how in the hell did I get...
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
Coach34 said:
You forgot to call him Ricky. If Dan doesn't make your cut will you call him Danny?
how you cherry-pick stats to suit your purpose.
What is your definition of "major college"? Who are these teams? When I look at his career record, I see only a handful of games that would probably qualify, like maybe 20 out of his 323 games (coming into the year) he's coached. What is the record you keep talking about and how did you arrive at it? If it's 20 games, how in the hell do you judge a coach's success or failure on 6% of his games? What are some other coaches records against the same teams for comparison sake? I mean, if you are going to use it as an argument, how about some facts? You also ignore the fact that all coaches in the SEC litter their schedules with **** teams, so why are you using that as a way to mock Stansbury's overall record? Then again, you've never really been concerned with facts, have you?
Added: Since he is an SEC coach, maybe we should judge his SEC record, which is 87-73 coming into this year. Ron Greene, who coached one year in '78 and Babe McCarthy are the only coaches with a higher SEC win % in school history. Richard Williams was way below .500 (89-113, .441), although he should probably be given a pass for his first couple of years based on what he inherited. And Stans, Greene, and McCarthy are the only coaches in school history with an above .500 record in SEC play. Williams won 89 SEC games in 13 years. Stans has won 87 in 10, and will pass Williams as the all-time school leader in that category as well this year.
What is your definition of "major college"? Who are these teams? When I look at his career record, I see only a handful of games that would probably qualify, like maybe 20 out of his 323 games (coming into the year) he's coached. What is the record you keep talking about and how did you arrive at it? If it's 20 games, how in the hell do you judge a coach's success or failure on 6% of his games? What are some other coaches records against the same teams for comparison sake? I mean, if you are going to use it as an argument, how about some facts? You also ignore the fact that all coaches in the SEC litter their schedules with **** teams, so why are you using that as a way to mock Stansbury's overall record? Then again, you've never really been concerned with facts, have you?
Added: Since he is an SEC coach, maybe we should judge his SEC record, which is 87-73 coming into this year. Ron Greene, who coached one year in '78 and Babe McCarthy are the only coaches with a higher SEC win % in school history. Richard Williams was way below .500 (89-113, .441), although he should probably be given a pass for his first couple of years based on what he inherited. And Stans, Greene, and McCarthy are the only coaches in school history with an above .500 record in SEC play. Williams won 89 SEC games in 13 years. Stans has won 87 in 10, and will pass Williams as the all-time school leader in that category as well this year.
He's not gonna give him any credit until Stansbury takes us past the first two rounds of the tourney. No SEC or SEC West titles are gonna do any good at padding the resume. He has to make something of his team and get them over the hump.
For the record, I think he's a hell of a coach. However, he needs to get his retards to sack up and beat somebody.
For the record, I think he's a hell of a coach. However, he needs to get his retards to sack up and beat somebody.
but he won't even give him credit for the things he HAS accomplished. That's what has always irritated me. If you want to criticize him for NCAA tourney performance, fine. I could argue that we have had some pretty bad draws mixed in there, but nonetheless, I can at least accept that as a reasonable argument. But Coach, in his true fashion, refuses to even acknowledge that Stansbury has accomplished a hell of a lot during his tenure.
"What is your definition of "major college"? Who are these teams? When I look at his career record, I see only a handful of games that would probably qualify, like maybe 20 out of his 323 games (coming into the year) he's coached"\
So because he plays a ******** schedule every year, we are supposed to think we cant do better? You are ridiculous...
Let me ask you...what would it take for you to get to the point where you thought we needed to replace Stansbury?
So because he plays a ******** schedule every year, we are supposed to think we cant do better? You are ridiculous...
Let me ask you...what would it take for you to get to the point where you thought we needed to replace Stansbury?
MSUCostanza said:
I wish I was bored enough to read that.
You trying to prove to the board that Coach cherry picks stats and that's why he gets the name KB21.
Sounds very interesting.
"we lost cause we had to play Texas in Dallas"
"we lost cause Butler was the best small school to ever take the court"
we lost cause Xavier was the hottest team in America"
"we lost cause nobody can beat Dook in an NCAA Tourney"
"we lost cause Memphis was unbeatable"</p>
excuse after excuse after excuse</p>
"we lost cause Butler was the best small school to ever take the court"
we lost cause Xavier was the hottest team in America"
"we lost cause nobody can beat Dook in an NCAA Tourney"
"we lost cause Memphis was unbeatable"</p>
excuse after excuse after excuse</p>
that we play a tougher non-conference schedule? Our schedule is probably as difficult or more difficult than at least 75% of the SEC. We have some tough teams like Cincinnati because that's going to help us in the SEC and down the line even if we lose. Plus, why would you judge a coach on Dec? Most teams haven't even gelled by that point. All I know Stansbury almost always has had us competitive in the SEC and that our teams have improved as the season has gone on. THAT is coaching. Yeah, if we played UNC, Duke, Indiana, and UCLA on the road, he would probably look pretty crappy.
I know the question wasn't directed to me, but for me to want Stansbury gone it would take two losing regular seasons in a row. I think based on what he has accomplished in his career, that is more than fair. He has been taking us to the postseason consistently for several years now, and if we don't make the postseason we're at least on the bubble. If Byrne fired Stans, I would wonder why in the hell we fired a basketball coach who is winning 20+ games a year and is taking us to the postseason consistently.
What more do you want? A <17> Sweet Sixteen?
I can't wait to see you want to fire Mullen because he can't make the Sugar Bowl. Please.