Let's make a bet. You say we will be lucky to make the tourney with stans at the helm, I say we make it. How about 50 bucks to this board by the loser. You in?
Hey fishwater99
- Thread starter hatfieldms
- Start date
Let's make a bet. You say we will be lucky to make the tourney with stans at the helm, I say we make it. How about 50 bucks to this board by the loser. You in?
We get in I win. We don't get in he wins. Saying we will be lucky to get in means he doesn't think we will get in
$50... If we are a six seed or lower you win, seven or higher I win...... Seems pretty fair to me......</p>
All I said is we would get in. You don't think we will at all. Why not take the bet I first offered?
We get in with an at-large bid.
If we get in by winning the SEC Tournament, it has to be obvious we would get in regardless.
If we get in by winning the SEC Tournament, it has to be obvious we would get in regardless.
I said Stans will get lucky to get in the NCAA with this year's team.. It's proven that he get's lucky a lot beacuse he is not that great of a coach.
I am not going to root for us not to make the NCAA tourney. I'll take a little luck every now and then.
It would be a huge dissapointment for us to be anything lower than a # 6 seed this year. We were preseason ranked in the top 20 in all polls. The Sporting news had has at #10 and predicted a #3 seed in the tourney.
Take it or leave it, you offered the bet, not me... Six seed or higher and you win. Do you not have enough faith in the great coach of ours?
Put up or shut up......
I am not going to root for us not to make the NCAA tourney. I'll take a little luck every now and then.
It would be a huge dissapointment for us to be anything lower than a # 6 seed this year. We were preseason ranked in the top 20 in all polls. The Sporting news had has at #10 and predicted a #3 seed in the tourney.
Take it or leave it, you offered the bet, not me... Six seed or higher and you win. Do you not have enough faith in the great coach of ours?
Put up or shut up......
You said he would be lucky to get in. if you would have said that he would be lucky to get a 6 seed or higher then that would have been different. Getting an at large bid would not be luck. You like to run your mouth with all of this stupid **** on here, why dont you back it up for once?fishwater99 said:
To sat it is proven that he has gotten lucky a lot because he has gotten into the tournament makes you look like an even bigger idiot than I thought you could be. I know you do alot of this to try an impress your internet idol Coach34, but it is just sad how stupid you are willing to make yourself look in the process
So we did not get lucky last year to get in the NCAA? That was some luck for sure...This team is the same as last year's team, and should be better than last year's. I am not going to root against my team to lose, that makes no sense. So I am not going to bet against MSU getting in the NCAA, period. The fact is that Stans does not coach teams up to their potential year after year and anything less than a #6 seed would be a big disappointment this year. If we don't win the West and get a #8 or #9 seed, that that is a huge failure for this year's team. If you are such a big backer of Stans then you should have no problem b/c we will win the SEC and be a #3 or higher seed.[b said:
It's simple fish, you're the one backtracking. First you said he'd be lucky to get in, pretty much meaning you don't think we will, and now you pretty much are willing to lay down money saying we'll be a 7-12 seed, meaning even you don't believe we won't make the tourney in our worst case scenario.
You guys proclaiming that this season will be a disappointment if we're not a 3-6 seed are delusional. Why should we be? B/c the Sporting News said so? Who cares? Fact is, if Sidney doesn't get cleared, this is the same team as last year and our expectations should only go up slightly. Talent wins basketball games, not experience, and we're not as talented as you think.
You guys proclaiming that this season will be a disappointment if we're not a 3-6 seed are delusional. Why should we be? B/c the Sporting News said so? Who cares? Fact is, if Sidney doesn't get cleared, this is the same team as last year and our expectations should only go up slightly. Talent wins basketball games, not experience, and we're not as talented as you think.
