite frankly, the reality in certain instances that the inmates were running the asylum.
If Stans was our Coach today we would probably top 5 team in the SEC. JMHO.
Are you saying he could draw up plays in the regular season, but couldn't after the second week of March?
I think if we make the tournament that year - he stays. You think he was gone even with a NCAA birth?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Oh wait, or maybe the guy on the other bench drew up better plays.**
I was a solid Stansbury supporter. However, I think I can point to the direct time we and he should have made a move.
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6271764/20894731
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6271764/20894731
Cool. You do know that the 9th best team in the SEC sits at 8-8 with two games left, right? But Stans would have found a way to be better than .500 - with or without Rodney Hood.**
SEC 2011-2012
| Team | <abbr title="Wins">W</abbr> | <abbr title="Losses">L</abbr> | <abbr title="Winning percentage">PCT</abbr> | <abbr title="Wins">W</abbr> | <abbr title="Losses">L</abbr> | <abbr title="Winning percentage">PCT</abbr> | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Kentucky | 16 | – | 0 | 1.000 | 38 | – | 2 | .950 | ||||
| Tennessee | 10 | – | 6 | .625 | 19 | – | 15 | .559 | ||||
| #20 Vanderbilt † | 10 | – | 6 | .625 | 25 | – | 11 | .694 | ||||
| #25 Florida | 10 | – | 6 | .625 | 26 | – | 11 | .703 | ||||
| Alabama | 9 | – | 7 | .563 | 21 | – | 12 | .636 | ||||
| Mississippi State | 8 | – | 8 | .500 | 21 | – | 12 | .636 | ||||
| Ole Miss | 8 | – | 8 | .500 | 20 | – | 14 | .588 | ||||
| LSU | 7 | – | 9 | .438 | 18 | – | 15 | .545 | ||||
| Arkansas | 6 | – | 10 | .375 | 18 | – | 14 | .563 | ||||
| Auburn | 5 | – | 11 | .313 | 15 | – | 16 | .484 | ||||
| Georgia | 5 | – | 11 | .313 | 15 | – | 17 | .469 | ||||
| South Carolina | 2 | – | 14 | .125 | 10 | – | 21 | .323 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
SEC 2010-2011
| 2010–11 SEC men's basketball standings | ||||||||||||
| | <abbr title="Conference record">Conf</abbr> | Overall | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team | <abbr title="Wins">W</abbr> | <abbr title="Losses">L</abbr> | <abbr title="Winning percentage">PCT</abbr> | <abbr title="Wins">W</abbr> | <abbr title="Losses">L</abbr> | <abbr title="Winning percentage">PCT</abbr> | ||||||
| East | ||||||||||||
| #15 Florida | 13 | – | 3 | .813 | 29 | – | 8 | .784 | ||||
| #11 Kentucky † | 10 | – | 6 | .625 | 29 | – | 9 | .763 | ||||
| #25 Vanderbilt | 9 | – | 7 | .563 | 23 | – | 11 | .676 | ||||
| Georgia | 9 | – | 7 | .563 | 21 | – | 12 | .636 | ||||
| Tennessee | 8 | – | 8 | .500 | 19 | – | 15 | .559 | ||||
| South Carolina | 5 | – | 11 | .313 | 14 | – | 16 | .467 | ||||
| West | ||||||||||||
| Alabama | 12 | – | 4 | .750 | 25 | – | 12 | .676 | ||||
| Mississippi State | 9 | – | 7 | .563 | 17 | – | 14 | .548 | ||||
| Ole Miss | 7 | – | 9 | .438 | 20 | – | 14 | .588 | ||||
| Arkansas | 7 | – | 9 | .438 | 18 | – | 13 | .581 | ||||
| Auburn | 4 | – | 12 | .250 | 11 | – | 20 | .355 | ||||
| LSU | 3 | – | 13 | .188 | 11 | – | 21 | .344 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
2009-2010
Overall: 23-13, .639 W-L% (82nd of 330)
Conference: 9-7, 3rd in SEC West (Schedule and Results)
Coach: Rick Stansbury (23-13)
I'm in the boat that we dumped RS at the right time, maybe even a season late but it is becoming apparent that RR was a bad hire. I like a coach with discipline but basketball more than any other short requires talent that can't be coached or schemes can overcome. What we forget in this discussion was what our other options were. They weren't great, Kenny Payne was mentioned a lot but no one else has plucked him which makes me wonder. Even if we can RR tomorrow who do you getting in that wants to come?
Last edited:
So in your world, the team with the coach that has the best looking white board wins in March. That is great news for those guys who really don't like to recruit.
I had no idea it was Coach Pitino's X and 0 superiority over Coach K that led the Cards to their 20 point victory last March.
You should have.
The answer is: "They were the first team to reach consecutive final fours without being a one or a two seed either year." And they had a damn good looking white board.** X's and O's, MF, X's and O's...
| 2011 | 5-1 | Defeated Old Dominion in first round, 60-58 Defeated Pittsburgh in second round, 71-70 Defeated Wisconsin in regional semifinal, 61-54 Defeated Florida in regional final, 74-71 Defeated Virginia Commonwealth in National Semifinal, 70-62 Lost to Connecticut in National Championship, 53-41 |
| 2010 | 5-1 | Defeated UTEP in first round, 77-59 Defeated Murray State in second round, 54-52 Defeated Syracuse in regional semifinal, 63-59 Defeated Kansas State in regional final, 63-56 Defeated Michigan State in National Semifinal, 52-50 Lost to Duke in National Championship, 61-59 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Picking Riley Benock to inbound that pass against Kentucky in at the end of the SECCG was in and of itself a fireable offense.
