Just to show you how making 2 sweet sixteens and 1 Final Four is misleading as the only measuring stick. Richard Williams won 2 first round games in 13 years at the SEC tourney. His SEC tourney record was 4-11 and in 1994-95 we won 3 games and won the tourney. In only 1 other year did we go 1-1 and all the others we were 0-1. Yes he did take us to theSweet 16twice and the Final Four once. We lost our NIT games in the first round and in the 2nd round both times. Richard's regular SEC conference record was 89-113 and if you add in the tournament record, it was 93-124. Now, these same folks are now saying Rick Stansbury is not as good a coach. That is baloney based on the results above. Nobody has had more success than him and he has never embarrassed us at an SEC tournament and has a winning record in the SEC. Kind of odd how folks seem to forget history and then gloat over 1 or 2 good seasons. Consistency means nothing in today's "I want it now mentality" . If Rick goes to the sweet sixteen and loses I see no difference than any other loss in the dance. The only statistic that counts is who wins the championship. This is not to say we shouldn't strive to reach those goals but many folks have been brainwashed by distorted facts. These facts are accurate and interestingly you have to go the history of the SEC men's tourney to get the tournament results. For some reason MSU's head coaching records regarding coach's 2nd best coach in America doesn't list the tourney wins and losses. Just some food for thought
For those like coach who think Richard Williams is a better coach than Stans
- Thread starter Dawgbreeze
- Start date
Just to show you how making 2 sweet sixteens and 1 Final Four is misleading as the only measuring stick. Richard Williams won 2 first round games in 13 years at the SEC tourney. His SEC tourney record was 4-11 and in 1994-95 we won 3 games and won the tourney. In only 1 other year did we go 1-1 and all the others we were 0-1. Yes he did take us to theSweet 16twice and the Final Four once. We lost our NIT games in the first round and in the 2nd round both times. Richard's regular SEC conference record was 89-113 and if you add in the tournament record, it was 93-124. Now, these same folks are now saying Rick Stansbury is not as good a coach. That is baloney based on the results above. Nobody has had more success than him and he has never embarrassed us at an SEC tournament and has a winning record in the SEC. Kind of odd how folks seem to forget history and then gloat over 1 or 2 good seasons. Consistency means nothing in today's "I want it now mentality" . If Rick goes to the sweet sixteen and loses I see no difference than any other loss in the dance. The only statistic that counts is who wins the championship. This is not to say we shouldn't strive to reach those goals but many folks have been brainwashed by distorted facts. These facts are accurate and interestingly you have to go the history of the SEC men's tourney to get the tournament results. For some reason MSU's head coaching records regarding coach's 2nd best coach in America doesn't list the tourney wins and losses. Just some food for thought
klerushund said:
11 times on the first day. I think there are lots of folks who will disagree with you and obviously, you never spent over 375.00 for a tournament book of tickets. So if your theory is correct, the SEC records should mean nothing either since all that matters is getting to the sweet sixteen. hate to tell you, you have no chance to get to the sweet sixteen if you don't have a decent SEC record and get into the dance.
as long as the SEC Tournament isn't the determining factor of us getting to the dance. Of course, you always want to improve your seeding but I'm not losing sleep if we have our ticket punched.
Sometimes teams even rest their players during conference tourneys, and don't try to win. It's extra rest before the only tournament that matters. I believe UNC did this a couple years ago, for example. They didn't play Hansboro in the tourney to rest him.
...and I know for a fact that at least one of the people who agree with Coach is a RWHC co-founder.</p>
DAWG61 said:
and he has stated on this board that the best two coaches he has seen are Richard Williams and Rick Pitino. Also, my point was nothing about resting folks in the SEC tourney or that sweet sixteens are not important. I do, however, think that simply making a sweet sixteen is not so great when a coach bombs out of his own conference tourney 11 out 13 times on the 1st day. I also never said Shaka Smart is not a good coach but I watched him nearly blow a 14 point lead last night and surely you folks don't think the Colonial league is as good as the SEC. Williams and his buddy Brady just bombed out of that powerful league Arkansas State is in and finished the year 14-20. If you have been around here long enough, there are folks on here who think both of them are the next coming. Just shows the mentality of these boards.
DAWG61 said:
I simply said that Smartt blew a lead. His team recovered and won. Nobody said they didn't. Until we have a vacancy, I am not going to debate about a replacement. If we do, I will then say he is certainly a good candidate. The only difference I have with some of you is I think we have a good coach, maybe not what some of you think we should have, but a lot better than some others out there and in our league. His record proves it.
