We are going to suck BIGTIME next year or two unless something miraculous happens soon. This was the reason I was skeptical about getting rid of Stans. Basically everything is falling apart. Given the fallout recently, I think we all agree it was a good move for the future, but here's my question. Was there any way to do this without our basketball program completely falling apart? Or was it just going to happen no matter what? Talk it up.
Here's the deal guys.
- Thread starter GOODDAWG
- Start date
would still be gone and Moultrie would still be going pro.........We haven't released any of the signees (yet), so what difference would there be personnel wise? I don't see any.......AND, since we are going to suck and we are obviouslyin a rebuilding mode, might as well let someone new take the reigns and build it back from the ground up.....Stans didn't have enough gas left in the tankto rebuild the program......I think had he stayed, we would've continued our spiral towards the bottom.....</p>
This is exactly what I was about to post. As much as I like Jackie, it was definitely time for him to go. In fact, it was his demise that made me lose interest in football for several years after going to 7 or 8 games a year for a long time. I just didn't care about it for quite a while after that. Admittedly, Stans was still having more success than Jackie was at the end of his tenure, but the situations are very similar. However, even though the Croom hire was a whiff, he still left Dan some very serviceable personnel when he left. That doesn't look to be the case for Stansbury's replacement.
What is going to happen....Stricklin makes a hire Moultrie approves. Moultrie sticks around and the signees stay on board. We bring in a JUCO PG. Then we are looking just fine. Okay Moultrie is a long shot...but the rest is likely.