Glad you cleared that up. Because it was so obvious my intent was to show that Stansbury was just as dominate at Tiger. Not to show the absurdity of saying someone is lucky because you think they suck but they still win a lot.</p>
You see I never claimed we would be a 3 seed or higher. In fact I am not sure where we will end up. There are still question marks about how comes in behind Varnado. Who knows what we get out of Reik or if Sidney will ever even play. You said we would be lucky to get in, and are not willing to back up your claim. cant say I am shocked. And you wouldnt be pulling against your team, you would just be putting money on on your predictions. it should be a win win for you. And I love how you claim we were lucky to get in with last year's team, but this years will be a disappointment if we are not a 6 seed or higher. never mind that it is pretty much the exact same team, minus an experienced back up big manfishwater99 said:
as dominating as Tiger? He is 51-82 vs the top 50....that is a LOSER...he is lucky as Fishwater says because he beats the lower level teams and gets lucky and wins just enough games that matter to get into postseason...so yeah, he is lucky- because he isnt beating any good team with regularity- 51-82 is not "winning"MadDawg said:
Calling him lucky and giving him no credit for what he has done over the past decade is just ridiculous
Stans can not win on a consistent basis outside the SEC, that's a fact. He can not scout teams he is not familiar with. He knows the teams in the SEC b/c we play them year after year and play the West teams at least twice a year. Also, most of the SEC plays man to man defense and his "offense" the motion works against man to man, the zone not so much. That is why he can't get to the Sweet 16, he can not scout and gameplan for teams he has not played before and in the NCAA he has to scout and gameplan for at least 2 teams he is not familiar with to make it to the Sweet 16...
So he wins 1 game out of every 2.5 he plays vs top 25 teams. So let's say this were football, we play 3 top 25 teams per year, beat one of them, lose to two of them. That puts us at 10-2 every year, 9-3 if we lose to someone we're not supposed to.
Somehow I don't see anything wrong w/ beating the teams you are supposed to beat, and while beating 1 out of every 2.5 top 25 teams you play isn't Roy Williams, it isn't exactly what I would call a "loser."
How many coaches out there have winning records against top 25 teams the last 10 years? I'd be willing to guess there are 10 or less, and those 10 coaches aren't coming to Starkville
You could also look at it and say he has a winning percentage of 62 percent vs top 50 teams. Again, if that were football, we play normally about 8 or 9 top 50 teams a year, that puts us at around 9 wins 2 of every 3 years. Win 62 percent vs the top 50, beat who you're supposed to beat, and you're not a "loser."
What's our record in football vs the top 25 in our history? Or our best decade ever?
Somehow I don't see anything wrong w/ beating the teams you are supposed to beat, and while beating 1 out of every 2.5 top 25 teams you play isn't Roy Williams, it isn't exactly what I would call a "loser."
How many coaches out there have winning records against top 25 teams the last 10 years? I'd be willing to guess there are 10 or less, and those 10 coaches aren't coming to Starkville
You could also look at it and say he has a winning percentage of 62 percent vs top 50 teams. Again, if that were football, we play normally about 8 or 9 top 50 teams a year, that puts us at around 9 wins 2 of every 3 years. Win 62 percent vs the top 50, beat who you're supposed to beat, and you're not a "loser."
What's our record in football vs the top 25 in our history? Or our best decade ever?
(I will pretend you didn't murder statistics 101)
Good question. Since those would be the only coaches that are worth a **** according to our basketball experts, I'd love to see just how big a pool of candidates we'd have to choose from.
My bad, I was dividing the # of losses by the number of wins, not the total # of games. Mistakes happen, I now might forgive Les Miles for calling a timeout after an interception (nevermind, that may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen)
Nevertheless, since when do we judge all our coaches on wins vs the top 25? Once they set the bar that high for themselves?
He's won an overall SEC championship, two SECT championships, and multiple West titles. How many of those do we have in any of the other 2 major sports the last 10 years?
Nevertheless, since when do we judge all our coaches on wins vs the top 25? Once they set the bar that high for themselves?
He's won an overall SEC championship, two SECT championships, and multiple West titles. How many of those do we have in any of the other 2 major sports the last 10 years?
and here is the data from where I examined it before.
Add up the SEC rpi ranking for 11 years is 38 which comes to an avg of 3.45
Add up the SEC rpi ranking for 11 years is 38 which comes to an avg of 3.45