...i didn't use an analogy so I'm not sure what the 17 you are talking about.<div>
</div><div>secondly, "is it better to get the sweet sixteen than busting out of the SEC tourney?" I wasn't aware those were mutually exclusive. Please learn to type (and/or construct a complete sentence) before posting again. You are embarrassing yourself and MSU. To answer what I tried to gather from your incoherent question, 17 yes I'd rather make the Sweet 16 than win the SEC tournament. I'd question the sanity of anyone who'd prefer otherwise.</div><div>
</div><div>third, again...go 17 yourself</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>secondly, "is it better to get the sweet sixteen than busting out of the SEC tourney?" I wasn't aware those were mutually exclusive. Please learn to type (and/or construct a complete sentence) before posting again. You are embarrassing yourself and MSU. To answer what I tried to gather from your incoherent question, 17 yes I'd rather make the Sweet 16 than win the SEC tournament. I'd question the sanity of anyone who'd prefer otherwise.</div><div>
</div><div>third, again...go 17 yourself</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
He re-built our program into a winner, Stans just took that and built upon it without any NCAA tourney success. I will take the 2 Sweet 16's and a Final Four over tourney SEC tourney wins any day. Ask around and I am sure others will agree. I am not saying Stans hasn't been successful at MSU, bit your argument is ridiculous, like most of the Stans Apolgists. And yes i have bought SEC tourney tickets and sold them to UK fans more than once. Unless you have a deep bench, your chances of going further in the NCAA are reduced if you have to play 3 or 4 games in a row, in the SECT, just days before the NCAAT.. That's a fact..Players need rest at this point in the season..
Go Dawgs
Go Dawgs
What if we go undefeated in the SEC during the season and then lay an egg and lose the very first game of the SEC tournament?
In other words, the SEC tournament isonly 4 of your 20 total SEC games (if you were to play all 4 games in the tournament to the final). The SEC tournament should only matter for two reasons: 1. potentially better seeding in the NCAA. 2. Getting in the NCAA because you didn't win enough in the regular season.
You do not have to do well in the SEC tournament to have a "decent SEC record". As stated before, you can go 16-1 with a loss in the SEC tournament in the first game.
that's AK strategy. Rest 'em up for the NIT! No wonder he has a 1-5 record in the SECT. <br><br>Optimus Prime 4 said:
Sorry, OP ... I couldn't resist. BUT, I have been to the ACCT a couple of times, seen the blood on the floor and if you think Duke or NCdon't want to win it, you are dead wrong. Hansboro wasinjured, thus the time spent on the bench.
'91 got embarrassed by Eastern Michigan one and done
'95 good run got beat by NC UCLA
'96 team started playing good when they basically were playing street ball on offense and got beat by a Syracuse team they should have beaten
It has to be mentioned Williams has not sniffed a head coaching job since then, and I know for a fact the the stars of the final four team (Damp, Super D, Dontae) hated him and had no respect for him
'95 good run got beat by NC UCLA
'96 team started playing good when they basically were playing street ball on offense and got beat by a Syracuse team they should have beaten
It has to be mentioned Williams has not sniffed a head coaching job since then, and I know for a fact the the stars of the final four team (Damp, Super D, Dontae) hated him and had no respect for him
Good Post, Dawgbreeze. There are many more people that agree with you than don't. We just get tired of the constant pounding.Dawgbreeze said:
For the record, I'm ready for a change. That said -
Anyone who thinksWilliams was the driving force behind the recruitment of those players, the process of getting them eligible, and then the management of the team once they were on campus is absolutely clueless.
Stansbury has his faults, but he is the primary reason we have a Final Four banner hanging in The Hump. If you don't believe that, you either weren't paying attention, or your hatred has made youdelusional.
//end of thread
Anyone who thinksWilliams was the driving force behind the recruitment of those players, the process of getting them eligible, and then the management of the team once they were on campus is absolutely clueless.
Stansbury has his faults, but he is the primary reason we have a Final Four banner hanging in The Hump. If you don't believe that, you either weren't paying attention, or your hatred has made youdelusional.
//end of thread
Dick has not had another good job because no school wants their coach sleeping with coeds...
He can coach, just not as a good a recruiter as Stans and the bag man..
He can coach, just not as a good a recruiter as Stans and the bag man..
Yes, it was great the Williams took us to a Sweet 16 and a Final Four back to back. But we suffered through a LOT of bad seasons under him. I know he took over a disaster, but even after he built it back up, he still only made the tournament 3 times in 9 years. And it's not like he was just missing it either. He didn't even make the NIT in 4 of the 6 years he missed the NCAA. Fact is, using your standards for Stans you would have fired Williams in 1993 (or 1994 at the latest)and he'd have never taken us anywhere.