I remember Brad Stevens saying how it was the perfect storm for Butler to have Two future NBA players on that first FF team. And when Hayward left early, there was still enough talent around Mack to make it to what was arguably one of the weakest Final Fours in awhile. As you pointed out, they beat Florida to get to the FF - the same Florida team that lost to that dumpster fire that was MSU earlier that season. Of course that was in January, when Stansbury had that X and O thing down.
KDJ would have been much better than pretty much everyone that was interested in the job.
I wish we would have given him another year at minimum. I had no reservations when we let Croom go or when Polk was on his way out the door (again). But I felt very conflicted when we cut Stans loose. Yes, our program had too much drama and yes it sort of looked like maybe his best years at MSU were behind him but I felt very uneasy that there was a higher chance of replacing him with someone that would be less successful going forward than of getting someone that would be more successful. Good gracious look at all the promising coaches that have come into the SEC and completely failed. And that was even before I realized that Strick had NO clue, when he let Stans go, who the replacement was going to be or would botch the hiring process like he did. I know we were supposedly "cleaning up the program" but what is the point in that if it just means you can't attract talented players. You CAN NOT win in basketball if you can't recruit talented players, just no way around it and right now we are not attracting many SEC caliber talents to our program. What little SEC talent we do have (Sword, Ware) or holdovers from Stans' recruiting. Ray is providing little to no SEC caliber players and that really includes the group coming in next year IMO. Maybe its just going to take him some time to establish a recruiting foundation but I'm less than hopeful right now about anything going forward with the basketball program. I thought we might could get Newman and turn things around but that seems like a pipe dream now. Was a really bad sign when Ray couldn't talk Hood out of transferring.
I apologize up front for ...
bringing back a quote from Peaches ... Coach34: "Stansbury's buddies have got him one last season, and he gets to go out a loser."
The main problems Stans faced were the teams high level of expectations, crashing season and loosing control of his players. Have mixed feelings about an additional year; he would have had a much better record than Ray but it's tough to recapture discipline once its lost.
BUT, no matter 'when' the AD fired him ... not having a DEFINITE commitment from a proven coach BEFORE he fired Stans was a HUGE mistake. ADs have to have a short list of replacements at ALL times, especially when a season starts heading south like it did two years ago.
bringing back a quote from Peaches ... Coach34: "Stansbury's buddies have got him one last season, and he gets to go out a loser."
The main problems Stans faced were the teams high level of expectations, crashing season and loosing control of his players. Have mixed feelings about an additional year; he would have had a much better record than Ray but it's tough to recapture discipline once its lost.
BUT, no matter 'when' the AD fired him ... not having a DEFINITE commitment from a proven coach BEFORE he fired Stans was a HUGE mistake. ADs have to have a short list of replacements at ALL times, especially when a season starts heading south like it did two years ago.
I keep seeing this, but that is NOT how it works. If you get caught talking to someone else's coach before you've fired your current coach, you get into all kinds of trouble. See the Auburn - Tommy Tubberville - Bobby Petrino fiasco for an example. Also, see the countless other times schools have taken a few weeks (and a few rumored hires) to hire a new coach. This is not to say that Stricklin did a good job on the basketball hire (at the time I thought he did, but so far Ray hasn't done anything to back that up). But you really do have to fire your coach and then start talking to candidates to replace him.
Most of the blue hairs are pissed that we replaced Stans with a black coach. It's pretty obvious from some of the comments made since the hire especially on one of the private boards. Looking at the talent left at the time this transition took place, no coach with any sense at all who was successful would have taken the job.
Where to start here..
First of all its easy to make an inflammatory statement and then claim the evidence to prove it is off on some unidentifiable 'private boards'. Secondly, even if it such evidence was there how would you know that it arose from "blue hairs" and that most of them share that opinion. I agree with a previous poster. Your's is indeed is a very stupid post.
First of all its easy to make an inflammatory statement and then claim the evidence to prove it is off on some unidentifiable 'private boards'. Secondly, even if it such evidence was there how would you know that it arose from "blue hairs" and that most of them share that opinion. I agree with a previous poster. Your's is indeed is a very stupid post.
Come on people, we all know how this works, you talk to them without talking to them. Which basically means you feel out a prospective coach's interest through their agent or representative.
If we knew this then we were truly idiots for firing Stans. Stans even at his worst was a better than a lot of college coaches out there. If we knew that nobody was interested there was no point in opening up the job.
Well, in today's world of college sports ...
It is EXACTLY how it is done. And the ADs NEVER contact the coaches directly like Auburn screwed up and did. Today, ADs contact their agents. These guys earn the big bucks by taking those calls in confidence and returning them with an answer.
It is EXACTLY how it is done. And the ADs NEVER contact the coaches directly like Auburn screwed up and did. Today, ADs contact their agents. These guys earn the big bucks by taking those calls in confidence and returning them with an answer.
It's not hindsight to see it was the incorrect time to do that, I sure felt like it at the time. We were hitched to RS wagon whether we liked it or not if we wanted to maintain anything near a relevant bb program. The only thing we had coming back (potentially) was Hood and there was always a good chance he would bail which he did. Convincing a decent coach to come in in that situation was not something even the Ninja could have done. Like it or not our only play that made sense was to keep RS, let him convince Hood to stay, bring in the class he had committed, and then let him go the next year so that the guy coming in would have something to work with. Instead we sacrificed the program to appease those who said "we were an embarrassment". Can't deny we had image problems and that a change needed to be made, it's just we made it at the worst time.