<table style="FONT-SIZE: 95%" class="wikitable"><tbody><tr><th>Season</th><th>Team</th><th>Overall</th><th>Conference</th><th>Standing</th><th>Postseason</th></tr><tr><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #aaaaaa 2px solid; BACKGROUND: #dddddd" colspan="9" align="middle">Mississippi State (Southeastern Conference) (1986–1998)</td></tr><tr><td>1986-1987</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>7-21</td><td>3-15</td><td>10th</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1987-1988</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>14-15</td><td>6-12</td><td>10th</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1988-1989</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>13-15</td><td>7-11</td><td>8th</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1989-1990</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>16-14</td><td>7-11</td><td>T-8th</td><td>NIT Second Round</td></tr><tr style="BACKGROUND: #ffdd99"><td>1990-1991</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>20-9</td><td>13-5</td><td>1st</td><td>NCAA First Round</td></tr><tr><td>1991-1992</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>15-13</td><td>7-9</td><td>4th (West)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1992-1993</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>13-16</td><td>5-11</td><td>5th (West)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1993-1994</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>18-11</td><td>9-7</td><td>3rd (West)</td><td>NIT First Round</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table style="FONT-SIZE: 95%" class="wikitable"><tbody><tr><th>Season</th><th>Team</th><th>Overall</th><th>Conference</th><th>Standing</th><th>Postseason</th></tr><tr><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #aaaaaa 2px solid; BACKGROUND: #dddddd" colspan="9" align="middle">Mississippi State (Southeastern Conference) (1986–1998)</td></tr><tr><td>1986-1987</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>7-21</td><td>3-15</td><td>10th</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1987-1988</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>14-15</td><td>6-12</td><td>10th</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1988-1989</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>13-15</td><td>7-11</td><td>8th</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1989-1990</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>16-14</td><td>7-11</td><td>T-8th</td><td>NIT Second Round</td></tr><tr style="BACKGROUND: #ffdd99"><td>1990-1991</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>20-9</td><td>13-5</td><td>1st</td><td>NCAA First Round</td></tr><tr><td>1991-1992</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>15-13</td><td>7-9</td><td>4th (West)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1992-1993</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>13-16</td><td>5-11</td><td>5th (West)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1993-1994</td><td>Mississippi State</td><td>18-11</td><td>9-7</td><td>3rd (West)</td><td>NIT First Round</td></tr></tbody></table>
...for us. We couldn't get a big name in state recruit until we got Bubba Wilson and then Vandale Thomas. Therefore, he had a higher degree of difficulty than does Stansbury.
He deserves a lot of credit for that, but he was never a consistent winner, even after he had gotten the program back on its feet. Until Stans started taking us to the tournament consistently, we were seen nationally as a pretty bad progam that caught lightning in a bottle in 95 and 96 and then disappeared. Now we're seen as a pretty good program that has underperformed the last few years.
I agree with all that have said that Williams would have never succeeded without Stansbury. That's a well-known fact. Therein lies the flaw in your logic. It's not that he had a better record, or a superior resume. He had neither. It's simply that Williams recognized his shortcomings as the leader of our program, checked his pride at the door, and made the necessary changes to fix those(very apparent) flaws. He hired a hotshot outsider, with no ties to MSU, as the yin to his yang, the Recruiter, who could connect with the team in ways Williams never could. This took us higher than we've ever been before.
If Stans would make a similar sacrifice and get a hotshot x's and o's disciplinarian-type assistant, he could take the program higher than Williams ever dreamed. No doubt about it. Unfortunately, he's had 14 years to make this change, and it hasn't happened yet....
If Stans would make a similar sacrifice and get a hotshot x's and o's disciplinarian-type assistant, he could take the program higher than Williams ever dreamed. No doubt about it. Unfortunately, he's had 14 years to make this change, and it hasn't happened yet....
Williams only won 4 total SEC tourney games in 13 seasons and 3 of those were the year Dontae led us to the championship in New Orleans. He also went home the first day 11 times. Now that is embarrassing and a hell of a lot worse than losing a first round NCAA game. I simply for the third or fourth time was showing coach34 is ridiculous to think Williams was better than Stansbury for his MSU career. I don't expect him ever admit he could be wrong because his ego will never let him do it .
more important than any SEC Tourney. This is not the 1950's when you grew up and the SEC Tourney ended the season because we werent allowed to go play the Darkies. Basketball is all about the NCAA Tourney. The SEC Tourney is for helping get a better seed in the NCAA Tourney- not much more